And nowhere does it claim what you claimed.

It says that far more rights than just those relating to tribunals would be lost.

What do you mean 'what I claimed' - I haven't claimed anything.

No amount of spin will detract from your post which was misleading sensationalism. Quite ironic considering you are so quick to jump on the 'Wail' when you allege they do the same.

You "claimed" by the use of a specific quote from the article tha you posted.

It suggests that that is the only rights that would be affected.

If you don't mean to 'claim' as much, perhaps you should not just have posted that very selective quote, which does not represent the article as a whole. As you perfectly well know.

I never said it represented the article as a whole. All I had to do was find a right where it is proposed to be limited and not abolished and your statement is proved factually incorrect.

Well done. You're at it again.

Your entire approach is not to engage in a discussion, but to try to find ways of rubbishing things, whether my selective quoting, misquoting or simply shifting the goalposts, without ever trying to contribute to a discussion with ideas about the topic at hand.

Have you ever considered trying to grow up?

Why don't you just admit that what you wrote was misleading instead of shifting the goalposts yourself.

You brought this topic back from over a month in the wilderness with a statement which is simply not true.

[my emphasis and my caps on "etc"



In other words, maternity rights will not longer exist as a right, backed by law, but be optional. It is logical to assume that all other parental rights would be treated in the same way.

Well hello, Mr Transparently-Disingenuous ...
Your spotting of a tiny error in a critique of a large UKIP wishlist which seeks to peel back hard-fought-for employment rights highlights your purpose, which is clearly to shoot the messenger rather than debate the topic ... as per usual.
Tell me, do you agree with it? and, if so, how do you justify such commodification of people?
Or are you going to now disappear as you normally do, having "made your point" when, in fact, all you've done is made yourself look rather petty?

Whilst I don't believe that UKIP will ever be in a position to enact any of this reactionary, ill-thought-out and patently unfair result of bar-room bluster, the danger is that, again, it will appeal to the dimwit amoebae on the right wing of the Conservative party and Cameron won't have the courage to face up to them. He will just package it in with his "re-negotiations" for repatriated powers, rather than come out and say what is wrong with it.

So basically, it's not just Johnny Foreigner that's the problem with this country, it's also all these dolly-birds with the audacity to work for a living?

"they will simply have to recruit from a smaller pool of potential employees" - Nothing other than an endorsement of discrimination in the recruitment process. In fact, bordering on a recommendation.

Why am I put in mind of Harry Enfield's 'Women - Know Your Limits!'?

Johnny Foreigner, the EU – and women.

Well, and all other 'minorities'. The same party would get rid of most equalities legislation too.

Getting in this on a separate issue but companies are already endorsed to 'positively' discriminate. Personally i don't see anything positive, the strongest candidate should always get the job imo.

Indeed.

But the idea about 'positive discrimination' should be that, if you have, say, two candidates that you cannot divide, the one who has had least benefits (so to speak) shoudl win extra brownie points for overcoming their disadvantage (so to speak). That should give you the best candidate, in that they will arguably have had to show more determination etc to get where they are.

But UKIP doesn't like that.

It essentially wants a return to the good old days where you got brownie points just by being white, male and heterosexual.

*closet homosexual

... tumbleweed drifts by ....

While we're waiting ...

This reminds me of that research a year or so ago that claimed that left-leaning people were more intelligent than right-leaning ones.

One wonders if this is illustrated by what seems to be a quite widespread approach from those with apparently right-wing views of rubbishing something (but not from a point of view of fact) and then running away when faced with straight questions, and never ever positing any sort of alternative (which would, admittedly, require an iota of imagination at the least)?

I personally find that if i lean to much to the left or right i tend to fall over, it's why being generally in the middle seems the logical conclusion, obviously a little leaning in both directions will still keep me on my legs as long as i don't go too far.

I'm delighted that you've changed your mind on UKIP, then.

All parties have policies i agree with, i've always been a floating voter, my bridges though are burned with Labour/Conservative.

Same old he said she said and no substance with any of them, i'm actually thinking of 'wasting' my vote and voting for an independent.

It's tempting but I am careful with findings like that.
I once read that left-[uhanded[/u people were more likely to have a high IQ ... but that they were more likely to have a low IQ as well.
i.e. They had a greater tendency away from the average.

Oh, I appreciate that, but, y'know ...

Garage's latest idea is to cut MP's salaries by 75%, thus returning us to the good old days when you had to be rich to be an MP. What an

!

Now of that i have the opposite opinion, these guys are running GB PLC like it or not, yes we know they're all vile sub human scum but you pay peanuts and you get monkeys.
I'd have pay structures depending on you position.

PM obviously being on the top wack, all the top cabinet jobs being on another rate, so on and so forth.

If applying those rules would you at the same time insist on some sort of track record as a successful CEO in order to run GB PLC ?

It would solve the problem of university graduates walking straight into parliament based on the fact that they went to a specific university and passed the required PPE degree but you could see the likes of George Osborne serving on the board of his fathers business for a year and claiming the required "work experience".

I'd love to see a complete shake up of our system, now who do we need to put the wheels in motion...Politicians, now that sounds like a pl....ahhh, i think i've just seen the stumbling block

That's how it works already.

I know they claim to be undervalued and underpaid but there never seems to be any shortage of candidates for the job. I can't honestly remember the last time an MP (apart from The Speaker), went into an election completely unopposed. Given that they are on just shy of 3x average salary and they get the most comprehensive expenses package bar none, in addition to no requirement to actually turn up for work and a holiday entitlement that would make a schoolteacher jealous, they're still not too badly off.

I would imagine that there really are plenty of intelligent people who have real-world (© Sal Paradise) experience and would do a damn fine job if only they were given an opportunity to stand for a major party. Unfortunately the Westminster Village usually prevents this happening