UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
Wombat3 said:
OK smart guy, which hat are you pulling the £100Bn rabbit out of then? 
Public Pensions £150 billion
National Health Care + £133 billion
State Education + £90 billion
Defence + £46 billion
Social Security + £110 billion
State Protection + £30 billion
Transport + £20 billion
General Government + £14 billion
Other Public Services + £86 billion
Public Sector Interest + £52 billion
Total Spending = £731 billion
No overseas aid figure?Public Pensions £150 billion
National Health Care + £133 billion
State Education + £90 billion
Defence + £46 billion
Social Security + £110 billion
State Protection + £30 billion
Transport + £20 billion
General Government + £14 billion
Other Public Services + £86 billion
Public Sector Interest + £52 billion
Total Spending = £731 billion
No EU contributions figure?
Try harder.
brenflys777 said:
I don't think UKIP would have had the breadth of ability or the right support to do a better job in 2010. I think had the current government done nothing/Labour won or the cons been outright winners it would have made little difference overall. I am substantially worse off under the current govt than labour but that's because Cameron changed the universal child benefit rules after his pre election promise.
Whilst 2010 UKIP probably wouldn't have been up to the job, I do think that they would have had the commonsense to cut foreign aid when making cuts to things like the police and defense budgets! Cameron's brand of conservative and ring fencing foreign aid so that it exceeds the policing budget is just obscene. IMO.
And Cleggy gave way on tuition fees - but then there was "no money left". Benefit changes have been made in lots of areas. Whilst 2010 UKIP probably wouldn't have been up to the job, I do think that they would have had the commonsense to cut foreign aid when making cuts to things like the police and defense budgets! Cameron's brand of conservative and ring fencing foreign aid so that it exceeds the policing budget is just obscene. IMO.
Is crime running out of control? I hadn't noticed much, if any, difference. The inference you make is that we get nothing from foreign aid. While I'm not comfortable with all of it, I can also see that (a) as a first world country we should be engaging in delivering it and (b) clearly its an economic instrument that is also used to benefit us as well (if and where it is correctly targeted).
brenflys777 said:
I am substantially worse off under the current govt than labour but that's because Cameron changed the universal child benefit rules after his pre election promise.
Whereas the UKIP 2010 election promise was to abolish child benefit completely, was it not?So, had there been a UKIP government elected in 2010, would you have been moaning about the fact they'd screwed you over, or cheerleading about that UKIP said they would screw you over, and by God they kept their promise, bless 'em?
Scuffers said:
Wombat3 said:
OK smart guy, which hat are you pulling the £100Bn rabbit out of then?
Public Pensions £150 billion
National Health Care + £133 billion
State Education + £90 billion
Defence + £46 billion
Social Security + £110 billion
State Protection + £30 billion
Transport + £20 billion
General Government + £14 billion
Other Public Services + £86 billion
Public Sector Interest + £52 billion
Total Spending = £731 billion
No overseas aid figure?Public Pensions £150 billion
National Health Care + £133 billion
State Education + £90 billion
Defence + £46 billion
Social Security + £110 billion
State Protection + £30 billion
Transport + £20 billion
General Government + £14 billion
Other Public Services + £86 billion
Public Sector Interest + £52 billion
Total Spending = £731 billion
No EU contributions figure?
Try harder.
Edited by Wombat3 on Saturday 18th October 22:27
Wombat3 said:
brenflys777 said:
I don't think UKIP would have had the breadth of ability or the right support to do a better job in 2010. I think had the current government done nothing/Labour won or the cons been outright winners it would have made little difference overall. I am substantially worse off under the current govt than labour but that's because Cameron changed the universal child benefit rules after his pre election promise.
Whilst 2010 UKIP probably wouldn't have been up to the job, I do think that they would have had the commonsense to cut foreign aid when making cuts to things like the police and defense budgets! Cameron's brand of conservative and ring fencing foreign aid so that it exceeds the policing budget is just obscene. IMO.
And Cleggy gave way on tuition fees - but then there was "no money left". Benefit changes have been made in lots of areas. Whilst 2010 UKIP probably wouldn't have been up to the job, I do think that they would have had the commonsense to cut foreign aid when making cuts to things like the police and defense budgets! Cameron's brand of conservative and ring fencing foreign aid so that it exceeds the policing budget is just obscene. IMO.
Is crime running out of control? I hadn't noticed much, if any, difference. The inference you make is that we get nothing from foreign aid. While I'm not comfortable with all of it, I can also see that (a) as a first world country we should be engaging in delivering it and (b) clearly its an economic instrument that is also used to benefit us as well (if and where it is correctly targeted).
Do you really believe we should ring fence foreign aid spending whilst making cuts elsewhere?
BGARK said:
Wombat3 said:
BGARK said:
Wombat3 said:
I'm self employed, for the last 10 years. I make my own way (and I pay plenty of tax).
What area, plumber, decorator, window cleaner?why do you want to know?
Regarding work, it's rare, very rare for them. That's why they need to be kept on a short leash.
Here's one I spotted earlier.
brenflys777 said:
Wombat3 said:
brenflys777 said:
I don't think UKIP would have had the breadth of ability or the right support to do a better job in 2010. I think had the current government done nothing/Labour won or the cons been outright winners it would have made little difference overall. I am substantially worse off under the current govt than labour but that's because Cameron changed the universal child benefit rules after his pre election promise.
Whilst 2010 UKIP probably wouldn't have been up to the job, I do think that they would have had the commonsense to cut foreign aid when making cuts to things like the police and defense budgets! Cameron's brand of conservative and ring fencing foreign aid so that it exceeds the policing budget is just obscene. IMO.
And Cleggy gave way on tuition fees - but then there was "no money left". Benefit changes have been made in lots of areas. Whilst 2010 UKIP probably wouldn't have been up to the job, I do think that they would have had the commonsense to cut foreign aid when making cuts to things like the police and defense budgets! Cameron's brand of conservative and ring fencing foreign aid so that it exceeds the policing budget is just obscene. IMO.
Is crime running out of control? I hadn't noticed much, if any, difference. The inference you make is that we get nothing from foreign aid. While I'm not comfortable with all of it, I can also see that (a) as a first world country we should be engaging in delivering it and (b) clearly its an economic instrument that is also used to benefit us as well (if and where it is correctly targeted).
Do you really believe we should ring fence foreign aid spending whilst making cuts elsewhere?
Lets suppose we cut the foreign aid budget in half. The reality is its going to make sod all difference here because its such a small percentage of overall spending.
eharding said:
brenflys777 said:
I am substantially worse off under the current govt than labour but that's because Cameron changed the universal child benefit rules after his pre election promise.
Whereas the UKIP 2010 election promise was to abolish child benefit completely, was it not?So, had there been a UKIP government elected in 2010, would you have been moaning about the fact they'd screwed you over, or cheerleading about that UKIP said they would screw you over, and by God they kept their promise, bless 'em?
The point you make about a UKIP govt is fair enough. Would I have been happy to lose it - no. Could I have said they broke their promise - no!
It doesn't matter though, the manifestos, promises are just a guide to the direction the parties will take. UKIP is an unknown quantity. The others have records. The conservatives have failed to address boundary issues but shown the weakness of compromise, the poll Steve linked to earlier has UKIP within 5% of cons in a poll where UKIP are given as a prompted option. UKIP have changed from 2010, the public mood has changed from 2010, but the conservatives are like a poor general fighting the last war. Times are changing.
Edited by brenflys777 on Saturday 18th October 22:46
Wombat3 said:
It depends what we get out of it. Overall its relatively small change and, for example, at the moment I'm quite happy that we are actively spending money on trying to keep Ebola at bay.
Lets suppose we cut the foreign aid budget in half. The reality is its going to make sod all difference here because its such a small percentage of overall spending.
Relatively small change! The foreign aid budget under Cameron will exceed the policing budget! There was a time when the conservatives would have never spent borrowed money on feel good idealism over getting tough on crime. Crime now pays - especially if you run a bogus charity in the third world! Lets suppose we cut the foreign aid budget in half. The reality is its going to make sod all difference here because its such a small percentage of overall spending.
JustAnotherLogin said:
don4l said:
More debt that our children will have to pay off
Do you understand that the Tories inherited a huge deficit?[/b]
I may come across as a bit thick, but yes, I do understand that there was a huge deficit the year before the Tories took power.
That doesn't mean that there had to be one during the Tories first year in power, does it?
I take issue with the phrase "inherited a huge deficit". Think about it. You either carry on borrowing, or you don't. There is no such thing as "inheriting a huge deficit".
JustAnotherLogin said:
Do you understand that no-one, not even High Wizard Farage, can wave a wand and stop the country hemorrhaging money overnight?
We can stop spending £18Bn a year on the utterly useless Climate Change act.
We could easily scale back the £12Bn Foreign Aid budget to the £4Bn that Labour had before the lunatic Cameron took office. This would save £8Bn a year. I don't know how much we would save if we leave the EU, but I do know that the business that I run would save 5% of its running costs.
JustAnotherLogin said:
I just want to know so that I can tell whether your comment was through ignorance, stupidity, political zealotry or just plain contrariness, and thus how to respond.
And could anyone please explain what UKIP mean in their manifesto by "No to Political Correctness - it stifles free speech." Give me some examples of things banned now that they would allow.
And could anyone please explain what UKIP mean in their manifesto by "No to Political Correctness - it stifles free speech." Give me some examples of things banned now that they would allow.
Edited by don4l on Saturday 18th October 22:50
Edited by don4l on Monday 20th October 14:48
don4l said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
don4l said:
More debt that our children will have to pay off
Do you understand that the Tories inherited a huge deficit?[/b]
I may come across as a bit thick, but yes, I do understand that there was a huge deficit the year before the Tories took power.
That doesn't mean that there had to be one during the Tories first year in power, does it?
I take issue with the phrase "inherited a huge deficit". Think about it. You either carry on borrowing, or you don't. There is no such thing as "inheriting a huge deficit".
JustAnotherLogin said:
Do you understand that no-one, not even High Wizard Farage, can wave a wand and stop the country hemorrhaging money overnight?
No, I do not understand that at all.We can stop spending £18Bn a year on the utterly useless Climate Change act.
We could easily scale back the £12Bn Foreign Aid budget to the £4Bn that Labour had before the lunatic Cameron took office. This would save £8Bn a year. I don't know how much we would save if we leave the EU, but I do know that the business that I run would save 5% of its running costs.
I just want to know so that I can tell whether your comment was through ignorance, stupidity, political zealotry or just plain contrariness, and thus how to respond.
And could anyone please explain what UKIP mean in their manifesto by "No to Political Correctness - it stifles free speech." Give me some examples of things banned now that they would allow.
dandarez said:
BGARK said:
Wombat3 said:
BGARK said:
Wombat3 said:
I'm self employed, for the last 10 years. I make my own way (and I pay plenty of tax).
What area, plumber, decorator, window cleaner?why do you want to know?
Regarding work, it's rare, very rare for them. That's why they need to be kept on a short leash.
Here's one I spotted earlier.
BGARK said:
For me trying to understand someone else's view point is important, and what they do in the real work should give some clue as to why their opinion is directed in a certain way. By not answering the question it makes you wonder why, or what credibility that person can give to any argument. Am I wrong?
Well, come on then, Donald BGARK Trump - spill the beans. You're so keen for clarity, lead by example.....BGARK said:
eharding said:
Well, come on then, Donald BGARK Trump - spill the beans. You're so keen for clarity, lead by example.....
And if I was Donald Trump, would you then tell me the truth.Let me guess, you and wombat are gay porn stars?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff