• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

UKIP: At last some policies.

Cliff

Distinguished Member
Up to now we have heard from just about everyone what they think UKIP stands for, or what their true colours really are, and plenty of scary bits of mis information.

So here, from the BBC, is a summary:

EUROPE: An "amicable divorce" from the E U. Britain would retain trading links with its European neighbours but would withdraw from treaties and end subscription payments.

IMMIGRATION: It wants a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement - and any future migration must be strictly limited to those who can "clearly be shown to benefit the British people as a whole and our economy". Immigrants would not be able to apply for public housing or benefits until they had paid tax for five years.

TAX: UKIP favours a flat tax - income tax and national insurance paid by all workers. Plus "safety net" for the poorest. Recent policy paper suggested 25%.

EDUCATION: UKIP backs selection by ability and would encourage the creation of new grammar schools. It would give parents vouchers to spend in the state or private education sector. It also advocates the return of the student grant system to replace loans

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Scrap all subsidies for renewable energy. It would also cancel all wind farm developments. Instead, it backs the expansion of shale gas extraction, or fracking, and a mass programme of nuclear power.

More on
BBC News - Local elections: What does UKIP stand for?


I don't agree with everything but there is a lot I do agree with.
 

karkus30

Banned
Up to now we have heard from just about everyone what they think UKIP stands for, or what their true colours really are, and plenty of scary bits of mis information.

So here, from the BBC, is a summary:

EUROPE: An "amicable divorce" from the E U. Britain would retain trading links with its European neighbours but would withdraw from treaties and end subscription payments.

IMMIGRATION: It wants a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement - and any future migration must be strictly limited to those who can "clearly be shown to benefit the British people as a whole and our economy". Immigrants would not be able to apply for public housing or benefits until they had paid tax for five years.

TAX: UKIP favours a flat tax - income tax and national insurance paid by all workers. Plus "safety net" for the poorest. Recent policy paper suggested 25%.

EDUCATION: UKIP backs selection by ability and would encourage the creation of new grammar schools. It would give parents vouchers to spend in the state or private education sector. It also advocates the return of the student grant system to replace loans

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Scrap all subsidies for renewable energy. It would also cancel all wind farm developments. Instead, it backs the expansion of shale gas extraction, or fracking, and a mass programme of nuclear power.

More on
BBC News - Local elections: What does UKIP stand for?


I don't agree with everything but there is a lot I do agree with.

Yes
No
No, although in principle its better it makes no attempt to reduce the state which is at the root of the problem.
No, again its a half way house. Why give vouchers and why continue the state control of education ?
Yes and No, yes to scrapping subsidies, no for creating new subsidies for shale or nuclear.
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
EU wise ? Have a vote, then work from that.
A flat tax would shrink the size of the state aka everyone pays the same. Removes tax bands. But it would reduce the treasury's ability to raise taxes when the economics requires it and probably make it a lot harder to sort the debt out. Immigration ? We live in a globalised world, having that level of restriction would make us less attractive to Business or Countries that want to invest. Benefit wise ? I do believe it's sensible that immigrants have to pay a certain level of tax before they can get benefits. However you have to have emergency plans in place for those that fall ill or become homeless. It may not be as simple as sticking somebody on a plane home, which I assume would be UKIP's response.

Overall ? A policy vision that lacks the hard truth of reality.
 

domtheone

Distinguished Member
Up to now we have heard from just about everyone what they think UKIP stands for, or what their true colours really are, and plenty of scary bits of mis information.

So here, from the BBC, is a summary:

EUROPE: An "amicable divorce" from the E U. Britain would retain trading links with its European neighbours but would withdraw from treaties and end subscription payments.

IMMIGRATION: It wants a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement - and any future migration must be strictly limited to those who can "clearly be shown to benefit the British people as a whole and our economy". Immigrants would not be able to apply for public housing or benefits until they had paid tax for five years.

TAX: UKIP favours a flat tax - income tax and national insurance paid by all workers. Plus "safety net" for the poorest. Recent policy paper suggested 25%.

EDUCATION: UKIP backs selection by ability and would encourage the creation of new grammar schools. It would give parents vouchers to spend in the state or private education sector. It also advocates the return of the student grant system to replace loans

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Scrap all subsidies for renewable energy. It would also cancel all wind farm developments. Instead, it backs the expansion of shale gas extraction, or fracking, and a mass programme of nuclear power.

More on
BBC News - Local elections: What does UKIP stand for?


I don't agree with everything but there is a lot I do agree with.

Yes
Yes
Yes
Not fussed
Mostly Yes

All no brainers.

They want to shrink the size of the state.

Labour would increase it. Ditto the Lib Dems. The Tories (under Cameron) don't seem to be bothered/too scared to go about it.

Practically needs a revolution now to do something about the states humungous size.
 

domtheone

Distinguished Member
No, although in principle its better it makes no attempt to reduce the state which is at the root of the problem.

Have you not read about their intentions to reduce the size of the state/public spending.

This would allow a fairer, flat rate tax system for all, eventually.
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
The root of the problem in terms of spending is that Politicians have little regard for the money they spend, as it becomes somebody else's problem when they are booted out of Government. As far as flat rate taxes go ? Won't happen until the Deficit is under control and some attempt is made to get the national debt under control. And that probably won't happen until the Eurozone is sorted out and also when the rest of the world has recovered from the Credit Crunch.
 

Jamezinho

Distinguished Member
I'd vote for those policies.
 

pandemic

Prominent Member
On Europe, I'd agree in theory, but I just don't think an 'amicable' split is possible the other nations would probably be "out for blood". Even if it were possible I'd need to know what it will cost to maintain free trade links (any ideas as to what the Norwegians pay the EU for their agreed trade agreement?).
Don't agree with the five year freeze on full settlement, the country needs 'good' immigration and this would deter, the very people it is intended to bring in. I don't expect they would use public housing, but they'd require a safety net in the event they lose their job(s). So I wouldn't freeze it for 5 years, but base it on their tax and NI contributions (though I'd do the same for non-immigrants too).
On tax, in an ideal world I'd agree to a flat rate of tax. Unfortunately, we don't live in one and I'd say our current income tax system is adequate. I would change our corporate tax system to favour small businesses and new entrepreneurs, by working on the small profit rate instead of the main corporate tax rate.
On education, frankly their are more important things to worry about (like the content) than bringing back grammar schools and the 11-plus. On grants instead of loans, I'd need more information to make an informed comment, will they cover tuition? if so, where is the money going to come from?
On renewable energy subsidies that would depend on where the subsidies are going, I'd want to subsidise firms doing R&D on renewable energy. It could turn out to be a good UK export, seeing as many nations are now turning their back on nuclear energy. Personally, I'm all for nuclear energy, though the current technology is incredibly wasteful and could be made a lot more efficient <- another sector that is open for R&D. Not sure about fraking and shale, just don't know enough about it.
 

karkus30

Banned
Have you not read about their intentions to reduce the size of the state/public spending.

This would allow a fairer, flat rate tax system for all, eventually.

I agree its fairer, but it isn't low, still requires a safety net and will be subject to increases as -if they ever did end up in power- they discover that trying to reverse decades of socialism is not an enviable task. Thatcher never managed it and she was far stronger that Farage will ever be.

They should be far more anarchic in policy and not worry about getting into Government. Instead they have seen a chink of hope and all of a sudden the ego is revealed in its many splendour.

I won't be voting for them.
 

domtheone

Distinguished Member
They should be far more anarchic in policy and not worry about getting into Government. Instead they have seen a chink of hope and all of a sudden the ego is revealed in its many splendour.

I won't be voting for them.

I will.

To continue with LibLabCon is sure to see this country continue the slide into further chaos.

Somebody else deserves a chance after decades of failure.
 
P

poolside

Guest
Perfectly happy with those policies. Would also like to see what they had in mind regarding welfare/benefits.
 
D

Deleted member 293381

Guest
My gut feelings to the UKIP policies are:

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

(But with much reservation)

Another couple of years should see a great deal of flack heading UKIP's way in both personal and political attacks. This in turn will take the new shine off their policies and harden up their political resolve.

I'm interested in this party and look forward to their continuing development or slow demise. Whatever the future holds for UKIP their presence will shake up the complacent status quo and add a bit of spice to the Westminster mix.
 

karkus30

Banned
I will.

To continue with LibLabCon is sure to see this country continue the slide into further chaos.

Somebody else deserves a chance after decades of failure.

You know it won't change a thing though. Changing the wallpaper won't make a difference to the rest of the house. I understand your optimism. Any branch in a flood. You won't get it by supporting the existing system, the bit we see is just an X factor popularity fest amongst big egos.
 

MikeTV

Distinguished Member
My gut feelings to the UKIP policies are:

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
It's the immigration one I find hardest to understand. Immigration is rocket fuel for our economy, and always has been throughout history, and the history of most western nations - most noticeably the USA. And yet those on the far right are so opposed to it?!

Any immigrant arriving here will find themselves on the bottom of economic pile. This means they do all the jobs that the native population would prefer not to - cleaning, construction, cockle-picking. They reduce native wage demands, which increases national wealth disparities - ie. the prosperous getting richer. Social mobility is at an all-time low - chances are, the lowest are staying there. Again, this benefits the wealthiest - and so would seem to be attractive to the right wing - and yet it isn't.

Immigrants arrive here to work, not to sponge, and the statistics bear this out. So again, I cannot see any reason why those with right-wing sensibilities would be against this. To me that sounds like a recipe for utopia for them. Why so vociferously oppose it? Nobody is pretending it is out of concern for the welfare of immigrants, or concerns about income disparities.

As a lefty, I can reconcile all this with my conscience with the knowledge that: immigrants ultimately receive the same rights and opportunities as the rest of us - even if the native population has a huge comparative advantage; there are massive global wealth disparities; and the fact that they are here out on their own free will.

I have concerns for immigrant welfare, but I fail to see why anyone on the right without those concerns would want to oppose it. Somebody tell me.
 
Last edited:

Wild Weasel

Distinguished Member
Well I think we should invite the entire third world over here to boost our economy. And anyone who disagrees is a racist.
 
D

Deleted member 293381

Guest
It's the immigration one I find hardest to understand. Immigration is rocket fuel for our economy, and always has been throughout history, and the history of most western nations - most noticeably the USA. And yet those on the far right are so opposed to it?!

Any immigrant arriving here will find themselves on the bottom of economic pile. This means they do all the jobs that the native population would prefer not to - cleaning, construction, cockle-picking. They reduce native wage demands, which increases national wealth disparities - ie. the prosperous getting richer. Social mobility is at an all-time low - chances are, the lowest are staying there. Again, this benefits the wealthiest - and so would seem to be attractive to the right wing - and yet it isn't.

Immigrants arrive here to work, not to sponge, and the statistics bear this out. So again, I cannot see any reason why those with right-wing sensibilities would be against this. To me that sounds like a recipe for utopia for them. Why so vociferously oppose it? Nobody is pretending it is out of concern for the welfare of immigrants, or concerns about income disparities.

As a lefty, I can reconcile all this with my conscience with the knowledge that: immigrants ultimately receive the same rights and opportunities as the rest of us - even if the native population has a huge comparative advantage; there are massive global wealth disparities; and the fact that they are here out on their own free will.

I have concerns for immigrant welfare, but I fail to see why anyone on the right without those concerns would want to oppose it. Somebody tell me.

All you say is quite true, immigration in the past has been useful to a small degree. If past immigration had not occurred would we now be worse off? Who knows - intellectual discussion could go on forever.

Also, you slotted the immigration discussion into neat packages:
Those who agree = left wing and open minded.
Those who disagree = right wing and racist.

Vey tidy.
 

domtheone

Distinguished Member
^^^^
Lol.

Uncontrolled Immigration is not rocket fuel for our economy. What happens when everything grinds to a halt. Roads can't cope, hospitals, schools, housing etc etc.

If we were Australia, maybe. Alas, we're not and have a limited amount of land/resources.
 

Jamezinho

Distinguished Member
^^^^
Lol.

Uncontrolled Immigration is not rocket fuel for our economy. What happens when everything grinds to a halt. Roads can't cope, hospitals, schools, housing etc etc.

If we were Australia, maybe. Alas, we're not and have a limited amount of land/resources.

Which is already happening. We need to keep immigration in check on pragmatic grounds. Racism or xenophobia doesn't come into it for most. We are a small Island of over 60 million people and infrastructure is creaking.

The left branding anyone calling for controlled immigration as racist is as expected but not helpful.
 

Cliff

Distinguished Member
It's the immigration one I find hardest to understand.


I have concerns for immigrant welfare, but I fail to see why anyone on the right without those concerns would want to oppose it. Somebody tell me.

It's not just those on the right. Remember Brown's Bigot Gate?

Plenty on the left would agree that we cannot cope with uncontrolled immigration.

Even the present labour party says Brown/Blair made a mistake!
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 8K TV dead? Philips OLED+907, Pioneer LX505 AVR plus B&W 700 S3 Reviews & Visit + AV/HiFi News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom