UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[don4l]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Try me.

Can you explain what it is that UKIP would do in govt that is different from the current situation? No-one else on here has so far

I answered you politely on Saturday, and you called me stupid and ignorant.

That won't help you get other people to converse with you in a civilised manner, but I will try anyway.

So, why don't you tell me what I said that was stupid, and we can possibly get a polite discussion going?

To save you searching through the thread, you need pages 55/56.

[Axionknight]

2013BRM said:

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

Don't be so sure, 45% of them voted Yes last month which would have lead to their ejection from the EU.

[johnxjsc1985]

whats the difference between a "shouty" Englishman and a "shouty" Scotsman and why is ok to be a "shouty" Scot but not a "shouty" Englishman.

[longblackcoat]

johnxjsc1985 said:

why is ok to be a "shouty" Scot but not a "shouty" Englishman.

Who said it was?

[JustAnotherLogin]

Guam said:

Wombat3 said:

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).

Sorry I think you are stretching a point here, and presenting an argument that was not the original posters, as we dont have one then its impossible to quantify accurately the benefits and efficacy until we have one, one can draw broad conclusions where it does exist as a basis, but no more than that. Making stuff up to suit ones view is fine, but it cannot reflect reality that does not yet exist

Actually the original poster was me. And I think Wombat is spot on.

Furthermore, by including it in their manifesto (or what passes as such on the UKIP issues web-page), UKIP are clearly intending that the fund is still set up when we have a a deficit (and more relevantly a net debt)

[jogon]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Actually the original poster was me. And I think Wombat is spot on.

Furthermore, by including it in their manifesto (or what passes as such on the UKIP issues web-page), UKIP are clearly intending that the fund is still set up when we have a a deficit (and more relevantly a net debt)

What is Dave and Ed's views on fracking and how to invest the profits?

[Scuffers]

Greg66 said:

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?

seems to me that every-time a proposal comes up, the negative waves of "it's not a fully costed this and that"

Look, as with all party stuff, until you have the resources of the civil service to do the numbers, it's never going to be anything more than this.

[johnxjsc1985]

longblackcoat said:

Who said it was?

I happen to think Salmond is a shouty Scot who does Britain no favours at all.Wasn't it you who said he doesn't like Shouty Englishmen?.
I know he likes to play to his public image and this is a game that is serving him well and in the next Bye Election will probably re-affirm the public like him.
The problem for the others compared to Farage is that all three party leaders are utterly boring and cowardly.
People are going to vote for UKIP for Farage but a lot of people will vote for UKIP because they simply don't want DAVE ,ED or NICK and who can blame them.

[FiF]

Ok picking apart policies.

Making the NHS work better for you. - Cons

How? What do you mean by better? How are you going to measure better? More targets? What is going to be done and unless it's some earth shattering change why wasn't it done or started during the last 5 years. More reorganisation so we waste more money on pseudo private sector apeing business models. GPs on weekends, more staff and more costs. But it's Labour that are going to throw money at it, so what are you going to do differently?

Businesses able to discriminate in favour of young British Workers. - UKIP

Minefield scattered with open cans of worms all over.
Wtf just wtf. What about older workers for a start?

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Did anyone watch the Panorama programme about Farage ? I am not a UKIP voter but could not believe the bias and attempted hatchet job it was.

It was not even subtle, ineptly presented and the expose parts were pathetic, most of the transgression levelled at Farage apply to every single political party leader or politician. I am hoping in the interests of unbiased reporting that the BBC pays lip service to, a similar expose will be run on Cameron, Clegg, Milliband and the green leader. I strongly doubt it.

[JustAnotherLogin]

jogon said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Actually the original poster was me. And I think Wombat is spot on.

Furthermore, by including it in their manifesto (or what passes as such on the UKIP issues web-page), UKIP are clearly intending that the fund is still set up when we have a a deficit (and more relevantly a net debt)

What is Dave and Ed's views on fracking and how to invest the profits?

I think Ed would stop it. Dave Cs is to offset the money earned against our net debts. Which economically speaking is pretty much the same as the UKIP policy since the profit on the "savings account" will be no more than would be saved on reducing the net debt.



Scuffers, you do not need civil service help to come up with that calculation. In fact, look, I just did it

[Scuffers]

JustAnotherLogin said:

I think Ed would stop it. Dave Cs is to offset the money earned against our net debts. Which economically speaking is pretty much the same as the UKIP policy since the profit on the "savings account" will be no more than would be saved on reducing the net debt.



Scuffers, you do not need civil service help to come up with that calculation. In fact, look, I just did it

not sure I am qualified to run the countries finances off the back of fag-packet math...

[jogon]

JustAnotherLogin said:

I think Ed would stop it. Dave Cs is to offset the money earned against our net debts. Which economically speaking is pretty much the same as the UKIP policy since the profit on the "savings account" will be no more than would be saved on reducing the net debt.



Scuffers, you do not need civil service help to come up with that calculation. In fact, look, I just did it

Thanks for clarifying. So what exactly was your issue with the UKIP policy in the firsy place as by your own admission it's the same as the Tories.

[JustAnotherLogin]

don4l said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Try me.

Can you explain what it is that UKIP would do in govt that is different from the current situation? No-one else on here has so far

I answered you politely on Saturday, and you called me stupid and ignorant.

That won't help you get other people to converse with you in a civilised manner, but I will try anyway.

So, why don't you tell me what I said that was stupid, and we can possibly get a polite discussion going?

To save you searching through the thread, you need pages 55/56.

Actually I never said you were stupid or ignorant, I asked you to explain why you thought the current govt was responsible for the large deficit, so that I could assess which of those or other options were applicable.

You answered that the govt could just stop borrowing and thus cut the deficit overnight. So in that sense you are partly right, I do believe that your statement betrays a complete lack of the realities of the complexities of government expenditure and finances. It cannot just stop money being paid out and thus the need for loans. Even if the items you mention (that would only save a small part of the deficit) need legislation, negotiation etc. There are often also costs in stoping money (for example redundnacy payments where jobs are cut) that mean that the corrections can initially make the costs go up.

Whereas in fact this govt decided to save the money elsewhere and has already saved far more than your solutions.

[JustAnotherLogin]

jogon said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

I think Ed would stop it. Dave Cs is to offset the money earned against our net debts. Which economically speaking is pretty much the same as the UKIP policy since the profit on the "savings account" will be no more than would be saved on reducing the net debt.



Scuffers, you do not need civil service help to come up with that calculation. In fact, look, I just did it

Thanks for clarifying. So what exactly was your issue with the UKIP policy in the firsy place as by your own admission it's the same as the Tories.

Only that it tries to claim to be something else. Sovereign Wealth Fund sounds grand, but the truth is that the policy is just "continue developing shale gas as we are already"

[FiF]

Guam said:

I dont discriminate I have just hired a local pensioner to do his max hours as a general factotum around the business, seems to me there is a lot the older pensioner has to offer Its not just superstores helping out you see

Plus I am no longer the old fart around the business, win win all round

LoL it's nice not to be the old fart sat in the corner chuntering about "we tried that in 78 and it didn't work."

[Zod]

JustAnotherLogin said:

jogon said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

I think Ed would stop it. Dave Cs is to offset the money earned against our net debts. Which economically speaking is pretty much the same as the UKIP policy since the profit on the "savings account" will be no more than would be saved on reducing the net debt.



Scuffers, you do not need civil service help to come up with that calculation. In fact, look, I just did it

Thanks for clarifying. So what exactly was your issue with the UKIP policy in the firsy place as by your own admission it's the same as the Tories.

Only that it tries to claim to be something else. Sovereign Wealth Fund sounds grand, but the truth is that the policy is just "continue developing shale gas as we are already"

With the same issues with objecting locals that the current government has to deal with. Has UKIP thought about what it will do if it has a candidate with a reasonable chance of winning a seat, but in an area where there are strong objections to fracking?

[Mrr T]

Greg66 said:

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?

Greg you are forgetting any connection between UKIP policies and reality are only in the minds of salon bar readers of the daily mirror.

The policy of pushing ahead with shale gas development is also Tory party policy. The Tory party are looking at licensing plans and at giving money back to communities who agree to development.

The UKIP policy does not cover any of the important licensing/planning permission considerations.

Further, the whole wealth fund policy when we are heavily in debt is ridiculous.

UKIP supporters dislike spin but are quite happy accept spin from UKIP.

Edited by Mrr T on Monday 20th October 15:41

[longblackcoat]

johnxjsc1985 said:

Wasn't it you who said he doesn't like Shouty Englishmen?

Pehaps I can interest you in a trip to Specsavers? What I said was "Because we're distrustful of shouty Englishmen who try to tell us that they know what's best for us, perhaps."

Someone who's concentrated pretty much exclusively on England pops up in the referendum at the last minute, tells us what we should do, and is surprised that he's not welcome. Goodness, who'd have thought that.

johnxjsc1985 said:

I know he likes to play to his public image and this is a game that is serving him well and in the next Bye Election will probably re-affirm the public like him.
The problem for the others compared to Farage is that all three party leaders are utterly boring and cowardly.
People are going to vote for UKIP for Farage but a lot of people will vote for UKIP because they simply don't want DAVE ,ED or NICK and who can blame them.

You see, I happen to find a public-school millionaire playing to the crowd with his "ordinary working man" schtick deeply embarrassing. And I think that someone boldly promising something he will never have to deliver isn't remotely couragous.

Horses for courses - as I said, leave aside the emotion, and examine the policy.

[don4l]

JustAnotherLogin said:

don4l said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Try me.

Can you explain what it is that UKIP would do in govt that is different from the current situation? No-one else on here has so far

I answered you politely on Saturday, and you called me stupid and ignorant.

That won't help you get other people to converse with you in a civilised manner, but I will try anyway.

So, why don't you tell me what I said that was stupid, and we can possibly get a polite discussion going?

To save you searching through the thread, you need pages 55/56.

Actually I never said you were stupid or ignorant, I asked you to explain why you thought the current govt was responsible for the large deficit, so that I could assess which of those or other options were applicable.

You answered that the govt could just stop borrowing and thus cut the deficit overnight. So in that sense you are partly right, I do believe that your statement betrays a complete lack of the realities of the complexities of government expenditure and finances. It cannot just stop money being paid out and thus the need for loans. Even if the items you mention (that would only save a small part of the deficit) need legislation, negotiation etc. There are often also costs in stoping money (for example redundnacy payments where jobs are cut) that mean that the corrections can initially make the costs go up.

Whereas in fact this govt decided to save the money elsewhere and has already saved far more than your solutions.

I don't recall saying the bold bit, or anything like it. Could you point me to the page where you think that I said the above please?



What I actually said was:-

don4l said:

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.

If you would like to discuss those points, then feel free.