UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
Re the above list of promises, it's only a very minor point, scrapping hospital car park charges.
Can think of a few cases where the charges were only introduced to stop inconsiderate commuter use of car park plus subsidised/free bus services of out of town hospitals.
Some practical details to be worked out on that minor point.
Personally I'm in favour of HS2 but it's not a deal breaker, especially if there was proper spend on the creaking roads.
Can think of a few cases where the charges were only introduced to stop inconsiderate commuter use of car park plus subsidised/free bus services of out of town hospitals.
Some practical details to be worked out on that minor point.
Personally I'm in favour of HS2 but it's not a deal breaker, especially if there was proper spend on the creaking roads.
supersingle said:
mrpurple said:
Ken Clarke on C4 news........backtracking on his clowns comment......taken out of context apparently 
He was on radio 4 earlier, squirming his way through the inteview. Talked about open economy, freedom of movement blablabla. He didn't sound like he believes his own bulls
t. He represents elite business interests, not ordinary British people. That much was obvious.Beats me why anyone would vote Tory these days.
.wc98 said:
POLICIES FOR PEOPLE
policies4people.gif
The following statements represent highlights of UKIP's policy announcements as made at the Doncaster Conference. More detailed announcements will be made in the run up to the 2015 General Election.
What a UKIP Government will do
feel free to highlight those you disagree with.
How can any sane, intelligent person argue against a single one of these proposals?policies4people.gif
The following statements represent highlights of UKIP's policy announcements as made at the Doncaster Conference. More detailed announcements will be made in the run up to the 2015 General Election.
What a UKIP Government will do
feel free to highlight those you disagree with.
I do like Charles Moore's column.
Charles Moore said:
Ukip deserved its day of glory after the Clacton by-election, if only to remind the other parties that no subject is off limits
It is a sacred tenet of party modernisers, both Labour and Conservative, that their parties should not pursue a “core vote strategy”. There is an unexamined assumption behind the doctrine, which is that this “core vote” exists. What if it doesn’t any more?
That is the question raised by Thursday’s by-election results. In Clacton, the core Conservative vote travelled across party boundaries with its core ex-Conservative MP, Douglas Carswell. In Heywood and Middleton, a classic Labour core-vote constituency, Labour only just survived.
The core vote of the main parties now resembles a loyal, traditional wife who cooks her husband’s meals on time, every day, unthanked, while he is off chasing someone more glamorous. In the end, she walks out – possibly with that droll fellow down the road who at least pays her a bit of attention, name of Nigel.
The core vote was there for a reason, you see. It was based on something more than precise policies or opinions – a sense that the party in question shared with its supporters broad economic interests and a way of looking at the world. It was very strong politically precisely because it was not very political: it went deeper than that. It was not a transaction, but a relationship, a reciprocal loyalty. If you were, let’s say, a butcher in Market Bosworth, you would probably be Conservative. If you were a steel worker in Sheffield, you would probably be Labour. No need to explain why: you just sort of would be. Nowadays, you just sort of can’t be bothered.
With a general election approaching, the two main parties once again feel the need to pay attention to their core voters. Labour, indeed, has based its whole arithmetically calculated victory strategy round this. But both parties are so far adrift from what a core vote means that they do not even know how to appeal to their own.
In the case of Labour, for example, it is making much of its plan for a mansion tax. No doubt it believes that its core vote likes the idea of hitting the rich. I expect it does, but that is only a symptom. The deeper problem is that Labour core voters feel that 21st-century globalisation has not worked for them. Since most of this happened under 13 years of Labour government, the Labour Party cannot deal honestly with this feeling, let alone propose a remedy. Threatening to bash the rich is the party leadership’s displacement activity.
The Conservatives are like this in relation to Europe. For a quarter of a century now, the party’s rhetoric has been Eurosceptic, sometimes unpleasantly so, but its actions have not. The rhetoric, the theory goes, is all that core voters need: the actions have been pretty much whatever is demanded by the European bureaucracy. Significant change has come about only because of popular revolt. If it had not been for James Goldsmith’s now largely forgotten Referendum Party in 1997, neither main party would have had to promise a referendum on the single currency, and we would now be in it.
So the core voters who have been insulted for many years are not persuaded when they are suddenly subjected to that perfunctory politicians’ imitation of good manners known as “a charm offensive”. They are more offended than charmed. They know that it is not worth being a core voter any more.
It does not follow however, as a marketing man might imagine, that loyalty no longer means anything and voters are all the equivalent of what mortgage-brokers in the housing boom unkindly called “rate tarts”. They are deserting because they want something or somebody they can trust.
Admittedly, they could well be wrong if they think they can trust Ukip. The party is, like all fairly new parties, a rag-bag. Some of its members are the sort of purists who can never be satisfied in any democratic system. Last week, I spoke at a Bruges Group fringe meeting at the Tory conference. A minority of the Ukip supporters present wanted to write out the exact terms of any negotiation with Brussels, turning whoever happened to be prime minister at the time into their message boy. Such people have an obsession with the wickedness of David Cameron. It blinds them to wider reality, including the point (which Mr Cameron never fails to make) that he is a much better leader than Ed Miliband.
But there is a genuine and justified reason for Ukip’s existence. What is supposed to happen in democratic politics is starting to happen. As Mr Carswell keeps emphasising, British institutions have to be reformed and made to work for British citizens, including first-generation ones. Ukip is helping counter the oppressive sense that you get from the main parties that various subjects are off-limits. Immigration, Europe, the questioning of climate-change policies, the meaning of the phrase “human rights” force themselves on to the agenda only because people outside the main parties take them up.
Take a minor example which happened to cross my path this week. I have just received from the police the form to renew my shotgun licence. The entire last page is devoted to “EQUALITY INFORMATION”. Off we go on disability, ethnicity, gender and age group. Naturally, I exercise my right not to answer this intrusive rubbish. I shall not tell them whether I am “Gypsy or Irish Traveller”, or am aged 18-20. I shan’t even tick the box in the gender question which says “Prefer not to say”. But I am conscious that I am somehow acting “inappropriately”. I start to wonder whether refusal will prejudice my chance of renewal. After five years of Conservative-dominated government, why on earth does this sort of thing clutter our lives? Yet it does and it will go on doing so, because that is the way modern international governance likes it, regardless of us voters.
That might be considered a “Right-wing” point, though I would argue it is simply a matter of personal privacy, but there are “Left-wing” ones to be made in a similar spirit. Why, for example, is it still such a struggle to get the big banks under control and prevent the investment arms of high-street names from gambling with the deposits of the rest of us? Ordinary banks should be utilities for the general population and for businesses, so why do their leaders have to be paid five, 10, 20 times more than the Prime Minister for their services?
Why is it so hard to prevent the citizen from being cheated from above – by companies who get government contracts and maintain networks of power – and from below – by unmeritorious welfare claimants and Islamist fanatics who exploit our freedom of speech to incite people to violent jihad? Who would have the harder time on the Today programme – the person who said “What’s wrong with England for the English?” or the one who said “Behead all those who insult Islam”?
I am conscious that even to set out these points is to put oneself on the side of the grumblers and be accused of preferring the politics of fear over those of hope. My answer would be that if the main parties cannot articulate and fulfil the hope, the fear becomes justified, and nasty people start to cash in on it.
This column’s pet theory of elections in Britain is that the overall results are always, broadly speaking, deserved. Although the economic malaise is different, the political situation today resembles that of 1974, in which the British people were offered two elections, and rightly failed to make up their mind in either of them. Ukip deserved to win last Thursday, if only because none of the other parties did.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11154320/The-core-voters-have-spoken-and-theyre-not-a-happy-bunch.htmlIt is a sacred tenet of party modernisers, both Labour and Conservative, that their parties should not pursue a “core vote strategy”. There is an unexamined assumption behind the doctrine, which is that this “core vote” exists. What if it doesn’t any more?
That is the question raised by Thursday’s by-election results. In Clacton, the core Conservative vote travelled across party boundaries with its core ex-Conservative MP, Douglas Carswell. In Heywood and Middleton, a classic Labour core-vote constituency, Labour only just survived.
The core vote of the main parties now resembles a loyal, traditional wife who cooks her husband’s meals on time, every day, unthanked, while he is off chasing someone more glamorous. In the end, she walks out – possibly with that droll fellow down the road who at least pays her a bit of attention, name of Nigel.
The core vote was there for a reason, you see. It was based on something more than precise policies or opinions – a sense that the party in question shared with its supporters broad economic interests and a way of looking at the world. It was very strong politically precisely because it was not very political: it went deeper than that. It was not a transaction, but a relationship, a reciprocal loyalty. If you were, let’s say, a butcher in Market Bosworth, you would probably be Conservative. If you were a steel worker in Sheffield, you would probably be Labour. No need to explain why: you just sort of would be. Nowadays, you just sort of can’t be bothered.
With a general election approaching, the two main parties once again feel the need to pay attention to their core voters. Labour, indeed, has based its whole arithmetically calculated victory strategy round this. But both parties are so far adrift from what a core vote means that they do not even know how to appeal to their own.
In the case of Labour, for example, it is making much of its plan for a mansion tax. No doubt it believes that its core vote likes the idea of hitting the rich. I expect it does, but that is only a symptom. The deeper problem is that Labour core voters feel that 21st-century globalisation has not worked for them. Since most of this happened under 13 years of Labour government, the Labour Party cannot deal honestly with this feeling, let alone propose a remedy. Threatening to bash the rich is the party leadership’s displacement activity.
The Conservatives are like this in relation to Europe. For a quarter of a century now, the party’s rhetoric has been Eurosceptic, sometimes unpleasantly so, but its actions have not. The rhetoric, the theory goes, is all that core voters need: the actions have been pretty much whatever is demanded by the European bureaucracy. Significant change has come about only because of popular revolt. If it had not been for James Goldsmith’s now largely forgotten Referendum Party in 1997, neither main party would have had to promise a referendum on the single currency, and we would now be in it.
So the core voters who have been insulted for many years are not persuaded when they are suddenly subjected to that perfunctory politicians’ imitation of good manners known as “a charm offensive”. They are more offended than charmed. They know that it is not worth being a core voter any more.
It does not follow however, as a marketing man might imagine, that loyalty no longer means anything and voters are all the equivalent of what mortgage-brokers in the housing boom unkindly called “rate tarts”. They are deserting because they want something or somebody they can trust.
Admittedly, they could well be wrong if they think they can trust Ukip. The party is, like all fairly new parties, a rag-bag. Some of its members are the sort of purists who can never be satisfied in any democratic system. Last week, I spoke at a Bruges Group fringe meeting at the Tory conference. A minority of the Ukip supporters present wanted to write out the exact terms of any negotiation with Brussels, turning whoever happened to be prime minister at the time into their message boy. Such people have an obsession with the wickedness of David Cameron. It blinds them to wider reality, including the point (which Mr Cameron never fails to make) that he is a much better leader than Ed Miliband.
But there is a genuine and justified reason for Ukip’s existence. What is supposed to happen in democratic politics is starting to happen. As Mr Carswell keeps emphasising, British institutions have to be reformed and made to work for British citizens, including first-generation ones. Ukip is helping counter the oppressive sense that you get from the main parties that various subjects are off-limits. Immigration, Europe, the questioning of climate-change policies, the meaning of the phrase “human rights” force themselves on to the agenda only because people outside the main parties take them up.
Take a minor example which happened to cross my path this week. I have just received from the police the form to renew my shotgun licence. The entire last page is devoted to “EQUALITY INFORMATION”. Off we go on disability, ethnicity, gender and age group. Naturally, I exercise my right not to answer this intrusive rubbish. I shall not tell them whether I am “Gypsy or Irish Traveller”, or am aged 18-20. I shan’t even tick the box in the gender question which says “Prefer not to say”. But I am conscious that I am somehow acting “inappropriately”. I start to wonder whether refusal will prejudice my chance of renewal. After five years of Conservative-dominated government, why on earth does this sort of thing clutter our lives? Yet it does and it will go on doing so, because that is the way modern international governance likes it, regardless of us voters.
That might be considered a “Right-wing” point, though I would argue it is simply a matter of personal privacy, but there are “Left-wing” ones to be made in a similar spirit. Why, for example, is it still such a struggle to get the big banks under control and prevent the investment arms of high-street names from gambling with the deposits of the rest of us? Ordinary banks should be utilities for the general population and for businesses, so why do their leaders have to be paid five, 10, 20 times more than the Prime Minister for their services?
Why is it so hard to prevent the citizen from being cheated from above – by companies who get government contracts and maintain networks of power – and from below – by unmeritorious welfare claimants and Islamist fanatics who exploit our freedom of speech to incite people to violent jihad? Who would have the harder time on the Today programme – the person who said “What’s wrong with England for the English?” or the one who said “Behead all those who insult Islam”?
I am conscious that even to set out these points is to put oneself on the side of the grumblers and be accused of preferring the politics of fear over those of hope. My answer would be that if the main parties cannot articulate and fulfil the hope, the fear becomes justified, and nasty people start to cash in on it.
This column’s pet theory of elections in Britain is that the overall results are always, broadly speaking, deserved. Although the economic malaise is different, the political situation today resembles that of 1974, in which the British people were offered two elections, and rightly failed to make up their mind in either of them. Ukip deserved to win last Thursday, if only because none of the other parties did.
h8tax said:
How can any sane, intelligent person argue against a single one of these proposals?
That's a touch harsh! There are plenty of people I know who actually think that remaining in the EU is a good idea, they are perfectly sane - just mistaken in my opinion!The rest of the proposals look pretty good to me. I can see issues with the smoking one and FIFs comment about the car parks is valid (but having been told my car would be clamped whilst trying to get an unexpectedly sick child into hospital I'm happy to take the risk!). I'd expect the Tories and Labour to both try and snaffle a number of the proposals but water them down just before the election.
don4l said:
0a said:
Who was it on here who made a bet that UKIP would never get a seat? Paid up?
Was it Breadvan72?I'm surprised that we haven't heard from him.
0a said:
Who was it on here who made a bet that UKIP would never get a seat? Paid up?
i am sure he will let me know when he does ,the charity will be pleased http://www.chas.org.uk/how_we_help_families/our_ho...FiF said:
great summation of the current situation ,amazing so many people still do not get it.NicD said:
My vote for 'most in the wrong job' journo of the year:
'Nigel Farage is the Captain Mainwaring of our time'
Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian, natch
If any politico is LESS like this, I can't think of them.
You're just trying to tempt BV or Harding out to comment on the recent successes aren't you? 'Nigel Farage is the Captain Mainwaring of our time'
Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian, natch
If any politico is LESS like this, I can't think of them.
FiF said:
I do like Charles Moore's column.
The highlighted bit really struck a chord with me.Charles Moore said:
The core vote was there for a reason, you see. It was based on something more than precise policies or opinions – a sense that the party in question shared with its supporters broad economic interests and a way of looking at the world. It was very strong politically precisely because it was not very political: it went deeper than that. It was not a transaction, but a relationship, a reciprocal loyalty. If you were, let’s say, a butcher in Market Bosworth, you would probably be Conservative. If you were a steel worker in Sheffield, you would probably be Labour. No need to explain why: you just sort of would be. Nowadays, you just sort of can’t be bothered.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11154320/The-core-voters-have-spoken-and-theyre-not-a-happy-bunch.htmlThe Conservative party has moved away from me - and not the other way around.
Meanwhine, Matthew Parris has a truly insane rant in The Times today. His strapline is "Ignore the piffle about Westminister needing to reconnect with a disaffected public. It should be the other way around."
I'm amazed that nobody in Tory high command hasn't told him to wind his neck in. Here is just a small sample of his bile:-"UKIP is not the fault of Clacton. Clacton is just the parasite's unlucky host."
Way to go, Matthew! You really don't have a clue how democracy works.
don4l said:
The highlighted bit really struck a chord with me.
The Conservative party has moved away from me - and not the other way around.
Meanwhine, Matthew Parris has a truly insane rant in The Times today. His strapline is "Ignore the piffle about Westminister needing to reconnect with a disaffected public. It should be the other way around."
I'm amazed that nobody in Tory high command hasn't told him to wind his neck in. Here is just a small sample of his bile:-"UKIP is not the fault of Clacton. Clacton is just the parasite's unlucky host."
Way to go, Matthew! You really don't have a clue how democracy works.
matthew parris has always been an ignorant wThe Conservative party has moved away from me - and not the other way around.
Meanwhine, Matthew Parris has a truly insane rant in The Times today. His strapline is "Ignore the piffle about Westminister needing to reconnect with a disaffected public. It should be the other way around."
I'm amazed that nobody in Tory high command hasn't told him to wind his neck in. Here is just a small sample of his bile:-"UKIP is not the fault of Clacton. Clacton is just the parasite's unlucky host."
Way to go, Matthew! You really don't have a clue how democracy works.
ker,however coupled with boris and few other oft commented in the msm politicians,they all currently serve a good purpose. increasing support for ukip by highlighting just how ignorant and out of touch the current bunch are 
brenflys777 said:
NicD said:
My vote for 'most in the wrong job' journo of the year:
'Nigel Farage is the Captain Mainwaring of our time'
Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian, natch
If any politico is LESS like this, I can't think of them.
You're just trying to tempt BV or Harding out to comment on the recent successes aren't you? 'Nigel Farage is the Captain Mainwaring of our time'
Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian, natch
If any politico is LESS like this, I can't think of them.
He's not away, he's on the other thread about the McCann's regularly in the last couple days.
He'll probably say he's not paying because the first Kipper MP in his bet needed to be at the General Election ...when we will probably have around 15 Kipper MPs!
Or you never know, they may even form part of the next government? I live in hope.
As one intelligent unbias journo said this morning, 'all those FUKip idiots (he didn't say that last word, I've added that) should wake up. UKIP are here to stay, about that there now is absolutely no doubt.
Whatsoever.'
Interesting times.
don4l said:
Meanwhine, Matthew Parris has a truly insane rant in The Times today. His strapline is "Ignore the piffle about Westminister needing to reconnect with a disaffected public. It should be the other way around."
I'm amazed that nobody in Tory high command hasn't told him to wind his neck in. Here is just a small sample of his bile:-"UKIP is not the fault of Clacton. Clacton is just the parasite's unlucky host.".
Wow. The conservatives are going to have more problems than Labour dealing with UKIP.I'm amazed that nobody in Tory high command hasn't told him to wind his neck in. Here is just a small sample of his bile:-"UKIP is not the fault of Clacton. Clacton is just the parasite's unlucky host.".
I say this because Labour has often treated its core voters in the working class as idiots. However they haven't said it because they are too politically correct to articulate it. Sometimes it slips through: John Prescott summed it up for me when he said the only reason Labour areas had rejected his plans for regional assemblies because they weren't able to understand them. Gordon Browns bigot comments were nothing compared to Blairs explanation the the EU was brilliant but not worthy of a referendum because the public would find it too complex! Generally though they keep quiet and are happy for Labour voters to keep electing them whilst they pursue a different social agenda.
The conservatives will get split by how to deal with this though. The party is massively divided. Cameron has labelled UKIP voters fruit cakes, swivel eyed and loonies... but he needs them to come back to him for the GE. Ken Clarke and Heseltine have labelled UKIP racist. Conservative activists/journos like Parris blame the voters for being misled. From top to bottom there are conservatives who are blaming everyone and everything else but themselves. Lots of my conservative friends find they don't disagree with anything UKIP does or says but are scared of voting UKIP in case Labour win. If Rochester goes to UKIP then it might start the split between those who sympathise with UKIP but are loyal Tories and those who genuinely think UKIP and it's ideas are loony.
wc98 said:
don4l said:
The highlighted bit really struck a chord with me.
The Conservative party has moved away from me - and not the other way around.
Meanwhine, Matthew Parris has a truly insane rant in The Times today. His strapline is "Ignore the piffle about Westminister needing to reconnect with a disaffected public. It should be the other way around."
I'm amazed that nobody in Tory high command hasn't told him to wind his neck in. Here is just a small sample of his bile:-"UKIP is not the fault of Clacton. Clacton is just the parasite's unlucky host."
Way to go, Matthew! You really don't have a clue how democracy works.
matthew parris has always been an ignorant wThe Conservative party has moved away from me - and not the other way around.
Meanwhine, Matthew Parris has a truly insane rant in The Times today. His strapline is "Ignore the piffle about Westminister needing to reconnect with a disaffected public. It should be the other way around."
I'm amazed that nobody in Tory high command hasn't told him to wind his neck in. Here is just a small sample of his bile:-"UKIP is not the fault of Clacton. Clacton is just the parasite's unlucky host."
Way to go, Matthew! You really don't have a clue how democracy works.
ker,however coupled with boris and few other oft commented in the msm politicians,they all currently serve a good purpose. increasing support for ukip by highlighting just how ignorant and out of touch the current bunch are king worthy of an army Provost marshal of 20 plus years experience. another self interested lowlife twisting and corrupting, turning an extremely sensible statement about controlling immigration so that it benefits Britain to some snide nonsense (my bold).
From the anythingbutIndependent, of course
'The problem with devils you know, though, is that they can be devilish - and more worrisome still, they don’t shrink from sharing their diabolical nonsense with the public in the hope of raising a roguish cheer.
This is the mentality of Nigel Farage. Challenged by Newsweek two days ago as to who he defined as kind of “quality people” he wished to encourage to come to Britain, the Ukip leader brazenly suggested: “people who do not have HIV to be frank. That’s a good start. And people with a skill.” And for his next trick? Not content with cataloguing them next to the unskilled, Farage also suggested those living with HIV were as desirable to the UK as immigrants such as “that Latvian murderer” Arnis Zalkans, prime suspect in the Alice Gross murder case.
Strong rhetorical stuff, and not a line Farage was willing to back down on when challenged by John Humphrys on the Today Programme the next day. We need controls on “the quantity and quality of those that come to this country” maintained the jester in purple, thereby dashing any hope that Douglas Carswell’s by-election landslide would be the sole Ukip headline of the day.
One wonders, at this point, how exactly Farage quantifies the worth of people both outside and inside the United Kingdom in his own mind. Are the multitude of HIV positive doctors and nurses working for the NHS not of the quality he prefers? Would Richard Barnes – the gay Tory who last month defected to Ukip – agree that his HIV positive mates are “not quality”? Does my brother, who lives with HIV and ran the London Marathon in three hours last summer, fail Farage’s quality control test?
Because, of course, this was not simply a conversation about immigration, but a codified proxy attack on the minority groups who most commonly live with HIV in the UK; that is, statistically speaking, homosexual men followed by ethnic minorities (black-African men and women). And the message from Farage was loud and clear: if we don’t consider your counterparts outside the UK as “quality”, why should we think any differently about you?'
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nigel-...
From the anythingbutIndependent, of course
'The problem with devils you know, though, is that they can be devilish - and more worrisome still, they don’t shrink from sharing their diabolical nonsense with the public in the hope of raising a roguish cheer.
This is the mentality of Nigel Farage. Challenged by Newsweek two days ago as to who he defined as kind of “quality people” he wished to encourage to come to Britain, the Ukip leader brazenly suggested: “people who do not have HIV to be frank. That’s a good start. And people with a skill.” And for his next trick? Not content with cataloguing them next to the unskilled, Farage also suggested those living with HIV were as desirable to the UK as immigrants such as “that Latvian murderer” Arnis Zalkans, prime suspect in the Alice Gross murder case.
Strong rhetorical stuff, and not a line Farage was willing to back down on when challenged by John Humphrys on the Today Programme the next day. We need controls on “the quantity and quality of those that come to this country” maintained the jester in purple, thereby dashing any hope that Douglas Carswell’s by-election landslide would be the sole Ukip headline of the day.
One wonders, at this point, how exactly Farage quantifies the worth of people both outside and inside the United Kingdom in his own mind. Are the multitude of HIV positive doctors and nurses working for the NHS not of the quality he prefers? Would Richard Barnes – the gay Tory who last month defected to Ukip – agree that his HIV positive mates are “not quality”? Does my brother, who lives with HIV and ran the London Marathon in three hours last summer, fail Farage’s quality control test?
Because, of course, this was not simply a conversation about immigration, but a codified proxy attack on the minority groups who most commonly live with HIV in the UK; that is, statistically speaking, homosexual men followed by ethnic minorities (black-African men and women). And the message from Farage was loud and clear: if we don’t consider your counterparts outside the UK as “quality”, why should we think any differently about you?'
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/nigel-...
So now we have some more information on UKIP's policies, shall we look at them?
Why not start with immigration. UKIP tell us that is the biggest issue so lets start there. Farage recognises that there are good and bad immigrants.
So I guess a good type (in Farage's eyes) might be, shall we say a German technology entrepeneur wishing to start up in Camrbridge, employing 20 people at first. Its a big investment for him as he is quitting his job in a good firm to do this but believes he can make it work. He has a young family.
Bad type might be someone from Pakistan, no skills, strongly Islamic, 50 years old, no family. Just wants to move to UK so that he can get British pension when he retires.
So how do they fare under UKIP policy?
1) Leave EU
2) 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.
So the German has no job in the UK, lost his private health insurance when he quit his job with Siemens, has no money for private education until he gets his company going. So he is out on 3 counts
The Pakistani, has some distant family in Manchester who he can quote will give him a job as a waiter, can set a compliant health insurance on-line (and the cancel it once he is pat immigration because they will never track him down), and he can use their house as an address for accommodation. But he can get in, and then retire on a nice pension and get a council house in a few years time.
The policy is naive and specious. It is easily cheated by some, and would keep other good people out. Ok so I picked 2 extreme examples (because I wanted to highlight many deficiencies), but there are plenty of "good immigrants" that would be put off, and plenty of "bad immigrants" that would get through.
And in case no-one had noticed, we need more immigrants of working age to pay for the pensions of the baby-boomers when they retire
Why not start with immigration. UKIP tell us that is the biggest issue so lets start there. Farage recognises that there are good and bad immigrants.
So I guess a good type (in Farage's eyes) might be, shall we say a German technology entrepeneur wishing to start up in Camrbridge, employing 20 people at first. Its a big investment for him as he is quitting his job in a good firm to do this but believes he can make it work. He has a young family.
Bad type might be someone from Pakistan, no skills, strongly Islamic, 50 years old, no family. Just wants to move to UK so that he can get British pension when he retires.
So how do they fare under UKIP policy?
1) Leave EU
2) 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.
So the German has no job in the UK, lost his private health insurance when he quit his job with Siemens, has no money for private education until he gets his company going. So he is out on 3 counts
The Pakistani, has some distant family in Manchester who he can quote will give him a job as a waiter, can set a compliant health insurance on-line (and the cancel it once he is pat immigration because they will never track him down), and he can use their house as an address for accommodation. But he can get in, and then retire on a nice pension and get a council house in a few years time.
The policy is naive and specious. It is easily cheated by some, and would keep other good people out. Ok so I picked 2 extreme examples (because I wanted to highlight many deficiencies), but there are plenty of "good immigrants" that would be put off, and plenty of "bad immigrants" that would get through.
And in case no-one had noticed, we need more immigrants of working age to pay for the pensions of the baby-boomers when they retire
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff