UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[Mojocvh]

Anyone found the lyrics yet??

[jogon]

JustAnotherLogin said:

y we aren't going to get very far with the "no to political correctness"

So can anyway explain this one from the UKIP policies:

UKIP]Develop shale gas to reduce energy bills and free us from dependence on foreign oil and gas - place the tax revenues into a British Sovereign Wealth Fund[/UKIP said:

What is a "British Sovereign Wealth Fund", and how does this differ from paying the money that we are already developing from shale gas into the normal treasury coffers?

i.e. in what was is this not the status quo?

It policies like these that have made Norway one of the wealthiest nations in the world, yes the natural resources have helped but so has not been shackled by a political Union costing us £55m a day and having control over one's borders.

They still manage to trade with the EU and the rest of the world pretty well.

http://qz.com/252753/norways-gargantuan-sovereign-...

Edited by jogon on Monday 20th October 13:45

[Wombat3]

JustAnotherLogin said:

So can anyway explain this one from the UKIP policies:

UKIP]Develop shale gas to reduce energy bills and free us from dependence on foreign oil and gas - place the tax revenues into a British Sovereign Wealth Fund[/UKIP said:

What is a "British Sovereign Wealth Fund", and how does this differ from paying the money that we are already developing from shale gas into the normal treasury coffers?

It would seem suspiciously like the Norwegian model....

....except that as has recently been highlighted, whilst Norway has been building up a most impressive sovereign wealth fund that everyone (especially the Scots) has/have been in awe of, it has also quietly been borrowing and building up a national debt of about equal proportions!

Sovereign wealth funds are for countries that run near perpetual economic surpluses....

[anonymous-user]

JustAnotherLogin said:

So can anyway explain this one from the UKIP policies:

UKIP said:

Develop shale gas to reduce energy bills and free us from dependence on foreign oil and gas - place the tax revenues into a British Sovereign Wealth Fund

What is a "British Sovereign Wealth Fund", and how does this differ from paying the money that we are already developing from shale gas into the normal treasury coffers?

i.e. in what was is this not the status quo?

As a non-Kipper, I'll offer my understanding of that one.

It means (a) develop UK shale gas fields such that our principal source of gas is those fields, and not imported gas; (b) put the tax revenue from UK shale gas fields in (for want of a better word) a savings account. Quite a few (debt free or low debt) nations have sovereign wealth funds.

At present, tax from energy supplies isn't segregated. It goes into the general pot of national income from which outgoings are paid.

The proposal would be that tax revenues from domestic gas fields, which would be our principal source of gas, would *not* go into that general pot. Instead they would go into a segregated pot of money labelled "wealth fund", which the nation could invest, or do nothing with, but could not spend on national outgoings.

All sounds very sensible. On paper. But there are (at least) two big questions:

- how will this benefit me?
- what is going to replace the tax revenues currently raised from energy supplies that won't be available in the future (because they will go into the wealth fund)?

[jogon]

Wombat3 said:

It would seem suspiciously like the Norwegian model....

....except that as has recently been highlighted, whilst Norway has been building up a most impressive sovereign wealth fund that everyone (especially the Scots) has/have been in awe of, it has also quietly been borrowing and building up a national debt of about equal proportions!

If you have 1trillion in a sovereign wealth fund you will find borrowing money doesn't cost you a thing.

Why spend your nest egg while credit is cheap.

[Axionknight]

Mojocvh said:

Anyone found the lyrics yet??

http://usvsth3m.com/post/100492315518/we-listened-to-all-3-minutes-50-seconds-of-the-ukip

[brenflys777]

A UKIP perspective on those comres twin polls for prompted and unprompted:

http://ukipdaily.com/comres-reveals-truth-opinion-...

Edited by brenflys777 on Monday 20th October 14:02

[JustAnotherLogin]

jogon said:

Wombat3 said:

It would seem suspiciously like the Norwegian model....

....except that as has recently been highlighted, whilst Norway has been building up a most impressive sovereign wealth fund that everyone (especially the Scots) has/have been in awe of, it has also quietly been borrowing and building up a national debt of about equal proportions!

If you have 1trillion in a sovereign wealth fund you will find borrowing money doesn't cost you a thing.

Why spend your nest egg while credit is cheap.

So why is Norway paying higher interest rates than the UK?

So you are saying it is akin to having a savings account into which money is put ostensibly for a rainy day, whilst paying a higher or same rate of interest on your mortgage than you gain on the savings.

So at best a psychological thing for politicans not to dip into when they shouldn't? That would have stopped Brown, or would stop Balls, for all of 3 nanoseconds.

So essentially just nice sounding words describing what the UK is already doing

[JustAnotherLogin]

Guam said:

No the UK do not have a sovereign wealth fund, indeed the SNP were making a big thing about establishing one post independence, there would have been no point if we already had one.

But as I have just explained, a sovereign wealth fund is just nice words. Doesn't mean very much and and gains nothing

[anonymous-user]

Any UKIP supporters want to offer an answer to these two questions, in particular the second one?

Greg66 said:

there are (at least) two big questions:

- how will this benefit me?
- what is going to replace the tax revenues currently raised from energy supplies that won't be available in the future (because they will go into the wealth fund)?

[jogon]

JustAnotherLogin said:

So why is Norway paying higher interest rates than the UK?

So you are saying it is akin to having a savings account into which money is put ostensibly for a rainy day, whilst paying a higher or same rate of interest on your mortgage than you gain on the savings.

So at best a psychological thing for politicans not to dip into when they shouldn't? That would have stopped Brown, or would stop Balls, for all of 3 nanoseconds.

So essentially just nice sounding words describing what the UK is already doing

It is invested hence the name fund and as you can see in the link I provided it has grown at a decent rate and set to be worth 1.3trillion in 2020.

Here in the UK we have no money in the bank and our currently borrowing £10bn a year just to stay a float it would be nice if the two main party leaders could offer some policies to help bring us back in to the black..

[Wombat3]

Guam said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

But as I have just explained, a sovereign wealth fund is just nice words. Doesn't mean very much and and gains nothing

Only in your view, thats like saying a deposit account is just nice words and means nothing, it means a great deal if actioned and firewalled from general expenditure needs.

The obvious point is that the value of the Norwegian fund (and this would be true of any fund accumulated by a nation that runs its economy in deficit) is nowhere near what it appears to be. If there is any value in it it is buried somewhere in the marginal difference between investment growth rates vs long term borrowing rates.

Meanwhile the political promise is "we'll all be rich" (when clearly we won't).

[HonestIago]

It has no doubt been covered before but why is it exactly that the Scots so hate UKIP? Only 10% of us voted for them in the Euro elections (enough to land us a UKIP MEP mind!) and it will no doubt be single figures in the GE.

Is it just that Scots are thick and more heavily buy into the MSM rhetoric regarding racism/xenophobia etc etc? Is is it because Nigel Farage is such an unashamed proud Englishman? Looking at UKIP's recent policy document I'm struggling to see what it is Scots, generally, have such a problem with. Independence was rejected so surely disaffection with Westminster would benefit UKIP as much as it would the SNP?

[Wombat3]

Guam said:

Wombat3 said:

The obvious point is that the value of the Norwegian fund (and this would be true of any fund accumulated by a nation that runs its economy in deficit) is nowhere what it appears to be. If there is any value in it it is buried somewhere in the marginal difference between investment growth rates vs long term borrowing rates.

Very possibly but was not the point I was addressing, managing it effectively is a separate discussion and can only be speculative as we dont currently have one (or anything resembling one).

See also point re the difference between the reality of a Sovereign wealth fund (for a country that can;t run a surplus) vs the "political promise" / inference the general population is supposed to derive from the promise of such a thing - i.e. "we'll all be rich and secure" , which isn't true....at all.

[Scuffers]

Greg66 said:

Any UKIP supporters want to offer an answer to these two questions, in particular the second one?

Greg66 said:

there are (at least) two big questions:

- how will this benefit me?
- what is going to replace the tax revenues currently raised from energy supplies that won't be available in the future (because they will go into the wealth fund)?

at a stab

1) by getting us (both individually and as a country) cheaper energy
2) why replace TAX revenue if you can cut the budget not to need it?

[2013BRM]

HonestIago said:

It has no doubt been covered before but why is it exactly that the Scots so hate UKIP? Only 10% of us voted for them in the Euro elections (enough to land us a UKIP MEP mind!) and it will no doubt be single figures in the GE.

Is it just that Scots are thick and more heavily buy into the MSM rhetoric regarding racism/xenophobia etc etc? Is is it because Nigel Farage is such an unashamed proud Englishman? Looking at UKIP's recent policy document I'm struggling to see what it is Scots, generally, have such a problem with. Independence was rejected so surely disaffection with Westminster would benefit UKIP as much as it would the SNP?

Scots are thick? nice, I should think it's because they value their European connections for trade and tourism

[mrpurple]

HonestIago said:

It has no doubt been covered before but why is it exactly that the Scots so hate UKIP? Only 10% of us voted for them in the Euro elections (enough to land us a UKIP MEP mind!) and it will no doubt be single figures in the GE.

Is it just that Scots are thick and more heavily buy into the MSM rhetoric regarding racism/xenophobia etc etc? Is is it because Nigel Farage is such an unashamed proud Englishman? Looking at UKIP's recent policy document I'm struggling to see what it is Scots, generally, have such a problem with. Independence was rejected so surely disaffection with Westminster would benefit UKIP as much as it would the SNP?

I never did get my head around being anti Westminster but pro Brussels (sometimes Strasbourg)

[Wombat3]

Guam said:

Is anyone saying that, if so source please? I haven't seen anyone say we will be rich and secure south of the wall

Perhaps you are confusing UKIP with the SNP? The point is that such a provision would be different to current fiscal structures and how effective it might prove is (as I indicated), a management issue if and when we have one.

Note use of word "inference". The implication that the UK should/could/would create a sovereign wealth fund while it still runs a deficit (which it would be in anybody's estimation) is, IMO, not a little disingenuous.

It seems very obvious to me what it is designed to make people think (bearing in mind half the population wouldn't have a flying clue about half of this stuff anyway).

[anonymous-user]

Scuffers said:

Greg66 said:

Any UKIP supporters want to offer an answer to these two questions, in particular the second one?

Greg66 said:

there are (at least) two big questions:

- how will this benefit me?
- what is going to replace the tax revenues currently raised from energy supplies that won't be available in the future (because they will go into the wealth fund)?

at a stab

1) by getting us (both individually and as a country) cheaper energy
2) why replace TAX revenue if you can cut the budget not to need it?

Ok, but if that is a pre-condition of this proposal, by how much and where are you going to cut the budget?

Remember that the UKIP is going to expand the defence budget and "save" the NHS.

The problem is that this is presented as a self contained proposal that works all by itself. But it plainly doesn't: so what and where are the other dots that one has to join up to get the complete picture?

[longblackcoat]

HonestIago said:

It has no doubt been covered before but why is it exactly that the Scots so hate UKIP? Only 10% of us voted for them in the Euro elections (enough to land us a UKIP MEP mind!) and it will no doubt be single figures in the GE.

Is it just that Scots are thick and more heavily buy into the MSM rhetoric regarding racism/xenophobia etc etc? Is is it because Nigel Farage is such an unashamed proud Englishman? Looking at UKIP's recent policy document I'm struggling to see what it is Scots, generally, have such a problem with. Independence was rejected so surely disaffection with Westminster would benefit UKIP as much as it would the SNP?

As a (half) Scot, I generally have a problem with anything Farage says. Because it simply doesn't add up. Because we're distrustful of shouty Englishmen who try to tell us that they know what's best for us, perhaps. Because we think he makes Britain look stupid with his tirades in the European Parliament, and his endless "fag and a pint" pictures. Because he talks a lot about England rather than Britain. And because we feel we've as much in common with the other European nations as we do with England.

But leaving emotions aside, I took your challenge and looked at the policy document, and was left with more questions than answers.

Here's a couple of policies pretty much randomly picked picked from the UKIP website

"UKIP will leave the Common Fisheries Policy and reinstate British territorial waters"

So how are we going to police this? This would involve huge investment in gunboats to keep foreign fishermen out - and the thing with fish is they swim where they like. Sounds great, costs loads, isn't remotely practical. And yes, I do remember the Cod Wars.

Not enough of a mainstream policy? All right. let's look at tax.

"UKIP will increase the tax-free allowance to £13,500 so that no-one on the minimum wage pays income tax, and abolish inheritance tax."

Hmm, this sounds good, doesn't it? Except that Inheritance Tax is quite good at forcing social change and ensuring that housing stock turns over on a periodic basis. Even if that's an argument you don't support, there's the small matter of the £3.3bn it raises each year that you've got to find from something else. And, of course, the £5.6bn you need to fund that tax-free limit. So that's pretty all of the pull-out-of-the-EU windfall already spent, assuming the money saved would ever actually amount to anything like the £8bn that's claimed.


Perhaps your statement should have read: "Is it just that Scots aren't thick and don't buy into the MSM rhetoric regarding immigrant/reverse racism etc etc?"

Edited by longblackcoat on Monday 20th October 14:51