UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[NicD]

powerstroke said:

For me and I guess most people its quality of life issues !!
the economy, immigration and rules and regs have a massive affect???

The poll purports to speak for 'most people'

For me also quality of life is key but the poll was about 'worries', so looking ahead.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

cookie118 said:

But straight out of uni-with the same degrees would you not agree that they would be bringing the same value to their company?

So you ARE claiming that an employee in graduate recruitment would differentiate between male and female candidates, all else being equal..?!

The degree is only part of the experience they bring...

I simply don't believe that graduate recruiters differentiate by sex, not least because the salary offered will be visible to all candidates.

Well they are at the same stages in their lives and have done the same school work, sixth form work and university work. The opportunities to gain experience have been the same so they should bring the same value to their employer-right? And therefore have the same worth to their employer? The survey compares pupils studying the same subjects so it isn't a difference in that-so I'm left with the conclusion that either at some point female grads are disciminated against in terms of pay, or female grads choose lower paid jobs.

Anyway-this is a diversion, if you'd like to debate it further we can open up another discussion.

[sidicks]

cookie118 said:

Well they are at the same stages in their lives and have done the same school work, sixth form work and university work. The opportunities to gain experience have been the same so they should bring the same value to their employer-right? And therefore have the same worth to their employer? The survey compares pupils studying the same subjects so it isn't a difference in that-so I'm left with the conclusion that either at some point female grads are disciminated against in terms of pay, or female grads choose lower paid jobs.

Anyway-this is a diversion, if you'd like to debate it further we can open up another discussion.

Edited by sidicks on Monday 29th December 09:13

[JustAnotherLogin]

If we have finished that diversion, can we get back to the subjects Scuffers wanted us to talk about?

JustAnotherLogin said:

Scuffers said:

Can you not read?

http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people

Must have already been posted 50+ times so far....

Oh I have read them, have you?

Try doing a word search on that page for "Investment" - no hits
Suggestions of investment in roads? None
Railways? Stop HS2
Air travel? None
High-speed broadband? None

Economy? Some tinkering with personal allowances and tax rates (mostly following inflation) and proposal for flat rate corporation tax that hasn't been thought through so it has to be studied.

Essentially the UKIP policy for investment and the economy is "leave the EU" and debts will be magically eliminated and everyone will live happily ever after

I know this is panto season, but I would like to see more than Jack and his magic bean.

Come on Scuffers. You asked us to concentrate on official UKIP policies rather than off the cuff remarks. You also asked us to concentrate on important matters, and you specifically mentioned Investment and UK infrastructure.

So where are these UKIP policies on investment and infrastructure (apart from scrapping HS2)

And before you ask:
Tories have committed money to road-building, HS2, rolling out High-Speed broadband. As they continue beyond 2015, they obviously will form part of their manifesto.

UKIP will scrap HS2. Not a comprehensive investment strategy, is it?

[Scuffers]

Gaspode said:

Scuffers said:

I would argue that by allowing something to happen is tantamount to promoting it.

Are you serious? Tolerance is the same as encouragement? Blimey.

yes, if your policy is to tolerate something, you are effectively giving the green light for them to carry on.

please try and remember the context here...

[Scuffers]

JustAnotherLogin said:

If we have finished that diversion, can we get back to the subjects Scuffers wanted us to talk about?

JustAnotherLogin said:

Oh I have read them, have you?

Try doing a word search on that page for "Investment" - no hits
Suggestions of investment in roads? None
Railways? Stop HS2
Air travel? None
High-speed broadband? None

Economy? Some tinkering with personal allowances and tax rates (mostly following inflation) and proposal for flat rate corporation tax that hasn't been thought through so it has to be studied.

Essentially the UKIP policy for investment and the economy is "leave the EU" and debts will be magically eliminated and everyone will live happily ever after

I know this is panto season, but I would like to see more than Jack and his magic bean.

Come on Scuffers. You asked us to concentrate on official UKIP policies rather than off the cuff remarks. You also asked us to concentrate on important matters, and you specifically mentioned Investment and UK infrastructure.

So where are these UKIP policies on investment and infrastructure (apart from scrapping HS2)

And before you ask:
Tories have committed money to road-building, HS2, rolling out High-Speed broadband. As they continue beyond 2015, they obviously will form part of their manifesto.

UKIP will scrap HS2. Not a comprehensive investment strategy, is it?

so, let's go with the cheap rhetoric...

Suggestions of investment in roads? None

Nope, it's hardly a fully costed manifesto though is it?

as for the Tory pledge to invest, have we not heard all this before? and from what I remember, it's not new money.

Railways? Stop HS2

Yup, they also have talked about proper investment in upgrading current rail rather than speding all the (imaginary) money on one vanity project.

Air travel? None

Think that have suggested that Heathrow should get it's 3rd runway, but that's one of their ask the public subjects.

High-speed broadband? None

What about it? the current BDUK programme is running along, are you asking them if they want to scrap it?

[Countdown]

They've said they're going to "fully resource the military"

What does this mean?
How much will it cost?

[Scuffers]

Countdown said:

They've said they're going to "fully resource the military"

What does this mean?
How much will it cost?

well, at a wild guess, if they pull back our commitments to Iraq/Afgan/etc then we have the money to resource the military better.

that's a start, just how much has the Afghan adventure cost us? (not including the 453 lives lost and countless injured)

Some £37Bn according to reports (and the book is still not closed on this)

remind me again what the total UK defence budget is?

[Countdown]

Scuffers said:

well, at a wild guess, if they pull back our commitments to Iraq/Afgan/etc then we have the money to resource the military better.

that's a start, just how much has the Afghan adventure cost us? (not including the 453 lives lost and countless injured)

Some £37Bn according to reports (and the book is still not closed on this)

remind me again what the total UK defence budget is?

They've not said they're going to resource the military "better". They've said they're going to "fully resource " the military.

This could be 1 man in a Tony Stark- type IronMan suit or 5m troops with pointy sticks. Ate they going to increase military spending?

[NicD]

Countdown said:

They've not said they're going to resource the military "better". They've said they're going to "fully resource " the military.

This could be 1 man in a Tony Stark- type IronMan suit or 5m troops with pointy sticks. Ate they going to increase military spending?

the answer is 'yes'

go and annoy someone else.

UKIP is not going to be elected to run the country this time around.

All that is needed at this early stage is guidance as to policies.

They have given them.

If you don't like them , go for one of the other poxy parties

just stop banging on.

[Scuffers]

Countdown said:

They've not said they're going to resource the military "better". They've said they're going to "fully resource " the military.

This could be 1 man in a Tony Stark- type IronMan suit or 5m troops with pointy sticks. Ate they going to increase military spending?

yes, Farage is on record saying they would increase the budgets

[Countdown]

Scuffers said:

yes, Farage is on record saying they would increase the budgets

So hrs going to reduce taxes and increase defence spending. Has he said how he's going to pay for it?

[Countdown]

NicD said:

the answer is 'yes'

go and annoy someone else.

UKIP is not going to be elected to run the country this time around.

All that is needed at this early stage is guidance as to policies.

They have given them.

If you don't like them , go for one of the other poxy parties

just stop banging on.

It sounds like you're saying "Yes our policies are vague but don't ask any questions. We're not going to get elected so its irrelevant"

Out of interest was the WHOLE of the 2010 manifesto dismissed as drivel by Nigel ? Or just parts of it?

[sidicks]

Countdown said:

So hrs going to reduce taxes and increase defence spending. Has he said how he's going to pay for it?

Have any parties issued a fully costed manifesto?

[Scuffers]

Countdown said:

Scuffers said:

yes, Farage is on record saying they would increase the budgets

So hrs going to reduce taxes and increase defence spending. Has he said how he's going to pay for it?

you are so f**king predictable, it's just pathetic.

Like has been said countless times, they have not put up a fully costed manifesto yet (and being realistic, it would be almost impossible to do so at this time without it being full of holes without direct access to the treasury)

But just for you, you obviously think that our involvement in Iraq and Afghan are free?

[RYH64E]

Let's face it, UKIP have one main policy and a load of padding to try to look respectable.

The economy? Leave the EU and everything will be fine, trust us.

Education? Leave the EU and everything will be fine, trust us.

Defence? Leave the EU and...

The clue's in the name.

[Countdown]

Scuffers said:

you are so f**king predictable, it's just pathetic.

I'm not sure why you're getting so upset?

Scuffers said:

Like has been said countless times, they have not put up a fully costed manifesto yet (and being realistic, it would be almost impossible to do so at this time without it being full of holes without direct access to the treasury)

it doesn't need to be fully costed but it does need to make a modicum of sense. It's like Labour saying they're going to pay for absolutely everything by taxing mansions and bankers bonuses. It's so blatantly bonkers that it makes you worry about their general competence.

Scuffers said:

But just for you, you obviously think that our involvement in Iraq and Afghan are free?

Just for me? I feel honoured

In answer to your question -No, I don't think they were free. There will have been fixed costs and variable costs. However, unless Iraq and Afghanistan are the last two conflicts the UK is going to take part in, I doubt that the savings will be permanent and significant.

[NicD]

RYH64E said:

Let's face it, UKIP have one main policy and a load of padding to try to look respectable.

The economy? Leave the EU and everything will be fine, trust us.

Education? Leave the EU and everything will be fine, trust us.

Defence? Leave the EU and...

The clue's in the name.

such a brilliant analysis!
you have convinced me

[Countdown]

sidicks said:

Countdown said:

So hrs going to reduce taxes and increase defence spending. Has he said how he's going to pay for it?

Have any parties issued a fully costed manifesto?

I doubt it. But when politicians make stupid statements ( and their supporters are gullible enough to believe them) I think it's only fair that the stupidity should be exposed. I refer you to Labours policy on paying for everything by taxing 23 people living in West London. It's bonkers.

[Scuffers]

No point in arguing with blinkered idiots that can't read.