UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
Art0ir said:
UniLAD have run a GE poll. Now I'm not sure they share much in common with the stereotypical UKIP voter which makes the results interesting.
The page said they were "worried" about the results and most of the comments on the Facebook page are anti UKIP (and Tory).
So, have 7000 disgruntled, older, disadvantaged voters hijacked the poll, or is there a chance that younger voters views in public, especially amongst their piers, are massively different to the truth?
After 50k votes UKIP are on 23%. Do the anti-kippers have an explanation for this?! The page said they were "worried" about the results and most of the comments on the Facebook page are anti UKIP (and Tory).
So, have 7000 disgruntled, older, disadvantaged voters hijacked the poll, or is there a chance that younger voters views in public, especially amongst their piers, are massively different to the truth?
Art0ir said:
In my humble opinion, it might be best to be more measured in our replies to newcomers on the thread lest we discourage discussion and continue with another 4 volumes of playground name-calling.
It takes two to argue and my initial post was somewhat ambiguous but also a little antagonistic and for that second element I apologise. If you kick a hornets nest you get stung.mrpurple said:
My original reply to pablo so I will Try again then - So are you saying that the rest of the world (inc Africa) will stop buying our defence items if we stop giving out foreign aid? I thought backhanders in business was illegal.
Yes they are..... but I know you are not naive enough to think that it doesnt happen and on a multi-billion pound scale across many industries. I am saying that reducing foreign aid by £9Bn leaves a great big hole in many UK businesses that simply wont be tolerated, Defence sales is just one element. Its not a backhander though, its business, and whilst there are laws that govern what the foreign aid is spent on, they may not necessarily be abided by or upheld. It could be any Party claiming that they would reduce foreign aid and I would say the same thing, any reduction will be championed by the layman who thinks its a hand out but challenged by those whom are reliant on it for revenue.
In short, yes reducing what we reduce in Foreign Aid to some Coutnries will affect numerous export streams to those same Coutnries.
Scuffers said:
another snippet:
Wow. Not seen this. Is it really in their Manifesto? Well done Nigel and Co!UKIP Manifesto said:
Classic cars To help protect the enduring legacy of the motor industry and our classic and historic vehicles, UKIP will exempt vehicles over 25 years old from Vehicle Excise Duty.
About time!One of the many reasons I have not voted Labour for a considerable time or likely to anytime in the future was and is because when they took office 1997, if I recall correctly soon after they stopped the rolling twenty-five year VED exemption. Their mindset then appeared to be if someone can afford a classic old car, they must be wealthy so tax the barstewards and the exemption was removed. That in my experience within a wide circle of car enthusiast friends is clearly not the case.
Another good reason I'm still voting UKIP.
pablo said:
Art0ir said:
In my humble opinion, it might be best to be more measured in our replies to newcomers on the thread lest we discourage discussion and continue with another 4 volumes of playground name-calling.
It takes two to argue and my initial post was somewhat ambiguous but also a little antagonistic and for that second element I apologise. If you kick a hornets nest you get stung.mrpurple said:
My original reply to pablo so I will Try again then - So are you saying that the rest of the world (inc Africa) will stop buying our defence items if we stop giving out foreign aid? I thought backhanders in business was illegal.
Yes they are..... but I know you are not naive enough to think that it doesnt happen and on a multi-billion pound scale across many industries. I am saying that reducing foreign aid by £9Bn leaves a great big hole in many UK businesses that simply wont be tolerated, Defence sales is just one element. Its not a backhander though, its business, and whilst there are laws that govern what the foreign aid is spent on, they may not necessarily be abided by or upheld. It could be any Party claiming that they would reduce foreign aid and I would say the same thing, any reduction will be championed by the layman who thinks its a hand out but challenged by those whom are reliant on it for revenue.
In short, yes reducing what we reduce in Foreign Aid to some Coutnries will affect numerous export streams to those same Coutnries.
I take it you have a vested interest?
Axionknight said:
Yeah and they're the only ones 
What do you think of the manifesto, Greg? Anything float your boat or aren't you impressed?
No need for the roll eyes: I didn't say UKIP supporters had a monopoly on tribalism. Quite the contrary. It's jut that it seems a bit strange slagging of supporters of the major parties (justifiably) for tribalism when that characteristic runs just as deep in UKIP. What do you think of the manifesto, Greg? Anything float your boat or aren't you impressed?
Anyway - the manifesto. Haven't read it (I'm on holiday and trying, unsuccessfully, to reduce my out-of-control NPE habit). I will likely read it at some point. But some of my views about the future of UKIP won't really depend on what it says, eg
- a bit like the Greens, UKIP isn't going to win many seats, but it primarily operates right now to push the major parties into picking up some of its policies. And ultimately that robs it of mainstream appeal as its USP end up being its most radical policies.
- it sounds (and this is second/third hand) as if the launch was polished. +1 for credibility if so.
- costing was a smart move, although no doubt there is costing and costing. How robust the costing is remains to be seen (and is ultimately irrelevant so far as policies go, but does count towards UKIP's credibility).
- UKIP remains a one man party. Though I suspect Carswell - if he holds his seat - has designs on who that man should be.
- UKIP's single biggest problem remains the lack of depth in its policy pool. I doubt Mr Average Voter's perception of this aspect of UKIP will change because of a manifesto.
Currently watching SKY's heavyweight News Media luvvy Adam Boulton cross examining Suzanne Evans. The woman who is in part responsible for UKIP's manifesto.
I have been impressed with her in the past but she is more than holding her own here and responding with a fine thinking on her feet technique.
Yes, very impressed by this woman and not for the first time.....
I have been impressed with her in the past but she is more than holding her own here and responding with a fine thinking on her feet technique.
Yes, very impressed by this woman and not for the first time.....
Greg66 said:
No need for the roll eyes: I didn't say UKIP supporters had a monopoly on tribalism. Quite the contrary. It's jut that it seems a bit strange slagging of supporters of the major parties (justifiably) for tribalism when that characteristic runs just as deep in UKIP.
Anyway - the manifesto. Haven't read it (I'm on holiday and trying, unsuccessfully, to reduce my out-of-control NPE habit). I will likely read it at some point. But some of my views about the future of UKIP won't really depend on what it says, eg
- a bit like the Greens, UKIP isn't going to win many seats, but it primarily operates right now to push the major parties into picking up some of its policies. And ultimately that robs it of mainstream appeal as its USP end up being its most radical policies.
- it sounds (and this is second/third hand) as if the launch was polished. +1 for credibility if so.
- costing was a smart move, although no doubt there is costing and costing. How robust the costing is remains to be seen (and is ultimately irrelevant so far as policies go, but does count towards UKIP's credibility).
- UKIP remains a one man party. Though I suspect Carswell - if he holds his seat - has designs on who that man should be.
- UKIP's single biggest problem remains the lack of depth in its policy pool. I doubt Mr Average Voter's perception of this aspect of UKIP will change because of a manifesto.
Away with you, go have fun!Anyway - the manifesto. Haven't read it (I'm on holiday and trying, unsuccessfully, to reduce my out-of-control NPE habit). I will likely read it at some point. But some of my views about the future of UKIP won't really depend on what it says, eg
- a bit like the Greens, UKIP isn't going to win many seats, but it primarily operates right now to push the major parties into picking up some of its policies. And ultimately that robs it of mainstream appeal as its USP end up being its most radical policies.
- it sounds (and this is second/third hand) as if the launch was polished. +1 for credibility if so.
- costing was a smart move, although no doubt there is costing and costing. How robust the costing is remains to be seen (and is ultimately irrelevant so far as policies go, but does count towards UKIP's credibility).
- UKIP remains a one man party. Though I suspect Carswell - if he holds his seat - has designs on who that man should be.
- UKIP's single biggest problem remains the lack of depth in its policy pool. I doubt Mr Average Voter's perception of this aspect of UKIP will change because of a manifesto.
mrpurple said:
pablo said:
Art0ir said:
In my humble opinion, it might be best to be more measured in our replies to newcomers on the thread lest we discourage discussion and continue with another 4 volumes of playground name-calling.
It takes two to argue and my initial post was somewhat ambiguous but also a little antagonistic and for that second element I apologise. If you kick a hornets nest you get stung.mrpurple said:
My original reply to pablo so I will Try again then - So are you saying that the rest of the world (inc Africa) will stop buying our defence items if we stop giving out foreign aid? I thought backhanders in business was illegal.
Yes they are..... but I know you are not naive enough to think that it doesnt happen and on a multi-billion pound scale across many industries. I am saying that reducing foreign aid by £9Bn leaves a great big hole in many UK businesses that simply wont be tolerated, Defence sales is just one element. Its not a backhander though, its business, and whilst there are laws that govern what the foreign aid is spent on, they may not necessarily be abided by or upheld. It could be any Party claiming that they would reduce foreign aid and I would say the same thing, any reduction will be championed by the layman who thinks its a hand out but challenged by those whom are reliant on it for revenue.
In short, yes reducing what we reduce in Foreign Aid to some Coutnries will affect numerous export streams to those same Coutnries.
I take it you have a vested interest?
Greg66 said:
- UKIP's single biggest problem remains the lack of depth in its policy pool. I doubt Mr Average Voter's perception of this aspect of UKIP will change because of a manifesto.
you may be surprised when you read it . the problem as you rightly say is getting mr average voter to read it. if the policies get decent coverage over social media it may be one way of getting them out there,a few eye openers for sure and most appear to be common sense as opposed to populist ,to me anyway.i do not think it is tribalism that afflicts people thinking of voting ukip ,i think the insistence from many quarters that the big two are the only viable options ,when it is quite clear as long as they are, there will be no change .
ps, enjoy the holiday
pablo said:
Scuffers, I think we are in violent agreement, my point was UKIP saying to the common man they will cut foreign aid and spend it in the UK will face significant opposition from those who benefit from the distribution of UK foreign aid.
I know that much of it is indeed wasted on dictatorship vanity projects but at least some of it comes back into the UK and that revenue stream won't be yielded easily.
I'm not saying the foreign aid budget doesn't need addressing, I'm simply saying it's not that easy and will be hugely opposed.
I must apologise for my earlier reply. You came across as a smug leftie. I now suspect that you are simply ignorant.I know that much of it is indeed wasted on dictatorship vanity projects but at least some of it comes back into the UK and that revenue stream won't be yielded easily.
I'm not saying the foreign aid budget doesn't need addressing, I'm simply saying it's not that easy and will be hugely opposed.
Are you aware that foreign aid has trebled under this Government?
It has gone from £4Bn to £12Bn. We are borrowing this money so that we can give it away.
Our children will spend up to forty years paying it back.
Our pensioners are being denied medical treatment because the NHS doesn't have enough funds.
You seem to be saying that we should give away £8Bn so that BAE can increase their sales by a few hundred million.
You haven't thought it out.
Greg66 said:
don4l said:
No.
What are you going to do about my refusal to do your bidding?
What on Earth makes you think that you can give orders to strangers on the Internet?
Perhaps the same thing that makes you think you can compel answers to your questions from strangers on the internet. What are you going to do about my refusal to do your bidding?
What on Earth makes you think that you can give orders to strangers on the Internet?
...or are you making stuff up?
If you have to make up things that your opponent didn't say, then you have already lost the argument.
Enjoy the next 30 minutes searching through my posts.
It would appear that we hand a significant amount of foreign aid straight to the EU... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...
Esseesse said:
Indeed. I think I read the other day that the EU thinks we need to add £1.5Bn more too, I'll have a search.
EU rules mean another £1Bn over the next 2 years http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff