UKIP conference at the racecourse

[Boomstick]

 

Surprised this has not had a thread so thought I'd start one. (Even though any discussion will be ruined by the usual short sighted lefty's)
Personally I welcome this, especially if it makes the leader of the opposition and the establishment sweat.

Just listening to Farage on R4, he talks ALOT of sense
'No tax on minimum wage'
'Free and fair referendum on membership of the 'EU'

I also notice they have a short film made called 'return to Doncaster'
I'd be very interested to see this,

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Clearly a strategy to woo the Labour vote that's for sure.

What struck a chord for me this morning is the proposal to cut the 40% tax rate.  Whilst that's great for those within it, I don't see how that can be funded.  Mind it's better than the flat rate tax they once peddled.

They have a brand that is easy to resonate with for many people and that's understandable.  They probably have a big opportunity actually in the labour vote rather than Tory.

[Jenny]

Would be nice to pay less tax, albeit it not convinced it should be at the expense of suffering a UKIP government!

[Filo]

UKIP, of Wolf in Sheeps clothing!

[Boomstick]

Would be nice to pay less tax, albeit it not convinced it should be at the expense of suffering a UKIP government!

That's a classic contradiction, you like their policies but don't want them in government?
What!?
Vote for them, you may like it!

[Boomstick]

Clearly a strategy to woo the Labour vote that's for sure.

What struck a chord for me this morning is the proposal to cut the 40% tax rate.  Whilst that's great for those within it, I don't see how that can be funded.  Mind it's better than the flat rate tax they once peddled.

They have a brand that is easy to resonate with for many people and that's understandable.  They probably have a big opportunity actually in the labour vote rather than Tory.

Funded by leaving the EU and lowering overseas aid.
Have you not listened to the full report?

[Jenny]

Would be nice to pay less tax, albeit it not convinced it should be at the expense of suffering a UKIP government!

That's a classic contradiction, you like their policies but don't want them in government?
What!?
Vote for them, you may like it!

I would never vote for a political party for a single policy, you have to look at the wider picture and whilst UKIP might promise something that leaves me with a few more quid in my back pocket every month it doesn't mean that I would like to see them in power.

They will obviously go for the sensationalist headlines and those who think about no one but themselves will probably buy into it.

[bobjimwilly]

Would be nice to pay less tax, albeit it not convinced it should be at the expense of suffering a UKIP government!

That's a classic contradiction, you like their policies but don't want them in government?
What!?
Vote for them, you may like it!

I like a couple of their policies, but I dislike the rest. And I really dislike their leader.

[Boomstick]

Can you give me examples of the policies you dislike and explain why please?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

A few I don't like for various reasons.

• Proof of private health insurance must be a precondition for immigrants and tourists to enter the UK.

• No votes for prisoners - that’s what losing your liberty means.

• Prioritise social housing for people whose parents and grandparents were born locally.

• Make welfare a safety net for the needy, not a bed for the lazy. Benefits only available to those who have lived here for over 5 years.

• Scrap HS2, all green taxes and wind turbine subsidies.

• Develop shale gas to reduce energy bills and free us from dependence on foreign oil and gas - place the tax revenues into a British Sovereign Wealth Fund.

• Make cuts to foreign aid that are real and rigorous.

• Save £55m a day in membership fees by leaving the EU and give British workers first crack at the 800,000 jobs we currently advertise to EU workers.

• Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years. This means private health insurance (except emergency medical care), private education and private housing - they should pay into the pot before they take out of it.

[Boomstick]

Ok so you have copied and pasted some of their policies, but WHY don't YOU like them?

Can you give another post with bullit points explaining why you don't like each one please?

[roversdude]

Must be me but all of those policies I agree with

[Boomstick]

Must be me but all of those policies I agree with

So do I, join the revolution and vote UKIP!

It's hard to understand how anyone could not like those points!
Unless your a stubborn lefty who's running scared and won't deviate from voting labour.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

• Proof of private health insurance must be a precondition for immigrants and tourists to enter the UK.  On what moral basis have we to decide who is and who isn't fit to receive treatment based on their nationality?  Some immigrants are running away from wart do we really think health insurance is that vital to them?

• No votes for prisoners - that’s what losing your liberty means.  This shouldn't be for all prisoners but some.  A blanket change is too narrow minded, though for some I would definitely agree, it's circumstantial.

• Prioritise social housing for people whose parents and grandparents were born locally.  Why? If you're the child of an immigrant but UK born why should you go to the bottom of the queue?  What if you have moved to obtain work, but then struggle to get a house?  Again narrow minded. 

Not everyone chooses to live where their family are.  I certainly don't and my family were all born in different places, under this I would have zero chance - that isn't right.

• Make welfare a safety net for the needy, not a bed for the lazy. Benefits only available to those who have lived here for over 5 years.   Again, this is too broad.  Child benefit should be universal for all, if the parents come here within immigration laws they should be able to get the same as everyone else in our society from the off - under the immigration model I would go for they would have been working etc. If they lose their jobs that should continue pending any VISA negotiations.  I am not against ending visas if jobs end, but this could seriously damage people.

• Scrap HS2, all green taxes and wind turbine subsidies.  Again narrow minded and popularist.  We have to take the environment situation seriously and simply scrapping to be popular helps nobody.  We should consider future generations in this.  Equally, whilst HS2 clearly isn't perfect, something of that ilk is required.

• Develop shale gas to reduce energy bills and free us from dependence on foreign oil and gas - place the tax revenues into a British Sovereign Wealth Fund.  Shale gas I am all for, but I am against the wealth fund simply because financially it does not add up.  We have a deficit to reduce with debts to pay and it makes us more money getting the debt and deficit down than any fund would - basic finance there, something UKIP lack.

• Make cuts to foreign aid that are real and rigorous.  Again circumstantial.  Each case is different and must be assessed on merit.  You can't simply say "oh we're going to cut it", it's much more complex than that and actually it's something that as a country we should be proud of.

• Save £55m a day in membership fees by leaving the EU and give British workers first crack at the 800,000 jobs we currently advertise to EU workers. 

There's a debate to be had on leaving the EU, I'm neither for or against and it has to be discussed as a priority in the future. 

Again it's situational, should someone who's been here 20 years have less of a chance than someone who's born here?  I think not, particularly if they have kids and a base here.  New people then yes I fully agree, but not on a blanket basis, it's not that simple.

• Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependents for 5 years. This means private health insurance (except emergency medical care), private education and private housing - they should pay into the pot before they take out of it.  This does not work.  We could lose out on innovation and face skills shortages because of this.  For example, should we remove the opportunity to bring in a top scientist because he doesn't have the funding?  Let's go to football terms, should we have told say Mark De Val, sorry mate, you don't have 5 years worth of finance behind you jog on?  It's not all as black and white as UKIP suggest.  I worked abroad and took no cash with me, I wouldn't have a chance if this policy existed in that country.

Then there is today's policy in cutting the 40% tax rate, raising tax thresholds etc.  So how are they going to fund all of these tax cuts?

This is my problem, UKIP want everything to be black and white and clearly it isn't.  There's a lot on immigration there.  Foreigners should not be feared, there are weaknesses but not as grand as is made out above.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Question for Farage.

Over the past few years, you have claimed that if we left the EU, we could still trade with the EU, like Switzerland does. But you also want us to unilaterally withdraw from EU agreements on freedom of movement, so that we can limit EU immigration.

What do you make of the case of Switzerland then? They voted in February to abrogate the agreement that they had with the EU on freedom of movement. The EU, as a direct result, is currently withdrawing or re-evaluating a whole host of trade agreements with Switzerland. From Switzerland being included in a pan-European energy market, to the involvement of Swiss academic institutions (which are some of the very best in the world) in the Euro 80billion pot of pan-European research funding.

You reckon we can leave the EU, stop immigration and there will be no consequences except that we'll be richer? Give us a shout when you finally join us on Planet Earth.

[bobjimwilly]

Save £55m a day in membership fees by leaving the EU and give British workers first crack at the 800,000 jobs we currently advertise to EU workers.

This policy could be bloody dangerous! Say theres position for a doctor at the local hospital. A british man and a french man aplpy for the position. The frenchman has 10 more years experience, lower salary expectations and a better track record under his belt. The job goes to the British man, however, because he is British.

WTF?

[Boomstick]

Save £55m a day in membership fees by leaving the EU and give British workers first crack at the 800,000 jobs we currently advertise to EU workers.

This policy could be bloody dangerous! Say theres position for a doctor at the local hospital. A british man and a french man aplpy for the position. The frenchman has 10 more years experience, lower salary expectations and a better track record under his belt. The job goes to the British man, however, because he is British.

WTF?

Shut up, that's not an argument. If my auntie had b*llocks, shed be my uncle

[Boomstick]

Question for Farage.

Over the past few years, you have claimed that if we left the EU, we could still trade with the EU, like Switzerland does. But you also want us to unilaterally withdraw from EU agreements on freedom of movement, so that we can limit EU immigration.

What do you make of the case of Switzerland then? They voted in February to abrogate the agreement that they had with the EU on freedom of movement. The EU, as a direct result, is currently withdrawing or re-evaluating a whole host of trade agreements with Switzerland. From Switzerland being included in a pan-European energy market, to the involvement of Swiss academic institutions (which are some of the very best in the world) in the Euro 80billion pot of pan-European research funding.

You reckon we can leave the EU, stop immigration and there will be no consequences except that we'll be richer? Give us a shout when you finally join us on Planet Earth.

Question for Farage.

Over the past few years, you have claimed that if we left the EU, we could still trade with the EU, like Switzerland does. But you also want us to unilaterally withdraw from EU agreements on freedom of movement, so that we can limit EU immigration.

What do you make of the case of Switzerland then? They voted in February to abrogate the agreement that they had with the EU on freedom of movement. The EU, as a direct result, is currently withdrawing or re-evaluating a whole host of trade agreements with Switzerland. From Switzerland being included in a pan-European energy market, to the involvement of Swiss academic institutions (which are some of the very best in the world) in the Euro 80billion pot of pan-European research funding.

You reckon we can leave the EU, stop immigration and there will be no consequences except that we'll be richer? Give us a shout when you finally join us on Planet Earth.

Re- evaluating trade agreements? Means nothing. what are they ACTUALLY DOING?
I dare say the Swiss have factored in any possibilities like this, it's a VERY efficient country and envy of most of the EU.
I dare say the only loser there is the EU, come back when you have fact and figures of the Swiss being at a disadvantage of their freedom from the EU

[Filo]

Question for Farage.

Over the past few years, you have claimed that if we left the EU, we could still trade with the EU, like Switzerland does. But you also want us to unilaterally withdraw from EU agreements on freedom of movement, so that we can limit EU immigration.

What do you make of the case of Switzerland then? They voted in February to abrogate the agreement that they had with the EU on freedom of movement. The EU, as a direct result, is currently withdrawing or re-evaluating a whole host of trade agreements with Switzerland. From Switzerland being included in a pan-European energy market, to the involvement of Swiss academic institutions (which are some of the very best in the world) in the Euro 80billion pot of pan-European research funding.

You reckon we can leave the EU, stop immigration and there will be no consequences except that we'll be richer? Give us a shout when you finally join us on Planet Earth.

Question for Farage.

Over the past few years, you have claimed that if we left the EU, we could still trade with the EU, like Switzerland does. But you also want us to unilaterally withdraw from EU agreements on freedom of movement, so that we can limit EU immigration.

What do you make of the case of Switzerland then? They voted in February to abrogate the agreement that they had with the EU on freedom of movement. The EU, as a direct result, is currently withdrawing or re-evaluating a whole host of trade agreements with Switzerland. From Switzerland being included in a pan-European energy market, to the involvement of Swiss academic institutions (which are some of the very best in the world) in the Euro 80billion pot of pan-European research funding.

You reckon we can leave the EU, stop immigration and there will be no consequences except that we'll be richer? Give us a shout when you finally join us on Planet Earth.

Re- evaluating trade agreements? Means nothing. what are they ACTUALLY DOING?
I dare say the Swiss have factored in any possibilities like this, it's a VERY efficient country and envy of most of the EU.
I dare say the only loser there is the EU, come back when you have fact and figures of the Swiss being at a disadvantage of their freedom from the EU

For some one wanting facts and figures and then come out with " I dare say" makes you look a little silly, to use your own words " facts and figures" young man!

[Boomstick]

Ok then, they don't have to pay 55 million a day membership fee

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

No answers to any of my points.

What about this one?

"By reforming the Barnett formula, which so unfairly discriminates against English taxpayers, you can save several billion," Mr O'Flynn said.

That saves money, what effecively Mr O'Flynn is saying is that it is a spending cut to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.  Nothing but that, it is a pure spending cut, which the regions would then have to decide - be that the NHS in the devolved areas (Labour have already screwed that up in Wales), or education spending etc etc...  Do they not understand where this money goes?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Ok then, they don't have to pay 55 million a day membership fee

And lose how much in the money that comes back in from Europe - what's that figure?

As for doctors, it's exactly what is proposed.  I agree with the sentiment in some areas, eg taxi drivers or bin men, admin staff where we have many British people who can do the jobs.  But it's not as simple as is made out.

[roversdude]

But if we cut back on immigration etc we wouldn't need as many doctors and nurses to come into the country

[BillyStubbsTears]

Boomstick



UKIP are in cloud cuckoo land. There are 500 million people in the EU, all working to a common set of rules, which include freedom of movement. They require countries that want to trade as part of the same open market to sign up to this set of rules. That is why they are already hitting Switzerland (before the Swiss have even fully applied the referendum result to pull out of the free movement agreement).
(Why am I not surprised that you didn't actually read what I wrote. The EU sanctions are ALREADY being applied to Swizerland. They are ALREADY biting.)

The EU CANNOT allow associate countries to pick and choose what is appropriate for them, without suffering any penalties. The effects are already being felt inSwitzerland. In my area of work, I was speaking last week to a lab manager (a world-leading researcher who does work in Switzerland for Fiat and Audi, and who wins done funding through EU research projects). He is already laying off staff because the EU funding has been stopped. He is livid that his countrymen have blundered into this decision without considering the consequences. It's a tiny example, but you can multiply that one by hundreds and thousands as the penalties start to bite.

[neil grainger]

Boomstick



UKIP are in cloud cuckoo land. There are 500 million people in the EU, all working to a common set of rules, which include freedom of movement.

I stopped reading after the opening 2 sentences BST because you are so removed from reality it's not true.
Time to wake up and smell the coffee. UKIP are not in Cloud Cuckoo Land; they are in OUR land and I imagine their views about immigration resonate with millions of people who have major concerns in that respect.

[redwine]

And nobody has mentioned the abolition of inheritance tax. Not gonna be a vote winner to take donny, surely

[BillyStubbsTears]

Neil

In claiming that we can:
a) leave the EU
b) stop free movement of EU citizens
AND
c) have all the benefits of the European free market

they are so far into cloud cuckoo land, they are off the map.

UKIP feed on a feeling that Something Must Change. They are trying to tap into (justified) grievances of people in areas like ours. But do not be misled. They care not one shite for the working class people that they were courting today. Look at their headline tax policy. The numbers don't stack up anyway, but even taking them at face value, they would give a £600 a year tax cut to someone on £200 a week, and £1300 a year to someone on £500 a week.

If they are REALLY on the side of the people of Donny, why skew the benefits to the people of Tonbridge?

And that's before you drill down into what sort of Society UKIP really wants. Their attitude to public services makes Thatcherism look like Tony Benn's manifesto.

Don't be wooed by these. They may well end up holding the balance of power in 8 months if enough idiots say "aye, let's give em a chance". And THEN you'd see what they would do for people round here. We saw what happened when Thatcherism was off the leash 30 years back. Double that and add some.

[IC1967]

Time for a reality check. UKIP are not going to win the general election. Their policies are therefore pretty meaningless. They have no chance of being implemented. Take my advice and don't even bother considering them for more than a few seconds.

If they get more than 5 MPs I'd be amazed. Unless they get more Tory defections I reckon 2 is probably what they'll get. This is not likely to give them any power at Westminster.

So everyone needs to take a chill pill and stop getting their knickers in a twist. The only reason to vote for UKIP is if you want out of Europe. That is what the party is all about.

I will be voting UKIP as I want out of Europe. I will also be voting tactically because I want to damage Labour as much as possible. In Doncaster the Tories are never going to beat Labour. The only possible chance Labour will be defeated is if UKIP manage to get enough votes. It's a long shot but I'm prepared to do my bit to try and make it happen. If I thought the Tories had a better chance than UKIP I'd vote for them.

UKIP are a breath of fresh air and I certainly broadly support most of their policies. However the general election will be fought between Labour and the Tories due to the first past the post system. If you want out of Europe then vote Tory where they have a chance of winning the seat. Where they have no chance, vote for UKIP. We must all do our duty and try and keep Labour out of power.

[BillyStubbsTears]

A word to any Ex-Labour supporters who are thinking of voting UKIP.

It is perfectly possible that UKIP will hold the balance of power next year. UKIP sell themselves to people who don't think deeply about issues. They sell themselves as a party that ONLY cares about Europe and immigration, and who exist only to sort that out.

It's bullshit.

They have a long-term aim to drive politics in this country way over to the Right. They want to do this by forcing the Tory party to become more right wing.

UKIP's strategy was there for everyone to see in their previous manifesto. Their long term aim is to reduce every aspect of state funding (railways, education, NHS, etc etc) and to privatise the lot. Except defence spending, which they would massively increase.

You'll not hear much from them about this long term aim in 2015. That's because Farage is a very clever politician. He knows that if they say what they REALLY want society to look like, they'll not get 2% support. So he's playing a long game. He wants MPs in place in 2015. Maybe 2. Maybe 5. He wants to gain credibility and, ideally, he wants a coalition with the Tories where he can slowly pull the Tories further to the right.

Farage reminds me of Alec Salmond. The SNP used to be a bunch of fruitcakes with pie in the sky policies. Salmond shared their long term aspirations, but knew that they had to tone down the rhetoric if they were going to convince people. He did that spectacularly well and made the SNP so credible that they damn nearly pulled off the most dangerous initiative for Britain in the past 100 years.

Like Samond, Farage is presenting a face that says "I'm on your side. And I'm not scary."

But he is. UKIP's ideal society would be the very antithesis of what most people in South Yorkshire want, and most people in the UK want. So they won't talk about that. But when they've got your support, that's what they'll be wanting to impose on us.

Farage said the biggest lie of his career yesterday. He said "If you vote UKIP, you'll get UKIP". Utter bullshit. If you vote UKIP, you're voting for a coalition between Farage and a Tory party that will lurch to the right in response. It'll make Thatcherism look like a left wing Govt.

Think about it.

[The Red Baron]

We must all do our duty and try and keep Labour out of power.

Don't worry, Mick. Agent Miliband is doing a splendid job.