UKIP First 100 Days WTF!!!

[egor110]

omgus said:

egor110 said:

See I'm not sure i agree.

I'm working class blue collar union card holding person so guess i should lean towards labour, yet i like ukips immigration policy combined with shocking the normal labour/conservative status quo, but on the other hand with conservative my interest rate is a record low and i can earn more before paying any tax.

The problem is some of UKIPs policies further down the list.
I think of a lot of UKIP supporters are like like Greens supporters.
They very heavily agree with the major points but don't know what else the party stand for that they will disagree with, and they forget that these policies will also be brought into the mix.

• Obviously everyone in NP&E will know all the party policies backwards and will not fall under this generalisation. [/quote

Like cutting foreign aid, offering apprenticeship qualifications rather than just pure gcse's, scrapping tuition fees if you study a subject the country actually needs (medicine,ebginnering,maths)keeping the nhs free at the point of delivery, making it compulsory for migrants to have health insurance until they've paid national insurance for 5 years, limited controlled immigration, work permits offered to fill skill gaps the country may have, child benefit only payable to children actually living in the uk, child benefit only for your first two children.

I think that's a decent selection of policies not just the big get out of the e.u headline policy.

[omgus]

Digga said:

I have to ask, which policy(s) do you find to be the problem:

http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people

I don't really like their idea of repealing the Agency Work Directive, i don't want smoking in pubs or resturants, either they leave gay marriage as it is or decide to split religious ceremonies completel from civil weddings but first they need to make a descision, i think the propesed EU Migrant workers rules will be counter productive, for all the feckless layabouts who arrived in the UK with no job and nowhere to live there are many hard working people how came over and created a life that would be turned away at the border.
Not a fan of the idea of completely leaving the EU, i feel that would have a bit of an effect for my holidays and possibly for business in general.

But this thread isn't about our different political leanings and although i'm sure you agree with everything UKIP would like to bring in and obviously as one of the NP&E posters you have done all your research and be in a position to educate me on my political ignorance.


FWIW i think that we should all spoil our ballot papers and tell the majority of the self serving tts to remove themselves from office.

Douglas Adams once very wisely said:

It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President an MP should on no account be allowed to do the job.

[omgus]

egor110 said:

Stuff that i wasn't going to copy.

I'm not saying everything is bad, i'm just saying that there are many supporters who have never looked past the EU get out and seen what they might sacrifice from their own values for that one big policy.
The BNP has many supporters who don't realise they have some incredibly left wing policies because they have been attracted by the "oi, ethnics - No!" approach.
The Greens have supporters who like the idea of being "green" but might not realise that they would geniunely like to return us to the dark ages, but in a sustainable way.
How many people vote Labour/Tory/Lib-Dem because their parents did.

Mt issue is with people who only look at the headline policy, or the colour of the flyer and not at the whole thing.

I genuinely believe that if more of the general public could educate themselves about politics then we might end up with some hope of getting somewhere, but they won't and what we will end up with is a series of people whose only interest is getting elected/re-elected and not making the decisions based on the long term plans but in the hope of surviving the next election.

[LucreLout]

egor110 said:

The fact my union has given 9 million to labour (if that figure is correct) does not equal me voting labour, for your information we can opt out of any poltical levy from our union fees.

Why would any union give money to conservatives? They have there big business pals donating huge sums so seems only the smaller parties need to sort of financing .

Your union uses your subs to buy influence within labour. In return for other favours such as support for individuals during leadership elections it then expects to determine backing or opposition for parliamentary bills. Perhaps, just perhaps the shill, sorry, mp, bought with that money has expectations of votes to keep them returning the favours your subs bought?

Most union members vote labour. They bought the party, so they'd need to be truly special to vote it out of power.

[rpguk]

And you think the Conservative or UKIP donors do it out of the goodness of their heart?

[LucreLout]

rpguk said:

And you think the Conservative or UKIP donors do it out of the goodness of their heart?

No, not at all. But most conservative funding comes from individuals where there's no payoff rather than the union block vote and associated funding.

[Thorodin]

To attempt to answer earlier questions about how they can get away with all the assumed cobblers, I think I am right in suggesting the time limit for broadcasting such tripe is three mo9nthe before an election. So, given a date of 7/5/15 the three months should be 7/3/15. That's how.

[tangerine_sedge]

So, back to the programme then....

It wasn't the total hatchet job that I expected it to be. I thought that it did a good job of illustrating the potential side effects of some of UKIPs policies, although obviously contentious as they amount to nothing but a bunch of what-if scenarios. I would have liked it to focus more on the impact to big business of Brexit, but I guess demonstrations are far more dramatic, than business parks closing down.

I'd now like to see similar for the Green party and the SNP please. I can't see the point of doing it for Labour/Conservative/Lib Dems as none of those are suggesting anything as radical as the Brexit.

edited for fairness.

[allergictocheese]

Zod said:

I am strongly opposed to UKIP, but I cannot see how this was allowed so close to the election.

Two reasons (take a look at s6 of the OFCOM Code);

1. The 'election period' doesn't begin until dissolution of Parliament, which is on 30th March for this election and;

2. The obligation to give due weight applies only to the 'major parties'. OFCOM does not currently list UKIP as a major party in General Election terms (it does for EU elections).

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broa...

[egor110]

LucreLout said:

egor110 said:

The fact my union has given 9 million to labour (if that figure is correct) does not equal me voting labour, for your information we can opt out of any poltical levy from our union fees.

Why would any union give money to conservatives? They have there big business pals donating huge sums so seems only the smaller parties need to sort of financing .

Your union uses your subs to buy influence within labour. In return for other favours such as support for individuals during leadership elections it then expects to determine backing or opposition for parliamentary bills. Perhaps, just perhaps the shill, sorry, mp, bought with that money has expectations of votes to keep them returning the favours your subs bought?

Most union members vote labour. They bought the party, so they'd need to be truly special to vote it out of power.

Obviously used our subs to buy influence within labour and labour then attempted to privatise us, so what exactly did we get in return for according to you getting into bed with labour.

Most union members vote labour is complete rubbish, how many union members actually pay the political levy, in my industry the big things that influence my colleagues are how much we can earn before paying tax, a higher minimum wage and health care, which ever party ticks most of the above boxes will get the vote.

[TTwiggy]

It was clearly fiction, as we all know that once Ukip are elected and COMMON SENSE prevails, everything will be sorted out by lunchtime and then we can all go down the pub for a pint and a smoke.

[Scuffers]

tangerine_sedge said:

So, back to the programme then....

It wasn't the total hatchet job that I expected it to be. I thought that it did a good job of illustrating the potential side effects of some of UKIPs policies, although obviously contentious as they amount to nothing but a bunch of what-if scenarios. I would have liked it to focus more on the impact to big business of Brexit, but I guess demonstrations are far more dramatic, than business parks closing down.

I'd now like to see similar for the Green party and the SNP please. I can't see the point of doing it for Labour/Conservative/Lib Dems as none of those are suggesting anything as radical as the Brexit.

edited for fairness.

try again?

Brexit is a 2 year process, not 100 days.

and Airbus would have a massive issue if they tried to 'leave' the UK, quite apart from the shear costs and timescales to build alternative production, you might want to remember what the makeup of Airbus is.

Then we get to the riot scene with the flag if Israel being waved - what was that about?

so, please explain how any of that is realistic visa-vie UKIP policies?

(also worth mentioning that all the riot footage was during previous Lab/Con administrations!)

Edit:

forgot to mention, UK Borders agency have been doing raids on businesses for years, I was in a curry house one night when they got raided, illegal immigrants are illegal no matter who is occupying No.10.

allergictocheese said:

Two reasons (take a look at s6 of the OFCOM Code);

1. The 'election period' doesn't begin until dissolution of Parliament, which is on 30th March for this election and;

2. The obligation to give due weight applies only to the 'major parties'. OFCOM does not currently list UKIP as a major party in General Election terms (it does for EU elections).

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broa...

nice try, but that's a year out of date, Ofcom have now ruled that UKIP are a major party (after the EU elections) hence all the fuss over the leader debates.

Edited by Scuffers on Tuesday 17th February 17:26

[allergictocheese]

Scuffers said:

nice try, but that's a year out of date, Ofcom have now ruled that UKIP are a major party (after the EU elections) hence all the fuss over the leader debates.

Edited by Scuffers on Tuesday 17th February 17:26

The list of major parties currently stands as Conservative, Labour and Liberal. Ofcom have undertaken a consultation (which closed on 5th February) which may lead them to include UKIP in the 2015 election major party list. As it stands, they are not currently a major party for the purposes of the Ofcom code.

In any case, the election period has not begun so any complaint on that basis is misconceived.

[Scuffers]

Ofcom says Ukip is a major party, but the Greens aren't


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/poll/2015...

[allergictocheese]

Scuffers said:

Ofcom says Ukip is a major party, but the Greens aren't


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/poll/2015...

You need to read what Ofcom have said, not the papers. They issued a consultation document on 8th Jan suggesting that UKIP may be given major party status (take a look at the date of the Guardian article). That consultation did not close until 5th February.

They are very likely to be afforded major status following the consultation, however that has not happened yet.

At the time of broadcast UKIP were not a major party and the election period was not yet open.

The question remains, therefore, on what basis would you like to complain about Channel 4s airing of the documentary?

[///ajd]

Scuffers said:

tangerine_sedge said:

So, back to the programme then....

It wasn't the total hatchet job that I expected it to be. I thought that it did a good job of illustrating the potential side effects of some of UKIPs policies, although obviously contentious as they amount to nothing but a bunch of what-if scenarios. I would have liked it to focus more on the impact to big business of Brexit, but I guess demonstrations are far more dramatic, than business parks closing down.

I'd now like to see similar for the Green party and the SNP please. I can't see the point of doing it for Labour/Conservative/Lib Dems as none of those are suggesting anything as radical as the Brexit.

edited for fairness.

try again?

Brexit is a 2 year process, not 100 days.

and Airbus would have a massive issue if they tried to 'leave' the UK, quite apart from the shear costs and timescales to build alternative production, you might want to remember what the makeup of Airbus is.

Then we get to the riot scene with the flag if Israel being waved - what was that about?

so, please explain how any of that is realistic visa-vie UKIP policies?

(also worth mentioning that all the riot footage was during previous Lab/Con administrations!)

Edit:

forgot to mention, UK Borders agency have been doing raids on businesses for years, I was in a curry house one night when they got raided, illegal immigrants are illegal no matter who is occupying No.10.

allergictocheese said:

Two reasons (take a look at s6 of the OFCOM Code);

1. The 'election period' doesn't begin until dissolution of Parliament, which is on 30th March for this election and;

2. The obligation to give due weight applies only to the 'major parties'. OFCOM does not currently list UKIP as a major party in General Election terms (it does for EU elections).

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broa...

nice try, but that's a year out of date, Ofcom have now ruled that UKIP are a major party (after the EU elections) hence all the fuss over the leader debates.

Edited by Scuffers on Tuesday 17th February 17:26

You might be right that brexit would not be such a quick process, but the principle of an EU exit being a threat to such business is very real. Very real indeed. It is surely obvious that an EU exit would be taken full advantage of by our EU partners to boost their own economies at our expense.

[Scuffers]

///ajd said:

You might be right that brexit would not be such a quick process, but the principle of an EU exit being a threat to such business is very real. Very real indeed. It is surely obvious that an EU exit would be taken full advantage of by our EU partners to boost their own economies at our expense.

Explain just how they would that?

[BGARK]

omgus said:

I don't really like their idea of repealing the Agency Work Directive, i don't want smoking in pubs or resturants, either they leave gay marriage as it is or decide to split religious ceremonies completel from civil weddings but first they need to make a descision, i think the propesed EU Migrant workers rules will be counter productive, for all the feckless layabouts who arrived in the UK with no job and nowhere to live

Are these really at the top of peoples list of what's important to most people?

[LucreLout]

egor110 said:

Obviously used our subs to buy influence within labour and labour then attempted to privatise us, so what exactly did we get in return for according to you getting into bed with labour.

Most union members vote labour is complete rubbish, how many union members actually pay the political levy, in my industry the big things that influence my colleagues are how much we can earn before paying tax, a higher minimum wage and health care, which ever party ticks most of the above boxes will get the vote.

Wikipedia has a good article on your unions backhand deals with ed balls.

[sidicks]

Eclassy said:

I liked it. Very interesting. UKIP probably wont get any more tham the 2 stolen seats they have now but I dont think it is far from what would happen if we got a UKIP government.

How else would they send all ethniks back to the motherland? By stopping every wrong shade person on the street of course.

Are you as ignorant as you sound?