UKIP - The Future - Volume 3

[Mojocvh]

Zod said:

Mojocvh said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

What I want for renegotiation and what we might get are different things.

As I have said before, if new immigrants cannot claim benefits for 5 years then I could live with that. That is I believe achievable.

So you DO NOT support limiting immigration to those who could prove to be of use to the country then?

Are you of use to the country? There are plenty of self-made entrepreneur inmigrants who would never have passed such a test.

I think jali doesn't need you to comment for him so butt out, cmd's lovechild.

[Mrr T]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Mrr T said:

As with so many easy answers the questions are much more complex.

50% of our immigration comes from outside the EU most via asylum or family visas. Would you give them no benefits?

How about child benefit. This is paid to the mother. So British male marries non British woman and they have children, Both work but you would not pay any child benefit? How about British woman marries and has a child with a non British man? So now you would pay child benefit?

Oh I agree that I gave a broad brush stroke answer, but its in as much detail as, say, a UKIP policy statement

But in short:
I would not (to both)
I would pay in both cases (the child is British after all)

Glad we agree its very, very complex. That's why IDS has been struggling to produce an integrated system.

I see your answer but;

1) Would you let them starve?
2) How about if the child was born outside the UK and held the passport of the foreign parent?

[TKF]

s2art said:

TKF said:

UKIP's policy is EU/immigration. They are entirely a one policy party. Everything else is just populist padding.

Surely nobody is naive to believe otherwise?

You think? Take a look at their energy policy.

Their energy policy which blames everything on the EU?

[JustAnotherLogin]

TKF said:

Their energy policy which blames everything on the EU?

Well they do add thousands to our bills.

Look at #19 of the reasons to vote UKIP
19. Ending the burdensome “green levies” that have added £000s to our energy bills

So it must be true. Just think, without the green levies the average domestic fuel bill would only be about 5p a year.

[Zod]

Mojocvh said:

Zod said:

Mojocvh said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

What I want for renegotiation and what we might get are different things.

As I have said before, if new immigrants cannot claim benefits for 5 years then I could live with that. That is I believe achievable.

So you DO NOT support limiting immigration to those who could prove to be of use to the country then?

Are you of use to the country? There are plenty of self-made entrepreneur inmigrants who would never have passed such a test.

I think jali doesn't need you to comment for him so butt out, cmd's lovechild.

I'm not commenting for him, but asking you whether you are any use to the country. Being offensive doesn't impress.

[allergictocheese]

Zod said:

I'm not commenting for him, but asking you whether you are any use to the country. Being offensive doesn't impress.

Well, unless you're trying to become a UKIP candidate. Then it appears to be a trait in the job description's 'Essential' column.

[s2art]

TKF said:

s2art said:

TKF said:

UKIP's policy is EU/immigration. They are entirely a one policy party. Everything else is just populist padding.

Surely nobody is naive to believe otherwise?

You think? Take a look at their energy policy.

Their energy policy which blames everything on the EU?

Dont care who is to blame. The current policies of the mainstream parties are insane, UKIP is sane on this issue.

[MGJohn]

Mrr T said:

MGJohn said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Mojocvh said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

What I want for renegotiation and what we might get are different things.

As I have said before, if new immigrants cannot claim benefits for 5 years then I could live with that. That is I believe achievable.

So you DO NOT support limiting immigration to those who could prove to be of use to the country then?

As I said, i want new immigrants stopped from receiving benefits for 5 years.
As for who gets the jobs, I trust private industry to decide "who is of use" far more effectively than I would central government

Is the RIGHT answer! ...

There's none so blind who will not listen.

As with so many easy answers the questions are much more complex.

50% of our immigration comes from outside the EU most via asylum or family visas. Would you give them no benefits?

How about child benefit. This is paid to the mother. So British male marries non British woman and they have children, Both work but you would not pay any child benefit? How about British woman marries and has a child with a non British man? So now you would pay child benefit?

[MGJohn]

Mrr T said:

MGJohn said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

Mojocvh said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

What I want for renegotiation and what we might get are different things.

As I have said before, if new immigrants cannot claim benefits for 5 years then I could live with that. That is I believe achievable.

So you DO NOT support limiting immigration to those who could prove to be of use to the country then?

As I said, i want new immigrants stopped from receiving benefits for 5 years.
As for who gets the jobs, I trust private industry to decide "who is of use" far more effectively than I would central government

Is the RIGHT answer! ...

There's none so blind who will not listen.

As with so many easy answers the questions are much more complex.

50% of our immigration comes from outside the EU most via asylum or family visas. Would you give them no benefits?

How about child benefit. This is paid to the mother. So British male marries non British woman and they have children, Both work but you would not pay any child benefit? How about British woman marries and has a child with a non British man? So now you would pay child benefit?

With an ever growing massive backlog, the word UNSUSTAINABLE looms ever larger. Not to mention playing the system to an abusive level.

[Scuffers]

MGJohn said:

50% of our immigration comes from outside the EU

Not sure that's remotely accurate?

MGJohn said:

How about child benefit. This is paid to the mother. So British male marries non British woman and they have children, Both work but you would not pay any child benefit? How about British woman marries and has a child with a non British man? So now you would pay child benefit?

How about not paying child benefit to anybody?

Why in this day and age are we paying people to breed?

[Axionknight]

Zod said:

I'm not commenting for him, but asking you whether you are any use to the country. Being offensive doesn't impress.

CMDs love child,

Were you ever accidently left in a boozer on your own?

[JustAnotherLogin]

Scuffers said:

How about not paying child benefit to anybody?

Why in this day and age are we paying people to breed?

I have to admit I could be persuaded of that view without much difficulty.

The original rationale for it and its predecessor has long since gone. I suspect we only have it now because it would be politically problematic for any govt to scrap it

[rs1952]

Scuffers said:

Why in this day and age are we paying people to breed?

One bloody good reason is that state pensions are funded, not by the contributions that the recipients have already made, but out of current NI contributions.

Therefore on this issue alone it makes rather a lot of sense for younger people to be growing up to start work and then start paying NI contributions.

But then, at going on 63 I might have more of a vested interest in this particular status quo being maintained than you do.

Yet...

[MGJohn]

Scuffers said:

MGJohn said:

50% of our immigration comes from outside the EU

Not sure that's remotely accurate?

MGJohn said:

How about child benefit. This is paid to the mother. So British male marries non British woman and they have children, Both work but you would not pay any child benefit? How about British woman marries and has a child with a non British man? So now you would pay child benefit?

How about not paying child benefit to anybody?

Why in this day and age are we paying people to breed?

Scuffers talketh with forked tongue...

MGJohn did not say or write that. Mrr T did though...

Here's some things MGJohn has just written and will soon post :~

I realised some years ago, OK about twenty years ago, that I've been a bit of a mug most of my adult life. Tell you why. My wife and I actually waited until we could afford to have children. All two of them now adults in late 20s, early 30s. What mugs we were! Waited until we had broken the back of a near crippling Mortgage and spent a fortune on contraceptives in the process. I was forty two by the time son No. 1 came along.

We were certainly capable. I should have treated my wife as a serial broodmare from day one and had a load of kids and turned to the state to provide for them. Breed lots of voters under the various state supported voter breeding programmes. I'd be rich and at the same time a man of both leisure and pleasure all down to the state and the taxpaying mugs.... like me. Yes, only folks like me and horses work and earn.

More seriously, my two sons are one of the finest things to happen in my life. I was there at the birth on both occasions. Saw the whole thing ...

[wc98]

JustAnotherLogin said:

I have to admit I could be persuaded of that view without much difficulty.

The original rationale for it and its predecessor has long since gone. I suspect we only have it now because it would be politically problematic for any govt to scrap it

think that will be three times i have strongly agreed with you on this thread now

[Mojocvh]

Zod said:

Mojocvh said:

Zod said:

Mojocvh said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

What I want for renegotiation and what we might get are different things.

As I have said before, if new immigrants cannot claim benefits for 5 years then I could live with that. That is I believe achievable.

So you DO NOT support limiting immigration to those who could prove to be of use to the country then?

Are you of use to the country? There are plenty of self-made entrepreneur inmigrants who would never have passed such a test.

I think jali doesn't need you to comment for him so butt out, cmd's lovechild.

I'm not commenting for him, but asking you whether you are any use to the country. Being offensive doesn't impress.

Shall we take this outside? Just saying as your aim (so far) appears to be to disrupt any discussion on the merits of UKIP by any means including flaming UKIP supporter's whenever you can.

[don4l]

JustAnotherLogin said:

TKF said:

Their energy policy which blames everything on the EU?

Well they do add thousands to our bills.

Look at #19 of the reasons to vote UKIP
19. Ending the burdensome “green levies” that have added £000s to our energy bills

So it must be true. Just think, without the green levies the average domestic fuel bill would only be about 5p a year.

I suspect that you do not appreciate the full implications of Ed Miliband's "Climate Change Act".

10% of your electricity and gas bills is used to subsidise wind and solar electricity.

In a few years it will be 20%.

[JustAnotherLogin]

don4l said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

TKF said:

Their energy policy which blames everything on the EU?

Well they do add thousands to our bills.

Look at #19 of the reasons to vote UKIP
19. Ending the burdensome “green levies” that have added £000s to our energy bills

So it must be true. Just think, without the green levies the average domestic fuel bill would only be about 5p a year.

I suspect that you do not appreciate the full implications of Ed Miliband's "Climate Change Act".

10% of your electricity and gas bills is used to subsidise wind and solar electricity.

In a few years it will be 20%.

And the average annual energy bill (dual gas and electricity) last year was £1264
Now I know UKIP have a timeshare on Ed Balls calculator, but even so they should be able to twig that 10% or even 20% of that doesn't mean that they have added £000s. Unless they mean added nothing I suppose

[NoNeed]

JustAnotherLogin said:

don4l said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

TKF said:

Their energy policy which blames everything on the EU?

Well they do add thousands to our bills.

Look at #19 of the reasons to vote UKIP
19. Ending the burdensome “green levies” that have added £000s to our energy bills

So it must be true. Just think, without the green levies the average domestic fuel bill would only be about 5p a year.

I suspect that you do not appreciate the full implications of Ed Miliband's "Climate Change Act".

10% of your electricity and gas bills is used to subsidise wind and solar electricity.

In a few years it will be 20%.

And the average annual energy bill (dual gas and electricity) last year was £1264
Now I know UKIP have a timeshare on Ed Balls calculator, but even so they should be able to twig that 10% or even 20% of that doesn't mean that they have added £000s. Unless they mean added nothing I suppose

At PMQ's the figure quoted was 36% but the actual amount is irrelevant to my question which is, Do you think it is right for the poor like those in council and other rented properties maybe high rise blocks that have no way of getting cheaper fuel to pay any sort of subsidy to the middle classes and home owners who claim these subsidies for solar panels and cheaper fuel, as well as the upper classes and landowners who are paid vast amounts to have wind turbines on their land?


£100 a year is a lot to somebody unemployed, it is two weeks income as well as those on pensions not to mention the low paid.

But it's ok as most of oxford gets cheap electric



Will be closer to £400 soon
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10357189/...

Edited by NoNeed on Friday 30th January 22:47

[NoNeed]

They never want to answer that question for some reason lol. I think I have asked him several times before and got no answer.