My level of dislike for that man has just increased by an order of magnitude.

[url=http://www.ier.org.uk/blog/ukip-workplaceUKIP - the party that wants to get rid of ALL employment rights[/url.

Interesting piece - they also seem to have fallen for the fact that public spending (for example on workers' salaries) does put money into the economy. I remember paying tax and NI for example, and clearly must have been the only one.

They're looking more and more like a bunch of racists in suits who are making stuff up as they go along, with no understanding of anything apart from keeping darkies out.

By and large, I think that they're a bunch of fairly typical 'market-solves-everything' neo-liberals, with either a genuine belief in the need to stop immigration and leave the EU or are chancers who think those may be selling points.

But one of the things that the article highlights is how, according to what the party itself has okayed in terms of policy ideas, it would be entirely happy with high unemployment. Which, logically, means that the idea that companies will be able to use better working terms and conditions as lures for staff will fall, as there will be no shortage of labour.

So do the Tories.

As I keep saying the powers they want repatriated from the EU are all to do with employment rights so they can rip them up, not powers so we can legalise the sale of bent bananas.

They never say this outright and if it is mentioned at all it is using stock phrases such as "making the UK work force more competitive".

And yet if asked the simple question "Would you like to see powers repatriated from the EU?" many people would say "Yes" and never ask[iwhat [/ipowers and [iwhy[/i do you want them repatriated.

Anyone noticed the "biggest trade deal in history" coming up? (*)
Between the EU and the US.
n.b. That's the [uEU[/u not the UK.
I wonder what UKIP makes of that?
Do they think that the US will make a special deal just for the UK if we pull out of the EU?
Because I don't ... we'd merely have to dance to the US tune.




(*) Providing they can console each other about the spying row first.

Yes I noticed and it would not surprise me to see Cameron plugging it as a reason to stay in and it would be. I bet he is bricking it that it doesn't collapse over the the spying row.

We've still got the E̶m̶p̶i̶r̶e̶ Commonwealth, why would we need the Old Colonies?

The article does not say ALL rights will be lost. Your post is misleading.

[i'In particular, limits on unfair dismissal and discrimination claims will be re-instated and no unfair dismissals or discrimination claims would be admitted by the Tribunals in respect of employees with less than two years continuous employment'.[/i

Read the entire article. You clearly haven't. It says much more than that.

Yes I have and nowhere does it say ALL rights will be lost as you claim.

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 ....