UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[zygalski]

Did he black himself up too, for the video?
Finger on the cultural pulse. Top Kipper

[Timsta]

zygalski said:

Did he black himself up too, for the video?
Finger on the cultural pulse. Top Kipper

Almost as bad as UB40. They did the same thing. But then you are just trolling.

Edited by Timsta on Tuesday 21st October 08:03

[FiF]

So who was it on here who was so dismissive when Greens were mentioned the other day?

Greens now ahead of LibDems in poll

CON 28
LAB 31
LIBDEM 7
UKIP 18
GREEN 8

[JustAnotherLogin]

wc98 said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

We've just been through that. The council does not have the power to cut the number of councillors. That is the responsibility of the local government boundary commission.

So it was just a UKIP councillor trying to make some cheap political capital out of an illegal motion

no,we have not. you put forth your interpretation as the be all and end all. how about he was proposing a motion to the council,which if passed ,could then be submitted to the local boundary commission for implementation in a lawful and correct manner. i prefer that version.

Actually I did not put it forward as the be all andend all. But never. You may prefer your version, but that is not what he actually did as far as I can tell from the video. Nor would it have made any difference as the LGBC have rules that they are legally bound to follow on the number of councillors.

[don4l]

Wombat3 said:

don4l said:

Wombat3 said:

You clearly think it was possible, so which budgets would you have cut to a total of £130Bn inside one year?

(see http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/... )

Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 18:20

ETA - Link fixed

Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 19:15

That's a Guardian link. (Aren't you supposed to be pretending to be a Conservative?)

I don't click on Guardian links. Listening to the Today programme on R4 gives me my maximum daily dose of leftyness.

However I think that you want to talk about Government spending.

So, here are some facts. Apologies for all the dots. I don't know how to keep things lined up without them.

...........2007.....2013...%increase

Total(Bn)..£549.....£673...22.5%

Pensions....£94.....£139...50%
Health......£94.7...£124...31%
Education...£73......£87...19%
Defence.....£36.6....£42...15%
Welfare.....£83.5...£114...37%

Overall spending has gone up by 22.5% in a period when inflation has only been 19%.

I don't think that anybody was starving in 2008. In fact life was pretty good. So, if we go back to the standard of life that we had before the crash, we save £19.2 Bn at a stroke.

Health care only was only £66Bn in 2003. We could probably save another £15Bn there without any loss of service.

We have now saved £34Bn.

I don't understand why pensions have gone up so much. Perhaps the government are feeling guilty about the extra 30,000 death that occurred last winter, due to the fact that they couldn't afford to heat their homes.

We could save another £19Bn if we went back to the 2007 levels of welfare benefits. Nobody starved in 2007. Why do they need more?

That is £53Bn of savings.

Do I really need to go on?

That's very, VERY special.

It doesn't matter who published the figures, they are just the figures.

You are seriously suggesting that government should have just ignored Inflation on pensions, education & health to name but three?

"Go back to the standard of life in 2007/8?" What on earth does that mean?

"We could "probably" save another £15Bn out of the NHS?" Oh good, where from exactly? Probably doesn't really cut it I'm afraid.

....and how does any of that square with an ageing population

I've seen some creative accounting in my time but please, do go on, you've still got another £77Bn to find....

You have exposed yourself as a troll. Only a leftie could try to justify an increase in spending when income is dropping.

Stop pretending to be a Conservative supporter.

Goodbye.

[longblackcoat]

don4l said:

You have exposed yourself as a troll. Only a leftie could try to justify an increase in spending when income is dropping.

Stop pretending to be a Conservative supporter.

Goodbye.

How has he "exposed himself as a troll"?

He's asking you how you could cut a huge amount of expenditure, and you've given some typically UKIP answers - we could 'probably' save money in the NHS is a great one - whilst concentrating on foreign aid. He's given you an answer on that, albeit one you didn't like.

Why not answer the question, rather than being insulting?

[JustAnotherLogin]

don4l said:

You have exposed yourself as a troll. Only a leftie could try to justify an increase in spending when income is dropping.

Stop pretending to be a Conservative supporter.

Goodbye.

I think you are exposing more.

WHy have pensions gone up so much in that time? Population peaks getting to pensionable age (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Uni...

WHy has health gone up so much in that time - partly the same, but more because of increases by Labour govt> Since tories came to power it has stabilised. See
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_2...

Why has welfare spending gone up so much in that period? Purely down to Labour. Since 2010 election it has been going down.

See
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_2...

[brenflys777]

FiF said:

So who was it on here who was so dismissive when Greens were mentioned the other day?

Greens now ahead of LibDems in poll

CON 28
LAB 31
LIBDEM 7
UKIP 18
GREEN 8

I think the Green Party will do rather well, they certainly deserve a place in any debates IMO. I know plenty of Lab/Con voters who'd pick UKIP as second choice, there are relatively few lib Dems I've met who fit with UKIP/con or Lab. The greens seems a more consistent choice with the pre election Lib Dems than the other parties. They both completely buy into the Climate Change beliefs and they both place idealism above pragmatism.

One thing I would welcome about this extra attention on the Greens is the fact it would draw attention to their more extreme positions, UKIP are prepared to argue out of conviction against the consensus and so are the Greens at the opposite end of the spectrum. I think it would highlight the weakness of the cons/lab/Libs. Take Wombats all things to all people conservatism, in favour of austerity and cuts but spending vast amounts extra to try and extend foreign aid, and invest in inefficient power to keep the greens on board.

UKIP and the Green Party might make the debates a bit more honest.

[Wombat3]

longblackcoat said:

don4l said:

You have exposed yourself as a troll. Only a leftie could try to justify an increase in spending when income is dropping.

Stop pretending to be a Conservative supporter.

Goodbye.

How has he "exposed himself as a troll"?

He's asking you how you could cut a huge amount of expenditure, and you've given some typically UKIP answers - we could 'probably' save money in the NHS is a great one - whilst concentrating on foreign aid. He's given you an answer on that, albeit one you didn't like.

Why not answer the question, rather than being insulting?

Because the claims were ridiculous & outlandish & he can't.

[Disastrous]

I'm wary of posting this as PH seems very sensitively pro-UKIP but did anyone watch Winston McKenzie on Newsnight last night?

Utterly bizarre.

My question is really just "why does UKIP allow itself to be represented by mutters like that?" He's actually pretty thick as well as being mad and it surely harms the party.

I don't support UKIP but I do feel that if they want to be taken seriously, they surely need to drop the lunatics and raise their game a bit. Interested in whether the more fervent supporters here feel the same and cringe a bit when they see last night, or whether they think he's a good representative?

Full story for those who didn't see it, albeit biased against them:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/21/ukip-wi...

[Zod]

don4l said:

Wombat3 said:

don4l said:

Wombat3 said:

You clearly think it was possible, so which budgets would you have cut to a total of £130Bn inside one year?

(see http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/... )

Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 18:20

ETA - Link fixed

Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 19:15

That's a Guardian link. (Aren't you supposed to be pretending to be a Conservative?)

I don't click on Guardian links. Listening to the Today programme on R4 gives me my maximum daily dose of leftyness.

However I think that you want to talk about Government spending.

So, here are some facts. Apologies for all the dots. I don't know how to keep things lined up without them.

...........2007.....2013...%increase

Total(Bn)..£549.....£673...22.5%

Pensions....£94.....£139...50%
Health......£94.7...£124...31%
Education...£73......£87...19%
Defence.....£36.6....£42...15%
Welfare.....£83.5...£114...37%

Overall spending has gone up by 22.5% in a period when inflation has only been 19%.

I don't think that anybody was starving in 2008. In fact life was pretty good. So, if we go back to the standard of life that we had before the crash, we save £19.2 Bn at a stroke.

Health care only was only £66Bn in 2003. We could probably save another £15Bn there without any loss of service.

We have now saved £34Bn.

I don't understand why pensions have gone up so much. Perhaps the government are feeling guilty about the extra 30,000 death that occurred last winter, due to the fact that they couldn't afford to heat their homes.

We could save another £19Bn if we went back to the 2007 levels of welfare benefits. Nobody starved in 2007. Why do they need more?

That is £53Bn of savings.

Do I really need to go on?

That's very, VERY special.

It doesn't matter who published the figures, they are just the figures.

You are seriously suggesting that government should have just ignored Inflation on pensions, education & health to name but three?

"Go back to the standard of life in 2007/8?" What on earth does that mean?

"We could "probably" save another £15Bn out of the NHS?" Oh good, where from exactly? Probably doesn't really cut it I'm afraid.

....and how does any of that square with an ageing population

I've seen some creative accounting in my time but please, do go on, you've still got another £77Bn to find....

You have exposed yourself as a troll. Only a leftie could try to justify an increase in spending when income is dropping.

Stop pretending to be a Conservative supporter.

Goodbye.

It's funny, but the UKIP supporters keep complaining about the tone adopted by UKIP sceptics while posting this kind of thing.

Now to get back to the point; I just took another look at that wonderful page on the UKIP site, Policies for People, and found this:

UKIP said:

The National Health Service

– UKIP will ensure the NHS is free at the point of delivery and time of need for all UK residents.

– We will stop further use of PFI in the NHS and encourage local authorities to buy out their PFI contracts early where this is affordable.

– We will ensure that GPs’ surgeries are open at least one evening per week, where there is demand for it.

– UKIP opposes plans to charge patients for visiting their GP.

–We will ensure that visitors to the UK, and migrants until they have paid NI for five years, have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK, saving the NHS £2bn pa. UKIP will commit to spending £200m of the £2bn saving to end hospital car parking charges in England.

– We will replace Monitor and the Care Quality Commission with elected county health boards to be more responsive scrutineers of local health services. These will be able to inspect health services and take evidence from whistle-blowers.

– UKIP opposes the sale of NHS data to third parties.

– We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession.

– UKIP will amend working time rules to give trainee doctors, surgeons and medics the proper environment to train and practise.

– There will be a duty on all health service staff to report low standards of care.

What I don't see there is a statement that UKIP could do all this while cutting £15 billion of NHS spending.

I am continually exasperated by Labour spin about the Conservatives seeking to destroy the NHS when the spending increases posted above speak for themselves. I am no expert in the NHS, but suspect that there is an awful lot of waste inherent in its monolithic structure that, if addressed, could allow cuts in spending, but that is not in UKIP's proposals. Instead we see a party making sweeping promises about the NHS while its supporters suggest the NHS budget should be cut.

[FiF]

Whilst Zoddikins complains about the details in the UKIP bit on the NHS, which I too wonder about, and how they will achieve it, plus he speculates that there is huge waste in the NHS, which is indeed the case, yet none of the past Governments have managed to do much about it, except probably making it worse with endless reorganisations and restructuring, we see on the other hand:-

Conservatives:
NHS and GPs
Making the NHS work better for you, including GPs available at weekends.

and?

Love the details.

[Esseesse]

Disastrous said:

I'm wary of posting this as PH seems very sensitively pro-UKIP but did anyone watch Winston McKenzie on Newsnight last night?

Utterly bizarre.

My question is really just "why does UKIP allow itself to be represented by mutters like that?" He's actually pretty thick as well as being mad and it surely harms the party.

I don't support UKIP but I do feel that if they want to be taken seriously, they surely need to drop the lunatics and raise their game a bit. Interested in whether the more fervent supporters here feel the same and cringe a bit when they see last night, or whether they think he's a good representative?

Full story for those who didn't see it, albeit biased against them:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/21/ukip-wi...

I'm pro-UKIP, I didn't see Winston McKenzie on Newsnight but I can imagine. He seems like a likely liability...

[Zod]

FiF said:

Whilst Zoddikins complains about the details in the UKIP bit on the NHS, which I too wonder about, and how they will achieve it, plus he speculates that there is huge waste in the NHS, which is indeed the case, yet none of the past Governments have managed to do much about it, except probably making it worse with endless reorganisations and restructuring, we see on the other hand:-

Conservatives:
NHS and GPs
Making the NHS work better for you, including GPs available at weekends.

and?

Love the details.

Zoddikins. Well done.

The Conservatives are not saying that the NHS budget should be cut. They should be saying it, but if they do it plays into Labour's hands. Therefore there is no issue with their saying GPs should be available at weekends.

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

I'm wary of posting this as PH seems very sensitively pro-UKIP but did anyone watch Winston McKenzie on Newsnight last night?

Utterly bizarre.

My question is really just "why does UKIP allow itself to be represented by mutters like that?" He's actually pretty thick as well as being mad and it surely harms the party.

I don't support UKIP but I do feel that if they want to be taken seriously, they surely need to drop the lunatics and raise their game a bit. Interested in whether the more fervent supporters here feel the same and cringe a bit when they see last night, or whether they think he's a good representative?

Full story for those who didn't see it, albeit biased against them:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/21/ukip-wi...

Holy Christ on a bike.

He's UKIP's Commonwealth spokesman, is he? Trusted and put forward by UKIP to represent it on serious national news programme.

If ever one needed proof that the depth of talent in UKIP is nil, and that its leaders have zero judgment, you've got it, right there.

[Randy Winkman]

Disastrous said:

I'm wary of posting this as PH seems very sensitively pro-UKIP but did anyone watch Winston McKenzie on Newsnight last night?

Utterly bizarre.

My question is really just "why does UKIP allow itself to be represented by mutters like that?" He's actually pretty thick as well as being mad and it surely harms the party.

I don't support UKIP but I do feel that if they want to be taken seriously, they surely need to drop the lunatics and raise their game a bit. Interested in whether the more fervent supporters here feel the same and cringe a bit when they see last night, or whether they think he's a good representative?

Full story for those who didn't see it, albeit biased against them:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/21/ukip-wi...

I think Nihal is right - it just adds to the idea that UKIP is racist. Can they really not see that?

[FiF]

Zod said:

Zoddikins. Well done.

The Conservatives are not saying that the NHS budget should be cut. They should be saying it, but if they do it plays into Labour's hands. Therefore there is no issue with their saying GPs should be available at weekends.

Term of affection, dear heart.

Conservatives aren't saying anything much really, which was the point. Exposing potential hypocrisy.

On the one hand people accuse UKIP of soundbites, yet ignore worse soundbites from other parties.

[handpaper]

Edit - reply to Zod, "why UKIP doesn't put NHS budget cuts in its policies"

Perhaps because the NHS is such a sacred cow that any suggestion that its budget might be constrained, let alone cut, provokes a ststorm of outrage not only from the Left but also from those nominally on the Right who are terrified of being labelled 'uncaring'.

Edited by handpaper on Tuesday 21st October 10:53

[FiF]

Randy Winkman said:

Disastrous said:

I'm wary of posting this as PH seems very sensitively pro-UKIP but did anyone watch Winston McKenzie on Newsnight last night?

Utterly bizarre.

My question is really just "why does UKIP allow itself to be represented by mutters like that?" He's actually pretty thick as well as being mad and it surely harms the party.

I don't support UKIP but I do feel that if they want to be taken seriously, they surely need to drop the lunatics and raise their game a bit. Interested in whether the more fervent supporters here feel the same and cringe a bit when they see last night, or whether they think he's a good representative?

Full story for those who didn't see it, albeit biased against them:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/21/ukip-wi...

I think Nihal is right - it just adds to the idea that UKIP is racist. Can they really not see that?

Agreed it's more stupid than a very stupid thing. It's more stupid than some of the recent Matthew Parris stuff frankly.

Very unimpressed.

[Zod]

FiF said:

Zod said:

Zoddikins. Well done.

The Conservatives are not saying that the NHS budget should be cut. They should be saying it, but if they do it plays into Labour's hands. Therefore there is no issue with their saying GPs should be available at weekends.

Term of affection, dear heart.

Conservatives aren't saying anything much really, which was the point. Exposing potential hypocrisy.

On the one hand people accuse UKIP of soundbites, yet ignore worse soundbites from other parties.

It's not about soundbites, but about the fundamental incompatibility between all the things UKIP says. I suspect it will just get worse as UKIP continues to woo disaffected Northern Labour supporters at the same time as it continues to play to disaffected conservative supporters.