UKIP PP broadcast
Discussion
martin84 said:
V8mate said:
That list is enough to put me off entirely. It is a combination of soundbite politics and pure socialism.
Thanks for posting it though, I learnt something new about UKIP.
Out of interest what parts specifically of that list offends you the most?Thanks for posting it though, I learnt something new about UKIP.
Then at the end, an extra tax to pay for it. Could have been straight out of Ed Ball's leadership campaign manifesto.
oyster said:
martin84 said:
V8mate said:
That list is enough to put me off entirely. It is a combination of soundbite politics and pure socialism.
Thanks for posting it though, I learnt something new about UKIP.
Out of interest what parts specifically of that list offends you the most?Thanks for posting it though, I learnt something new about UKIP.
Then at the end, an extra tax to pay for it. Could have been straight out of Ed Ball's leadership campaign manifesto.
The total gross cost to the UK of EU membership in 2008 they estimate at around £65,000,000,000* - including:
•£28 billion for business to comply with EU regulations,
•£17 billion of additional food costs resulting from the Common Agricultural Policy
•£3.3 billion - the value of the catch lost when the Common Fisheries Policy let other countries fish in our territorial waters
•£14.6 billion gross paid into the EU budget and other EU funds.
pacman1 said:
I'd vote for UKIP, unfortunately there is no councillor in my area. They do get the odd donation albeit a token gesture, I'm certainly no hardcore activist.
A few thoughts on the topic though:
To be a real political contender, the party is going to need to get some meat on its bones and not just be a campaign for one agenda alone, even though it is the core.
As with any fledgling party, this will hopefully come from main stream party MP's defecting to UKIP.
As it stands, as a pressure group, I quite like the fact that UKIP is relatively amorphous and opportunistic. If and when they are a serious contender for having some part in a government they will need some more substance to it, but I quite clearly take their stance to be about improving how we are governed.A few thoughts on the topic though:
To be a real political contender, the party is going to need to get some meat on its bones and not just be a campaign for one agenda alone, even though it is the core.
As with any fledgling party, this will hopefully come from main stream party MP's defecting to UKIP.
UKIP to me stand for government that is closer to and controlled by the citizens. Referenda on transport infrastructure is a bit of a strange thing to say, but since it won't happen anyway, I can take it to mean that UKIP won't be spending billions of pounds on a high speed rail link through my back garden without at least asking me first.
AJS- said:
UKIP to me stand for government that is closer to and controlled by the citizens. Referenda on transport infrastructure is a bit of a strange thing to say, but since it won't happen anyway, I can take it to mean that UKIP won't be spending billions of pounds on a high speed rail link through my back garden without at least asking me first.
Arguably, are you best placed to decide on the merits of such a scheme?V8mate said:
AJS- said:
UKIP to me stand for government that is closer to and controlled by the citizens. Referenda on transport infrastructure is a bit of a strange thing to say, but since it won't happen anyway, I can take it to mean that UKIP won't be spending billions of pounds on a high speed rail link through my back garden without at least asking me first.
Arguably, are you best placed to decide on the merits of such a scheme?AshVX220 said:
V8mate said:
AJS- said:
UKIP to me stand for government that is closer to and controlled by the citizens. Referenda on transport infrastructure is a bit of a strange thing to say, but since it won't happen anyway, I can take it to mean that UKIP won't be spending billions of pounds on a high speed rail link through my back garden without at least asking me first.
Arguably, are you best placed to decide on the merits of such a scheme?AshVX220 said:
V8mate said:
AJS- said:
UKIP to me stand for government that is closer to and controlled by the citizens. Referenda on transport infrastructure is a bit of a strange thing to say, but since it won't happen anyway, I can take it to mean that UKIP won't be spending billions of pounds on a high speed rail link through my back garden without at least asking me first.
Arguably, are you best placed to decide on the merits of such a scheme?Or a new motorway? Or airport?
Because while we argue about it, our competitors get on and build it.
This local transport idea of UKIP sounds like a mountain of extra red tape, all for a soundbite.
oyster said:
AshVX220 said:
V8mate said:
AJS- said:
UKIP to me stand for government that is closer to and controlled by the citizens. Referenda on transport infrastructure is a bit of a strange thing to say, but since it won't happen anyway, I can take it to mean that UKIP won't be spending billions of pounds on a high speed rail link through my back garden without at least asking me first.
Arguably, are you best placed to decide on the merits of such a scheme?Or a new motorway? Or airport?
Because while we argue about it, our competitors get on and build it.
This local transport idea of UKIP sounds like a mountain of extra red tape, all for a soundbite.
odyssey2200 said:
Define "Substance", please.
No not the white powder type
Costed policies that can be implemented upon assuming office. No not the white powder type
V8mate said:
AJS- said:
UKIP to me stand for government that is closer to and controlled by the citizens. Referenda on transport infrastructure is a bit of a strange thing to say, but since it won't happen anyway, I can take it to mean that UKIP won't be spending billions of pounds on a high speed rail link through my back garden without at least asking me first.
Arguably, are you best placed to decide on the merits of such a scheme?oyster
All this soft-Tory fretting about what big business might think and what our "competitors" are doing is really quite pointless. What actual competitive advantage will we gain against whom by pouring billions of pounds into a high speed train line?
steveatesh said:
hornet said:
Genuine question here - are UKIP becoming more serious, or is it more a case of more people drifting into "their" territory? They're still rather single issue for me, but it will certainly be interesting to see how they do in the upcoming elections.
They a full set of policies, have a look at their website and check them out. they are no longer a single issue party. Unfortunately, also just like UKIP, none of us can outline a credible plan for paying for it all.
My kids are a bit like UKIP - they know exactly what toys they want, but think the money to pay for them grows on trees.
I can't see a single political party worth voting for in this country at the moment.
AJS- said:
odyssey2200 said:
Define "Substance", please.
No not the white powder type
Costed policies that can be implemented upon assuming office. No not the white powder type
How do you know that they haven't. did you see all the other parties costed policies before the last election?
If they had any I would like to know who does theiy accounts 'cos none of it is stacking up so for.
odyssey2200 said:
AJS- said:
odyssey2200 said:
Define "Substance", please.
No not the white powder type
Costed policies that can be implemented upon assuming office. No not the white powder type
How do you know that they haven't. did you see all the other parties costed policies before the last election?
If they had any I would like to know who does theiy accounts 'cos none of it is stacking up so for.
odyssey2200 said:
AJS- said:
odyssey2200 said:
Define "Substance", please.
No not the white powder type
Costed policies that can be implemented upon assuming office. No not the white powder type
The difference is that Labour and the Tories - and even the Lib Dems now - have some experience of the realities of having to get legislation through the system, even if they are doing their best to disabuse us of the notion that they have experience of knowing you also have to pay for it.
odyssey2200 said:
Why should UKIP be expected to do things that none of the other parties are able, willing or expected to do?
How do you know that they haven't. did you see all the other parties costed policies before the last election?
If they had any I would like to know who does theiy accounts 'cos none of it is stacking up so for.
Because UKIP are better, and because a large number of intelligent people people are getting fed up with politicians promising the earth knowing full well they have to deliver it.How do you know that they haven't. did you see all the other parties costed policies before the last election?
If they had any I would like to know who does theiy accounts 'cos none of it is stacking up so for.
I haven't, and probably won't pour over the accounts, but balancing the books while re-opening local railway lines, building more prisons and so forth sounds like it will cost more then they will raise from their "Britdisc" for foreign lorries, and savings on EU contributions.
As for the other parties, no, I know full well that their spending plans don't stack up and I never vote for them.
odyssey2200 said:
What about:-
The total gross cost to the UK of EU membership in 2008 they estimate at around £65,000,000,000* - including:
£28 billion for business to comply with EU regulations,
£17 billion of additional food costs resulting from the Common Agricultural Policy
£3.3 billion - the value of the catch lost when the Common Fisheries Policy let other countries fish in our territorial waters
£14.6 billion gross paid into the EU budget and other EU funds.
Where on the UKIP website does is say how much of that money would still be spent by an independent UK?The total gross cost to the UK of EU membership in 2008 they estimate at around £65,000,000,000* - including:
£28 billion for business to comply with EU regulations,
£17 billion of additional food costs resulting from the Common Agricultural Policy
£3.3 billion - the value of the catch lost when the Common Fisheries Policy let other countries fish in our territorial waters
£14.6 billion gross paid into the EU budget and other EU funds.
After all, we'd still have business regulation, regardless of who the regulator is - just look at every other developed country.
Fishing as well - what is stopping our fishermen fishing in the waters of other EU countries?
UKIP excel at publishing the one side of the equation which forwards their cause. Of course, all politicians excel at this, but UKIP just haven't yet had a turn in power to disillusion everyone.
Edited by Kermit power on Friday 11th May 14:59
Kermit power said:
There is no reason to expect that they can, but people shouldn't accept the UKIP manifesto without seeing it costed any more than they should the other parties.
The difference is that Labour and the Tories - and even the Lib Dems now - have some experience of the realities of having to get legislation through the system, even if they are doing their best to disabuse us of the notion that they have experience of knowing you also have to pay for it.
For all the good that experience does them - none of them have any real intention of trying to balance the books.The difference is that Labour and the Tories - and even the Lib Dems now - have some experience of the realities of having to get legislation through the system, even if they are doing their best to disabuse us of the notion that they have experience of knowing you also have to pay for it.
powerstroke said:
odyssey2200 said:
AJS- said:
odyssey2200 said:
Define "Substance", please.
No not the white powder type
Costed policies that can be implemented upon assuming office. No not the white powder type
How do you know that they haven't. did you see all the other parties costed policies before the last election?
If they had any I would like to know who does theiy accounts 'cos none of it is stacking up so for.
You genuinely believe that the feckless don't get work because 'foreigners' take their jobs? You yourself call them feckless for goodness sake.
I spend a large amount of my time recruiting people (albeit in high-end consulting) and I simply cannot find enough skilled people from the UK. Should I, and many other businesses, have to sacrifice business growth just to satisfy the anti-immigration cravings of a minority of zealots?
Yes, I think immigration causing youth unemployment is not really an issue as it seems that it is the immigrants who are willing to do the jobs that our youth don't really want to do. However, the effect of mass immigration on our culture and cultural identity is a major issue which is leading us down a rocky road. And it's not just an issue in the UK but it is an issue that the left like to play down in their pursuit of 'multi-culturalism'.
It should also be an issue that we can talk about without accusations of racism being thrown about and if UKIP become a major force in UK politics (and they're rapidly getting there despite being almost ignored and/or ridiculed by the MSM) then hopefully it and our future in or out of the EU will actually start being rationally discussed.
It should also be an issue that we can talk about without accusations of racism being thrown about and if UKIP become a major force in UK politics (and they're rapidly getting there despite being almost ignored and/or ridiculed by the MSM) then hopefully it and our future in or out of the EU will actually start being rationally discussed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff