Why the UKIP will never work....

[Esseesse]

pablo said:

Good piece by Andrew Rawnsley in Sunday's Observer, precis is "its time for fewer TV images of Nigel down the pub and a lot more questions about what he would do with power". Its worth a read despite what you think about the paper itself, I think Ranwsley is spot on. "The traditional parties and much of the media are still struggling with how to treat Ukip. Here’s an idea. Subject them to the robust interrogation of policies and postures that is applied to every other party that aspires to decide how we are governed. Fewer pictures of Nigel down the pub, more questions about what he would do with power. Ukip wants to be taken seriously. So it should be. But as the Lib Dems have painfully discovered, ultimately there may be nothing more disappointing for Ukip than having its dream come true"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/...

The thing he's not spot on about is robust interrogation of policies is not really something I see applied to other parties. Soundbites suggesting taxing the rich, CO2 emissions, spending more on the NHS are given a free pass. Also his conclusion that a sniff of power for UKIP would result in a similar effect as we've seen for the LibDems is wrong; UKIP has principles and objectives, it won't sell out just for some power. And they have a straightforward enough leader to be able to say 'look, we let them increase the NHS budget in return for a referendum this year', and people will get it.

[CamMoreRon]

Esseesse said:

pablo said:

Good piece by Andrew Rawnsley in Sunday's Observer, precis is "its time for fewer TV images of Nigel down the pub and a lot more questions about what he would do with power". Its worth a read despite what you think about the paper itself, I think Ranwsley is spot on. "The traditional parties and much of the media are still struggling with how to treat Ukip. Here’s an idea. Subject them to the robust interrogation of policies and postures that is applied to every other party that aspires to decide how we are governed. Fewer pictures of Nigel down the pub, more questions about what he would do with power. Ukip wants to be taken seriously. So it should be. But as the Lib Dems have painfully discovered, ultimately there may be nothing more disappointing for Ukip than having its dream come true"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/...

The thing he's not spot on about is robust interrogation of policies is not really something I see applied to other parties. Soundbites suggesting taxing the rich, CO2 emissions, spending more on the NHS are given a free pass. Also his conclusion that a sniff of power for UKIP would result in a similar effect as we've seen for the LibDems is wrong; UKIP has principles and objectives, it won't sell out just for some power. And they have a straightforward enough leader to be able to say 'look, we let them increase the NHS budget in return for a referendum this year', and people will get it.

+1.

No parties really seem to have any core policy at the moment.. all they seem to be trying to do is win votes by following trending issues. I would love to see a controlled(!) deep-dive in to policy with the party leaders to see who is actually thinking long-term and what their rationale is.

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

fking hell.. Let's trim some of the irrelevant ad-hom out:

Pot, kettle, black et

CamMoreRon said:

It's quite likely I would admire your contributions, if you weren't so keen to reduce them to your definition of fair to the detriment of 99% of society.

But I'm not, as I explained. And repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it so.

CamMoreRon said:

Unfortunately my admiration for you as a person will likely never happen due to the way you speak to those you clearly deem below you.

As explained, I speak to people the way they speak to me. Your lack of self awareness about your own attitude says a lot.

CamMoreRon said:

We can delve quite deep in to the reasons some people end up on minimum wage, but the fact will always remain that the minimum wage (and hence the incentive for people in that position to push upwards) is too low to allow for financial independence from the state due to the greed of those paying it. Keep pay low, keep profit high, let the state sort out the mess.

Why does the state feel the need to tax the minimum wage?

CamMoreRon said:

And why should you decide who gets what?

I think I should have a greater say in how my money is spent. Not sure why you think you should have a say in how other people's money should be spent.....?

CamMoreRon said:

And the way you speak to people sometimes

This is chicken / egg. Yes I'm quite happy to talk to you reasonably, as you may have noticed. It's just in this instance you were lying to someone and I wanted to call you on it.

I wasn't lying.

If a high tax free allowance save the poorest 100% of their taxes then that's most relevant. Future, if the overall tax take increases, then it is the poorest who will feel the benefit through increased public services etc.

Given the above, the fact that some 'rich' will be better off only matters to those who seek high taxation out of envy rather than economic common sense. Further, as I explained, if income increases, much of this would be redirected to charities, so I would be little before off. But you won't ever accept that.

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 26th November 12:40

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

That sounds awfully like an argument in favour of immigration on a UKIP thread..

That sounds like a comment from someone who doesnt understand the difference between controlled immigration and all immigration....!

That sounds like someone who isn't aware of the net contribution that immigrants have brought to the country..!

FTR: I don't actually disagree too strongly with the controlled immigration argument.

[Mrr T]

Esseesse said:

UKIP has principles and objectives

Good to know that. How about the plan to leave the UK. Was that hidden behind the Pringles and Oranges, sorry principals and objectives.

[ClaphamGT3]

Esseesse said:

pablo said:

Good piece by Andrew Rawnsley in Sunday's Observer, precis is "its time for fewer TV images of Nigel down the pub and a lot more questions about what he would do with power". Its worth a read despite what you think about the paper itself, I think Ranwsley is spot on. "The traditional parties and much of the media are still struggling with how to treat Ukip. Here’s an idea. Subject them to the robust interrogation of policies and postures that is applied to every other party that aspires to decide how we are governed. Fewer pictures of Nigel down the pub, more questions about what he would do with power. Ukip wants to be taken seriously. So it should be. But as the Lib Dems have painfully discovered, ultimately there may be nothing more disappointing for Ukip than having its dream come true"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/...

The thing he's not spot on about is robust interrogation of policies is not really something I see applied to other parties. Soundbites suggesting taxing the rich, CO2 emissions, spending more on the NHS are given a free pass. Also his conclusion that a sniff of power for UKIP would result in a similar effect as we've seen for the LibDems is wrong; UKIP has principles and objectives, it won't sell out just for some power. And they have a straightforward enough leader to be able to say 'look, we let them increase the NHS budget in return for a referendum this year', and people will get it.

Quite deluded. I am afraid that this thread - and others like it - show that there is a large chunk of the electorate who are more gullible than I'd thought.

Then again, the more slender than most predicted nature of the win in Rochester suggests that this is a vocal minority

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

That sounds like someone who isn't aware of the net contribution that immigrants have brought to the country..!

FTR: I don't actually disagree too strongly with the controlled immigration argument.

I understand 100% the net contribution that some immigrants have brought to the contrary. That's why a support a policy of controlled immigration...

So do UKIP, but none of the other parties!

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 26th November 12:46

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

Why does the state feel the need to tax the minimum wage?

Don't ask me!

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

And why should you decide who gets what?

I think I should have a greater say in how mymoney is spent. Not sure why you think you should have a say in how
other people's money should be spent.....?

OK that's perfectly valid, and I would like the same thing. For instance, I would rather workers were paid a wage they could live on unassisted by the people they work for, instead of having to be subsidised by the state; I would rather we weren't subsidising the crap out of energy companies and various utilities; I would rather we weren't waging pointless wars all over the planet and "protecting" against non-existent threats.

sidicks said:

I wasn't lying.

If a high tax free allowance save the poorest 100% of their taxes then that's most relevant. Future, if the overall tax take increases, then it is the poorest who will feel the benefit through increased public services etc.

Given the above, the fact that some 'rich' will be better off only matters to those who seek high taxation out of envy rather than economic common sense. Further, as I explained, if income increases, much of this would be redirected to charities, so I would be little before off. But you won't ever accept that,

OK I agree with the first paragraph.. but I don't think tax breaks for the wealthy can be justified until they are paying the workforce a decent salary. The fact our minimum wage is so low speaks volumes for my point.

As for the second paragraph, why does it have to be about envy? If you would donate any extra income to charity then that's admirable, but many in your position would take the money and run. The tax bands we have now aren't really that unfair, as they (kind of) form a progressive curve of taxation, but don't take too much as a percentage from those who are able to pay more. A flat tax system is not fair - not without a much higher personal allowance - otherwise it's all about squeezing the middle.

[mrpurple]

CamMoreRon said:

+1.

No parties really seem to have any core policy at the moment.. all they seem to be trying to do is win votes by following trending issues. I would love to see a controlled(!) deep-dive in to policy with the party leaders to see who is actually thinking long-term and what their rationale is.

See you can be sensible when you want to.

Wouldn't be easy to arrange but something sort of X factor, I'm a celeb,Strctly style on a Saturday night. Preliminary rounds to include all and sundry and the winners going forward to next weeks show..no personal attacks or spin allowed...just polices with each manifesto...my bet would be The Monster Raving Loony Party would be kept in until the semi-final...just for the entertainment factor...well there's always one kept in by the judges isn't there

I nominate Stephen Fry as judge 1

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

OK I agree with the first paragraph.. but I don't think tax breaks for the wealthy can be justified until they are paying the workforce a decent salary. The fact our minimum wage is so low speaks volumes for my point.

The minimum wage would be a living wage if it wasn't taxed....

[Esseesse]

Mrr T said:

Esseesse said:

UKIP has principles and objectives

Good to know that. How about the plan to leave the UK. Was that hidden behind the Pringles and Oranges, sorry principals and objectives.

Do you mean plan to leave the EU? Principles and objectives do no equate to a plan, however there are well debated and explained probable courses of action to take to leave the EU available online if you want to read about them. The EU even has it's own mechanism to make arrangements with a country who decides to leave it.

Your line of criticism against UKIP ("How about the plan") is weak, when it's quite obvious to any reasonable person that a minutely detailed plan could not be made by anyone but the government of the day, and even then it wouldn't be explainable concisely to anyone but devoted political enthusiasts, and even then it would be stupid to think that the 'plan' would not evolve as the plan was being executed... Any 'plan' would bear no comparison to a plan you might have to erect a garden fence where what is required is simple and there are few if any unknowns.

Also, do you ask what the plan is when other politicians say they want to 'restructure the NHS', 'boost UK manufacturing', 'join the EAW'. When Ted Heath joined the EEC (EU) did he get questioned specifically what the plan was? Or was the debate about what the advantages/disadvantages might be? Did our PM's get questioned what the plan was when they signed up to more treaties to hand power to the EU, or did they just sign away?

[twoblacklines]

Northern Munkee said:

but you don't work hard to get to be upper class, you're born into it or inherit it,

Utter BS.

So people like Richard Branson or Alan Sugar were born into or inherited their wealth were they? Two of the most wealthiest and therefore upper class folks in the country who made it from 0 figures to 7+ figures....

[Mr Whippy]

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

That sounds awfully like an argument in favour of immigration on a UKIP thread..

That sounds like a comment from someone who doesnt understand the difference between controlled immigration and all immigration....!

Again I agree.

This was a big own goal for UKIP.

When asked about the Polish guy working hard, they should have said those wishing to contribute and work hard under new immigration rules like other countries enjoy and employ appropriately, then such people can continue to live and work in the UK... think Australia... or words to that effect.

I really struggle to understand how UKIP can be seeming to falter so dramatically all of a sudden.

Surely all this should have been written down and signed off years ago and ingrained in every members brain?!

[sidicks]

twoblacklines said:

Utter BS.

So people like Richard Branson or Alan Sugar were born into or inherited their wealth were they? Two of the most wealthiest and therefore upper class folks in the country who made it from 0 figures to 7+ figures....

I'm not sure they'd consider themselves to be 'upper class' - just highly successful (and rich) middle class.

[Einion Yrth]

twoblacklines said:

Northern Munkee said:

but you don't work hard to get to be upper class, you're born into it or inherit it,

Utter BS.

So people like Richard Branson or Alan Sugar were born into or inherited their wealth were they? Two of the most wealthiest and therefore upper class folks in the country who made it from 0 figures to 7+ figures....

"Upper Class" =/= Rich.

Plenty of "upper class" people with not much money, plenty of stinking rich with not much class, Sugar for one.

[twoblacklines]

FiF said:

I've had enough of this.

Why is there another UKIP thread?

It seems that part of the reason for these is so that the people who have repeatedly shown themselves incapable of behaving properly and arguing passionately but politely on volumes 1, 2or 3 of the main thread and got themselves banned vcan turn up and do it all over again.

Firstly those people should have temporary or in some cases permanent forum bans. Get out.

Secondly lock this thread.

I am not banned anywhere in PH forums. Until I am I will post what I want where I want to in agreement with the general rules.

Thanks.

[CamMoreRon]

mrpurple said:

See you can be sensible when you want to.

Wouldn't be easy to arrange but something sort of X factor, I'm a celeb,Strctly style on a Saturday night. Preliminary rounds to include all and sundry and the winners going forward to next weeks show..no personal attacks or spin allowed...just polices with each manifesto...my bet would be The Monster Raving Loony Party would be kept in until the semi-final...just for the entertainment factor...well there's always one kept in by the judges isn't there

I nominate Stephen Fry as judge 1

Haha let's not get carried away..

Yeah I'd love to see that. The debates I've seen have only ever been the same old thing: two or three men trying to shout each other down and make the other look like idiots. I think there would be a surprisingly large amount of people who found a proper in-depth discussion of policy interesting, and an equally large number of people switching camps from their habitual votes.

Let's just keep Jedward out of it.

[twoblacklines]

So it was fun reading the whole thread.

The biggest point I took from all the posts were, is that if you want to vote for UKIP it seems the biggest thing you can do to contribute yourself is to insult anyone who does not agree with your views / does not agree UKIP should win the next poll.

Atleast that is what I can take from this thread.

ie

"If you don't agree with me/UKIP you're retarded!" seems to be the most popular expression.

[twoblacklines]

Einion Yrth said:

"Upper Class" =/= Rich.

Plenty of "upper class" people with not much money, plenty of stinking rich with not much class, Sugar for one.

I think it is obvious you are upper class if you have over 500mill networth, are a member of the House of Lords, and get driven around in a car you own which has an RRP of more than the majority of UK houses.

[Einion Yrth]

twoblacklines said:

Einion Yrth said:

"Upper Class" =/= Rich.

Plenty of "upper class" people with not much money, plenty of stinking rich with not much class, Sugar for one.

I think it is obvious you are upper class if you have over 500mill networth, are a member of the House of Lords, and get driven around in a car you own which has an RRP of more than the majority of UK houses.

But what you think is not necessarily true, you should always bear that in mind.