UKIP - The Future - Volume 2
Discussion
10 Pence Short said:
I'm not sure I agree that putting a manifesto to the public and promoting it, without having read it fully or agreeing with what you have read, is either honest or consistent with having integrity.
Back in 2010 UKIP had not a hope of gaining ANY representation. They had a clear message to put across BUT a fully functioning manifesto was obviously not a priority, the same mistake will not be made in 2015. Stop clutching at straws...what do YOU disagree with about current UKIP policy? What you are conveniently ignoring or forgetting about the 2010 campaign is that 3 months after the 2009 EU election Farage had stood down as leader.
Lord Pearson was now the leader and despite being ex Conservative he had no idea how to run a campaign.
He was running a party that once again was in strife with many of the members unhappy with his approach which was to try and make a pact with the Tories to stand down candidates in constituencies with Eurosceptic Conservative MPs and candidates.
The aim was to try and maximise the chances of the maximum sympathy in the Commons.
Pearson who had no experience of campaigning in an electiont had to makeUKIP more tthan the one issue party even though immigration was the second highest matter on the minds of the electorate hence the rise of the EDL nutters.
He, Pearson, therefore started a campaign and garnering support on a wide range of issues hence the monster 2010 manifesto shopping list.
Clearly as he was a candidate in that election in Buckingham in his attempt to unseat the Speaker Farage should have read that manifesto in detail. Perhaps he did perhaps he didn't. Seeing how the bloke operates and the strange nature of that campaign in Buckingham perhaps it didn't crop up.
Who knows really. Clearly he has dissociated himself and the party from that fantasy island shopping list and has moved on.
What's more important currently is the arguments that the parties are putting forward for the EU election. Basically they aren't.
Lord Pearson was now the leader and despite being ex Conservative he had no idea how to run a campaign.
He was running a party that once again was in strife with many of the members unhappy with his approach which was to try and make a pact with the Tories to stand down candidates in constituencies with Eurosceptic Conservative MPs and candidates.
The aim was to try and maximise the chances of the maximum sympathy in the Commons.
Pearson who had no experience of campaigning in an electiont had to makeUKIP more tthan the one issue party even though immigration was the second highest matter on the minds of the electorate hence the rise of the EDL nutters.
He, Pearson, therefore started a campaign and garnering support on a wide range of issues hence the monster 2010 manifesto shopping list.
Clearly as he was a candidate in that election in Buckingham in his attempt to unseat the Speaker Farage should have read that manifesto in detail. Perhaps he did perhaps he didn't. Seeing how the bloke operates and the strange nature of that campaign in Buckingham perhaps it didn't crop up.
Who knows really. Clearly he has dissociated himself and the party from that fantasy island shopping list and has moved on.
What's more important currently is the arguments that the parties are putting forward for the EU election. Basically they aren't.
FiF said:
What you are conveniently ignoring or forgetting about the 2010 campaign is that 3 months after the 2009 EU election Farage had stood down as leader.
Lord Pearson was now the leader and despite being ex Conservative he had no idea how to run a campaign.
He was running a party that once again was in strife with many of the members unhappy with his approach which was to try and make a pact with the Tories to stand down candidates in constituencies with Eurosceptic Conservative MPs and candidates.
The aim was to try and maximise the chances of the maximum sympathy in the Commons.
Pearson who had no experience of campaigning in an electiont had to makeUKIP more tthan the one issue party even though immigration was the second highest matter on the minds of the electorate hence the rise of the EDL nutters.
He, Pearson, therefore started a campaign and garnering support on a wide range of issues hence the monster 2010 manifesto shopping list.
Clearly as he was a candidate in that election in Buckingham in his attempt to unseat the Speaker Farage should have read that manifesto in detail. Perhaps he did perhaps he didn't. Seeing how the bloke operates and the strange nature of that campaign in Buckingham perhaps it didn't crop up.
Who knows really. Clearly he has dissociated himself and the party from that fantasy island shopping list and has moved on.
What's more important currently is the arguments that the parties are putting forward for the EU election. Basically they aren't.
You are clearly forgetting Farage signed the document. He was party spokesman and was present at the launch event, as party spokesman. Lord Pearson was now the leader and despite being ex Conservative he had no idea how to run a campaign.
He was running a party that once again was in strife with many of the members unhappy with his approach which was to try and make a pact with the Tories to stand down candidates in constituencies with Eurosceptic Conservative MPs and candidates.
The aim was to try and maximise the chances of the maximum sympathy in the Commons.
Pearson who had no experience of campaigning in an electiont had to makeUKIP more tthan the one issue party even though immigration was the second highest matter on the minds of the electorate hence the rise of the EDL nutters.
He, Pearson, therefore started a campaign and garnering support on a wide range of issues hence the monster 2010 manifesto shopping list.
Clearly as he was a candidate in that election in Buckingham in his attempt to unseat the Speaker Farage should have read that manifesto in detail. Perhaps he did perhaps he didn't. Seeing how the bloke operates and the strange nature of that campaign in Buckingham perhaps it didn't crop up.
Who knows really. Clearly he has dissociated himself and the party from that fantasy island shopping list and has moved on.
What's more important currently is the arguments that the parties are putting forward for the EU election. Basically they aren't.
I am at a loss to explain why simple facts are so hard for people to digest.
4v6 said:
None of them are doing anything out of conviction or belief in the right thing, theyre doing it for political and personal advantage and we are bloody sick of the stink of it all.
I'd be interested to know what you think the "right" thing to do is and the reasons for it.I see no reason why the above statement couldn't be leveled at any politician of any creed, even the sainted Farage himself who seems to me to be less than reticent to take whatever is on offer.
10 Pence Short said:
HonestIago said:
BUT a fully functioning manifesto was obviously not a priority,
In what way was the 400+ page document produced by UKIP, just before the 2010 election, signed by Farage, not a 'fully functioning manifesto'?Guam said:
He isn't forgetting it, it is well known. he is grasping at straws and we can all see it for what it is. Lets talk about Clegg's commitment to hold a referendum in HIS leaflet in 2010, that was a barefaced lie, however we can just ignore that right?
Or the numerous other lies by all the other parties over the years (WMD anyone).
We can just pretend they never occurred.
The manifesto b
ks is all they have now, its actually quite pitiful to witness.
I was simply trying to put some context around what was happening at the time and explain why certain things happened. Or the numerous other lies by all the other parties over the years (WMD anyone).
We can just pretend they never occurred.
The manifesto b
ks is all they have now, its actually quite pitiful to witness.Clearly at that time UKIP were still a rag tag band and not a professional political party. Otherwise they wouldn't have had the leader they did.
Think about it. A party setting themselves up as anti-establishment with a leader whose last experience of going for elected office was to be a prefect at Eton and openly tries to do a deal with Dave and declares he is going to continue to patronise members only club White's and hold stalks on his Scottish estate.
On the other hand in my role of trying tobe even handed then equally Iif we want to bring up Cloggy's referendum call one could argue that he was intending that it should be in order to declare an In result and set it to bed for another generation.
Likewise people shouldn't dredge up Dave's pledge.
Back on the other hand Tories big problem with that is that nobody believes a word Dave says and frankly he hasn't done anything and I do mean anything to suggest such disbelief is ill founded. If he told me today was Tuesday I'd check the calendar first.
10 Pence Short said:
You are clearly forgetting Farage signed the document. He was party spokesman and was present at the launch event, as party spokesman.
I am at a loss to explain why simple facts are so hard for people to digest.
Not forgetting it at all. Just putting things in context. I am at a loss to explain why simple facts are so hard for people to digest.
I am at a loss to understand many things but it's clear that a manifesto written for an election which took place 4 years ago is not relevant today.
It's why for example the Conservative party cleared out the archives as they contained many potentially embarrassing opinions and papers.
FiF said:
Not forgetting it at all. Just putting things in context.
I am at a loss to understand many things but it's clear that a manifesto written for an election which took place 4 years ago is not relevant today.
What is relevant is that an election is due in around 12 months. For this election, Farage and his party will produce a manifesto.I am at a loss to understand many things but it's clear that a manifesto written for an election which took place 4 years ago is not relevant today.
It took Farage 4 years to admit the manifesto he promoted last time was, in his words, 'rubbish', and that he had not even bothered to read it all (despite being a signatory to it and party spokesman).
What I would like to know, is what reason any voter should have, to approach the next UKIP manifesto with anything other than skepticism? If UKIP fail to win over the electorate with the forthcoming manifesto, will Farage simply describe this one as a load of old rubbish?
Or a possible (although unlikely) scenario, if UKIP hold balance of power and help form the next government, will Farage stand by his manifesto or simply buckle and describe it as a 'wishlist' as he fails on all the promises?
Or, of course, will any of it matter because some UKIP voters would prefer a dumb leader to a smart one?
Guam, I do not accept there is any reason to suppose Farage is more honest then any other leader. In fact, looking at his admission regards the previous manifesto, it tends to suggest he's no less likely to go back on his word than any other of the politicians criticised in this thread.
Guam said:
There we will have to agree to disagree then, he is the first politician in recent years I can recall actually fronting up to a shortcoming, I remember the days when Politicians would do the honorable thing and resign when they screwed up, now they do everything possible to cling to power (Huhne anyone).
There should not need to be a petition to get Miller to do the right thing, she should be gone, over, end of discussion.
No instead CMD is fighting to keep her and you are more concerned about a dead manifesto, maybe we should pull all the manifestos back from the wayback machine and see what tripe was in the others works of fiction. Thats what every manifesto is incidentally, a complete and utter work of fiction which is typically never honoured.
I think that you're missing the point. Most political leaders promise all they can in a manifesto, and fail to deliver on much of it; to deliver everything in the manifesto you'd have to have every bit of good fortune heading in your direction. Life is never like that.There should not need to be a petition to get Miller to do the right thing, she should be gone, over, end of discussion.
No instead CMD is fighting to keep her and you are more concerned about a dead manifesto, maybe we should pull all the manifestos back from the wayback machine and see what tripe was in the others works of fiction. Thats what every manifesto is incidentally, a complete and utter work of fiction which is typically never honoured.
In the case of UKIP, however, Farage was the leader at the last election, and was campaigning on the basis of a manifesto he'd signed off on, but not read. At slightly cavalier attitude, I'd say, particularly when he then realised he didn't agree with a lot of it.
So as 10PS rightly asks, how can we believe the next one? Not that all parties deliver - they obviously don't - but they at least have some form of logic to them, some internal consistency. UKIP's policies don't seem to offer even this.
Let's leave Europe to one side, shall we? There's too much rhetoric in that, too many unproven assertions either way, and far too much emotion. People tell me that UKIP are about far more than Europe, and that they have sensible policies which will benefit everyone. But I've never seen anything to show me how they'd possibly afford their policies. Pulling out of Europe would apparently save us £20bn per annum, but (at least according to the last manifesto) this would be spent almost in its entirety on the armed services.
Which means they need balanced policies to afford their proposals; there'll be no Europe windfall to pay for what they want to do. Except that they're looking to bring in flat-rate taxation. To my mind this is easily as radical than the proposed exit from the EU. And yet it's not really been publicly discussed, even though it's very definitely a firm UKIP proposal. Rates to be confirmed, admittedly, but it's a huge step away from what we have now.
Progressive taxation unfairly penalises the rich, say the flat-tax proponents, and it stifles the economy. Flat taxes are simple, easy to understand, and will actually raise more income than the current system. So what's not to like?
Quite a lot, in my view. The myth that flat taxes are simple and would raise tax revenue is just that: a myth. It’s also a myth that a great deal of the UK tax code could be eliminated, unless we wanted to scrap whole taxes and lose the money they raise. There is simply no record of a flat tax system working in a developed economy anywhere in the world - just look at the problems experienced in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia if you want to see a misfiring flat-tax system in meltdown.
And the thing is that flat taxes are invariably promoted by people who also argue for small government and massive cuts in public spending. That is what they are intended to deliver, which, it has to be said, they would. Currently the top 10% of all income tax payers in the UK pay about 59% of all income tax. They also pay tax at higher rates than anyone else. Under a flat tax system these people would enjoy significant – maybe massive – tax cuts. On the flip side, those on low incomes would almost certainly pay more because around the world flat tax systems are associated with higher National Insurance contributions – that hit the lowest paid hardest.
So the only way that you could afford to bring this sort of radical reform is is by cutting services and/or increasing tax, overall, for the least well off. That’s the reality.
And as for tax simplification? That won’t happen, first because business needs complex tax systems to let it do the complex trades it undertakes, and second, because most of the complexity is about defining just what is taxable. That’s the hard bit. Multiplying by variable percentage rates rather than one flat one is no problem at all.
This is what worries me about UKIP - they still have half-baked policies. The main parties may be a lot less than we want or deserve, but in truth they're offering a great deal more substance than UKIP.
Vote for Farage, by all means. But be careful of what you wish for, because he's not got a magic wand to solve the UK's problems.
10 Pence Short said:
Guam, I do not accept there is any reason to suppose Farage is more honest then any other leader. In fact, looking at his admission regards the previous manifesto, it tends to suggest he's no less likely to go back on his word than any other of the politicians criticised in this thread.
NF is also not burdened with the prospect of power. Kind of frees him up somewhat on the promises front I should imagine.zygalski said:
10 Pence Short said:
Guam, I do not accept there is any reason to suppose Farage is more honest then any other leader. In fact, looking at his admission regards the previous manifesto, it tends to suggest he's no less likely to go back on his word than any other of the politicians criticised in this thread.
NF is also not burdened with the prospect of power. Kind of frees him up somewhat on the promises front I should imagine.
Guam said:
manifestos are largely a work of fiction
As UKIP grows, the same Tory/Lab spin doctors and strategists who currently impress longblackcoat will be knocking on the Farage's door.
Frankly Farages background of actually having had a career makes him a better candidate than the other 3 as at the end of the day the government ministers know naff all about the area they manage. The job is simply a case of listening to civil servants and listening to experts and having the brainpower to follow their advise- hardly rocket science.
Guam said:
Selective reasoning much?
Not missing the point at all, those banging on about it are, you have effectively restated what I posted earlier, mainly manifestos are largely a work of fiction therefore the UKIP one is no better or worse than any manifesto.
Why should Farage be held to a fire you lot wont hold the others to?
Lets talk about Clegg and Tuition fees then shall we?
That breach of a commitment caused real hardship, what manifesto issue has the UKIP one caused hardship over?
Sorry its a bogus issue and is irrational in the main.
Their yet to be published manifesto will be no better or worse than any other and will only become an implementation issue as and when they get into a position of power.
The fear is becoming palpable on these threads and for that many of us are Grateful to NF and UKIP (however we may end up voting)
No, let's not talk about Clegg and tuition fees - all would agree that was a massive U-turn. That's for Clegg and the LibDems to stew over.Not missing the point at all, those banging on about it are, you have effectively restated what I posted earlier, mainly manifestos are largely a work of fiction therefore the UKIP one is no better or worse than any manifesto.
Why should Farage be held to a fire you lot wont hold the others to?
Lets talk about Clegg and Tuition fees then shall we?
That breach of a commitment caused real hardship, what manifesto issue has the UKIP one caused hardship over?
Sorry its a bogus issue and is irrational in the main.
Their yet to be published manifesto will be no better or worse than any other and will only become an implementation issue as and when they get into a position of power.
The fear is becoming palpable on these threads and for that many of us are Grateful to NF and UKIP (however we may end up voting)
Since this is the UKIP thread, let's talk about UKIP. They're proposing a massive change to the tax system and yet there's no back-up to this. But in supporting UKIP you're supporting a party who will bring an end to the current system of taxation and benefits.
Fine, so long as you know what you're replacing it with. And that's where things get sticky, because the UKIP proposals stop short of explaining this. It's easy to say what you don't like, but much harder to say what you'd do differently. And even harder to get that right - the devil is always in the detail. Based on what they've said they'd do (and I've got nothing other than the last manifesto to go on, 'cos there's nothing else out there), their sums simply don't add up.
As I've mentioned before on this thread, I emailed UKIP central (and Farage) some months back with some reasonably basic questions on their policies. I asked for something to show me that their economic policies stacked up. I received nothing, not even an acknowledgement. I've checked the email addresses and re-sent the requests, but still got no responses. Perhaps UKIP can't be bothered with me, or perhaps they don't actually have any policies; in any case, it's not a great attitude to a prospective voter.
So if there are any UKIP members out there who can point me to official policies that will explain (with at least some detail) how the economy would work under UKIP, I'd be grateful. Stick up a link or PM me.
longblackcoat said:
There is simply no record of a flat tax system working in a developed economy anywhere in the world - just look at the problems experienced in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia if you want to see a misfiring flat-tax system in meltdown.
Slovakia ran a flat tax rate of 19% from 2004 to 2012, whilst enjoying high growth rates of up to 10 per cent, unemployment decreased from 20 to 10 per cent, and government debt decreased from 50 to 21 per cent of GDP in 2008. Whether or not the growth / government debt / unemployment was due to the flat tax is difficult to analyse, however it certainly didn't result in the collapse of government revenues.A second 25% tier has now been introduced for 2013 by the left-wing government but it's too early to see the effect it'll have on the Slovakian economy.
jagnet said:
longblackcoat said:
There is simply no record of a flat tax system working in a developed economy anywhere in the world - just look at the problems experienced in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia if you want to see a misfiring flat-tax system in meltdown.
Slovakia ran a flat tax rate of 19% from 2004 to 2012, whilst enjoying high growth rates of up to 10 per cent, unemployment decreased from 20 to 10 per cent, and government debt decreased from 50 to 21 per cent of GDP in 2008. Whether or not the growth / government debt / unemployment was due to the flat tax is difficult to analyse, however it certainly didn't result in the collapse of government revenues.A second 25% tier has now been introduced for 2013 by the left-wing government but it's too early to see the effect it'll have on the Slovakian economy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff