UKIP leader Nigel Farage "Women must sacrifice family life to succeed in City." - Polidicks

[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72398000/jpg/_72398194_72398189.jpg[/img] [quote]Women prepared to sacrifice family life can do as well as male colleagues in financial firms, if not better, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said. Mr Farage, who worked in finance before politics, told an audience in the City that women make "different choices" to men for "biological reasons". Those taking time off to have children were less valuable to employers on their return, he said. But discrimination against women in the City was a thing of the past, he added. Brokers are "as valuable as the client base that sticks with you and will move with you", he explained. "In many, many cases, women make different choices in life to the ones that men make simply for biological reasons," he said. "If a woman has a client base and has a child and takes two or three years off work, she is worth far less to the employer when she comes back than when she goes away because her client base cannot be stuck rigidly to her."[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25813230[/url] [quote]He was asked whether it should it be this way. "I can't change biology," he replied.[/quote] lol

snip

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;43607792]You also can't fix stupid, which includes you and the most of the rest of your party.[/QUOTE] Except he's right in this case? [quote]"If you have children and take nine months, or a year, or maybe more off, you tend to lose some of that business. "I think the reality for women in the City is that if they have children, it has a very detrimental effect on their future pay prospects."[/quote] He's just stating the obvious essentially. If you stop working [to have kids] then you lose out on business.

Maybe if he didn't think of employees as little more than fancy pieces of fancy furniture it would be easier to understand that maybe there are things that should be more important than their sheer professional performance. Although honestly, in general, I wouldn't recommend working in financial sector to anybody who I care for, anyway, regardless their gender.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43607804]He's just stating the obvious essentially.[/QUOTE] Except he's saying 'Oh women[B][I] can [/I][/B]do better than men in some cases', but doesn't even begin to suggest that taking time off to have a baby can offset this. Having a little bit of time off automatically makes you a bad investment - that is simply not true in the broader sense, especially as a woman can have a 20 year career but there is still an 'oh well shes biologically not as financially worthwhile because she can have a few months off in that time'. It's a silly statement imo.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43607866]Maybe if he didn't think of employees as little more than fancy pieces of fancy furniture it would be easier to understand that maybe there are things that should be more important than their sheer professional performance.[/QUOTE] The sad reality is that being coldhearted isn't necessarily a bad character trait when you aim to make a profit.

Can we sacrifice Farage to like... Cthulhu or something, I 'unno.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;43607876]Except he's saying 'Oh women[B][I] can [/I][/B]do better than men in some cases', but doesn't even begin to suggest that taking time off to have a baby can offset this. Having a little bit of time off automatically makes you a bad investment - that is simply not true in the broader sense, especially as a woman can have a 20 year career but there is still an 'oh well shes biologically not as financially worthwhile because she can have a few months off in that time'. It's a silly statement imo.[/QUOTE] Heh, [i]broad[/i]er sense

Yeah I think an employer would be pretty annoyed if a woman who was highly depended upon in the workplace took paid maternity leave. It's like 90% of your regular earnings for 6 weeks, and then £136 for the next 33 weeks, during which time you're not getting any work done by the employee at all. So that's like £500 per month, an employer has to pay out, for a staff member who's not doing anything in return. All in all, it adds up to paying out £8000 for an employee who, like I said, isn't doing anything for 39 weeks. That's enough to break a small business in the wrong circumstances. It's not disputable either, nor can they fire her and find someone else (they'd get sued for fucking hundreds of thousands if they tried). They'd most likely need to hire someone else to fill the role, especially if she was highly depended upon. And that could put a company even deeper in the hole by £10,000-£30,000.

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43608314]Yeah I think an employer would be pretty annoyed if a woman who was highly depended upon in the workplace took paid maternity leave. It's like 90% of your regular earnings for 6 weeks, and then £136 for the next 33 weeks, during which time you're not getting any work done by the employee at all. So that's like £500 per month, an employer has to pay out, for a staff member who's not doing anything in return. All in all, it adds up to paying out £8000 for an employee who, like I said, isn't doing anything for 39 weeks. That's enough to break a small business in the wrong circumstances. It's not disputable either, nor can they fire her and find someone else (they'd get sued for fucking hundreds of thousands if they tried). They'd most likely need to hire someone else to fill the role, especially if she was highly depended upon. And that could put a company even deeper in the hole by £10,000-£30,000.[/QUOTE] Well the employer doesn't lose any money paying you, it's the government who ends up paying you. The only downside is that they lose an employee for some amount of time.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43608410]Well the employer doesn't lose any money paying you, it's the government who ends up paying you. The only downside is that they lose an employee for some amount of time.[/QUOTE] Oh is that so? I was under the impression that it was the employer that paid it out. Fair enough then, if the government covers it.

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43608449]Oh is that so? I was under the impression that it was the employer that paid it out. Fair enough then, if the government covers it.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.gov.uk/maternity-pay-leave/pay[/url] [quote]. If you disagree about the amount or your employer can’t pay (eg, because they’re insolvent), call the HMRC employees’ enquiry line.[/quote] The employer pays.

[QUOTE=lazyguy;43608561][URL]https://www.gov.uk/maternity-pay-leave/pay[/URL] The employer pays.[/QUOTE] And then they claim the charges back. [URL]https://www.gov.uk/employers-maternity-pay-leave/help-with-statutory-pay[/URL] I don't know the exact numbers, but it seems that the government generally pays the company back for the mat leave costs.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;43607876]Except he's saying 'Oh women[B][I] can [/I][/B]do better than men in some cases', but doesn't even begin to suggest that taking time off to have a baby can offset this. Having a little bit of time off automatically makes you a bad investment - that is simply not true in the broader sense, especially as a woman can have a 20 year career but there is still an 'oh well shes biologically not as financially worthwhile because she can have a few months off in that time'. It's a silly statement imo.[/QUOTE] This is true however people do have this attitude in business, and it often can set back women who do decide to take maternity leave. They also see fewer promotions in the business world due to the idea that they don't take as many risks as men, they simply aren't as risk taking and gambling like men are for which a capitalist system relies upon.

His initial statement in the title isn't wrong, but it's true, generally. Men have to sacrifice some family life to be very successful, too. His "biology" shtick thing, though, is incredibly silly, imo. That's like looking at two employees, male and female, and saying "I don't know, the female might bail to raise a family." What, like the male won't?

Any party that has "non-racist party" in the first sentence of their own description has to immediately be brought under platform suspicion. Imagine being a person who introduces themselves like that "Hi I'm John, I like basketball, music, and I'm not a racist."

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;43609451]Any party that has "non-racist party" in the first sentence of their own description has to immediately be brought under platform suspicion. Imagine being a person who introduces themselves like that "Hi I'm John, I like basketball, music, and I'm not a racist."[/QUOTE] Or maybe it's because the media love to paint them as racists. If I were to go on every other episode of Mock The Week, HIGNFY or what have you and make a load of jokes about you being racist, you'd start defending yourself.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;43609334]His initial statement in the title isn't wrong, but it's true, generally. Men have to sacrifice some family life to be very successful, too. His "biology" shtick thing, though, is incredibly silly, imo. That's like looking at two employees, male and female, and saying "I don't know, the female might bail to raise a family." What, like the male won't?[/QUOTE] The difference is if the Woman wants to start a family, she's the one who has to give birth to the child and is under a lot of not just emotional but physical stress during pregnancy. While a man might go under emotional stress when his wife or girlfriend is pregnant (though still a lot less than her) he doesn't have any actual physical problems that might stop him working. A Woman who wants to continue working while raising a family simply can't for some time until she has recovered from her pregnancy. A man who wants to continue working while raising a family has no physical barriers stopping him from doing that so I think what Farage said about it being simple biology is correct.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;43609451]Any party that has "non-racist party" in the first sentence of their own description has to immediately be brought under platform suspicion. Imagine being a person who introduces themselves like that "Hi I'm John, I like basketball, music, and I'm not a racist."[/QUOTE] The reason they have "non-racist" is because everyone kept and keeps wrongly slandering them as racist, and so they have it as an official title to make it clear that they aren't. If everyone kept calling John a racist and he wasn't I'm pretty sure he would introduce himself as not racist.

[QUOTE=The mouse;43609753]The reason they have "non-racist" is because everyone kept and keeps wrongly slandering them as racist, and so they have it as an official title to make it clear that they aren't. If everyone kept calling John a racist and he wasn't I'm pretty sure he would introduce himself as not racist.[/QUOTE] Or, speaking as a former member, it could just be because the party's core membership [i]are[/i] racist.

[QUOTE=The mouse;43609753]The reason they have "non-racist" is because everyone kept and keeps wrongly slandering them as racist, and so they have it as an official title to make it clear that they aren't. If everyone kept calling John a racist and he wasn't I'm pretty sure he would introduce himself as not racist.[/QUOTE] The jokes are made because party members are racist and nationalist though, and the parties core platform is based primarily on xenophobia. [IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/67324000/jpg/_67324013_ukip3.jpg[/img] UKIP Councillor doing a Nazi salute. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_Bloom]Godfrey Bloom[/url] - Mr Bongo Bongo land, the guy who referred to the women in the audience as sluts. [video=youtube;jzPBn5SLcxE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzPBn5SLcxE[/video] Of course both have been expelled but they've gone through quite a few members for being racist, sexist or facist. It's what comes with a party line based upon the idea all our problems come from [I]dirty foreigners[/i] [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] They also have no female councillors with the two they had being expelled or leaving because of sexism within the party.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;43609451]Any party that has "non-racist party" in the first sentence of their own description has to immediately be brought under platform suspicion. Imagine being a person who introduces themselves like that "Hi I'm John, I like basketball, music, and I'm not a racist."[/QUOTE] From now on I am introducing myself as "not a racist". I'll report back with results.

[QUOTE=Agoat;43610051]From now on I am introducing myself as "not a racist". I'll report back with results.[/QUOTE] I'll try out "Hi, I'm John, and I haven't committed murder yet" [sp]Then my friends will get confused because I'm not called John[/sp]

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;43609909] They also have no female councillors with the two they had being expelled or leaving because of sexism within the party.[/QUOTE] Wrooong [url]http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/members_bursnall_catherine_home.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;43609909]The jokes are made because party members are racist and nationalist though, and the parties core platform is based primarily on xenophobia. UKIP Councillor doing a Nazi salute. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_Bloom"]Godfrey Bloom[/URL] - Mr Bongo Bongo land, the guy who referred to the women in the audience as sluts. Of course both have been expelled but they've gone through quite a few members for being racist, sexist or facist. It's what comes with a party line based upon the idea all our problems come from [I]dirty foreigners[/I] [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] They also have no female councillors with the two they had being expelled or leaving because of sexism within the party.[/QUOTE] The thing is that in all the parties you'll probably find the crazy extremists, infact Labour has or atleast used to have former BNP councillers working for them. Pointing out a couple examples in Ukip doesn't change the fact that the party it self isn't racist, as you said doesn't the fact that they've disciplined these people show that they aren't a racist party. Saying that Ukip thinks that all our problems come from "dirty foreigners" is a massive exaggeration, cracking down on unskilled immigration is only a small part of Ukip policy, they want a points system so that foreigners with skills can stay and work and their complaints stem from their EU grievances who have little to do with "dirty foreigners".

[QUOTE=The mouse;43610798]The thing is that in all the parties you'll probably find the crazy extremists, infact Labour has or atleast used to have former BNP councillers working for them. Pointing out a couple examples in Ukip doesn't change the fact that the party it self isn't racist, as you said doesn't the fact that they've disciplined these people show that they aren't a racist party. Saying that Ukip thinks that all our problems come from "dirty foreigners" is a massive exaggeration, cracking down on unskilled immigration is only a small part of Ukip policy, they want a points system so that foreigners with skills can stay and work and their complaints stem from their EU grievances who have little to do with "dirty foreigners".[/QUOTE] People like Godfrey Bloom are allowed into the party to begin with because when they go ahead and say something incredibly stupid it makes UKIP appeal to those who have racist, xenophobic or homophobic opinions and it also makes them appeal to the sod politics lot who wouldn't have voted for anybody. Then, when UKIP suspend said member it makes them appeal to those who would have voted because they appear to be becoming more grown up and mainstream. It's very smart. Also, I would say that your average racist/xenophobe/homophobe is far more likely to become an activist wanting to spend some spare time distributing leaflets and whatnot to help the party than a normal voter is. That's why I say that the core membership are racist, not because most UKIP members or voters are racist because they're not, but because most of the people holding together local branches are. I'm also not for a second saying the party leadership is racist, I don't think Nigel Farage is a racist nor is Tim Aker, Paul Nuttall or Steve Crowther but they're playing a smart game here by appealing to these people who are holding their local branches together.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-24653507]Nick Clegg is just waiting for the right time to carpet bomb North Wales![/url]

[QUOTE=The mouse;43609753]The reason they have "non-racist" is because everyone kept and keeps wrongly slandering them as racist, and so they have it as an official title to make it clear that they aren't. If everyone kept calling John a racist and he wasn't I'm pretty sure he would introduce himself as not racist.[/QUOTE] So this is how a UKIP member looks like. Curious.

[QUOTE=Scrappa;43610939]People like Godfrey Bloom are allowed into the party to begin with because when they go ahead and say something incredibly stupid it makes UKIP appeal to those who have racist, xenophobic or homophobic opinions and it also makes them appeal to the sod politics lot who wouldn't have voted for anybody. Then, when UKIP suspend said member it makes them appeal to those who would have voted because they appear to be becoming more grown up and mainstream. It's very smart. Also, I would say that your average racist/xenophobe/homophobe is far more likely to become an activist wanting to spend some spare time distributing leaflets and whatnot to help the party than a normal voter is. That's why I say that the core membership are racist, not because most UKIP members or voters are racist because they're not, but because most of the people holding together local branches are. I'm also not for a second saying the party leadership is racist, I don't think Nigel Farage is a racist nor is Tim Aker, Paul Nuttall or Steve Crowther but they're playing a smart game here by appealing to these people who are holding their local branches together.[/QUOTE] You're right, except that I feel racist is still the wrong word to use. A lot of these people aren't really racist in the KKK cross burning sense that the term implies, they just don't care about what they say, don't like what they perceive to be the "PC agenda" and they feel like there's no other party that allows them to express their views other than Ukip. [QUOTE=Stopper;43610973]So this is how a UKIP member looks like. Curious. [/QUOTE] I'm actually not a Ukip member. Parties should work for my vote.

[QUOTE=Scrappa;43610939]People like Godfrey Bloom are allowed into the party to begin with because when they go ahead and say something incredibly stupid it makes UKIP appeal to those who have racist, xenophobic or homophobic opinions and it also makes them appeal to the sod politics lot who wouldn't have voted for anybody. Then, when UKIP suspend said member it makes them appeal to those who would have voted because they appear to be becoming more grown up and mainstream.[/QUOTE] Sod politics... This gives me a crazy idea. The Sod Politics party. Stands for Simple Old Democracy. Basically for people who don't want to vote for any of the current parties for whatever reason. And it'd basically just be really simple. You'd be able to suggest policies online via a website, and if enough people voted for them, they'd be discussed and implemented.