Not like the rest at all ?

[french frank]

Hefty taxation is a problem. Idle hands and the devil's work, and all that.

That tends to be the view of people with hefty incomes.

Health, education, transport, utilities & energy, defence, a healthy culture funding and a welfare safety net to get people back on their feet if they fall on hard times or are unable to take care of their own affairs, should all be handled by the state on behalf of the tax-payer.

Even that doesn't come cheap.

The reason for questioning you about UKIP policy &c. is surely that, having said you intend to vote for them, it's reasonable to suppose you are fully aware of what you're voting for and why.

[Beef Oven!]

That tends to be the view of people with hefty incomes.

Even that doesn't come cheap.

The reason for questioning you about UKIP policy &c. is surely that, having said you intend to vote for them, it's reasonable to suppose you are fully aware of what you're voting for and why.

I know enough about the UKIP policies to make an informed voting choice. The questions are about detail, which is not my present concern. There are UKIP experts in this forum who are better placed to answer these questions.

Hefty taxation is wrong, whatever your income. I do not have a hefty income, but I know that people in government use the money in a way that is not beneficial to the people. Like having wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or giving free-school meals to children whose parents are on hefty incomes.

We should raise just enough tax to cover the fundamentals, and not leave any for liberals with guilty consciences, or war-mongers.

[jean]

I know enough about the UKIP policies to make an informed voting choice.

We all know about the xenophobia. What I want to know is what else you know about this party that I don't.

The questions are about detail, which is not my present concern...

Then it ought to be. The devil is in the detail, after all.

[Beef Oven!]

We all know about the xenophobia. What I want to know is what else you know about this party that I don't.

Why tag a party as xenophobic because it wishes to control who comes into the country and have some proper management of the phenomenon?

[teamsaint]

That tends to be the view of people with hefty incomes.

Even that doesn't come cheap.

The reason for questioning you about UKIP policy &c. is surely that, having said you intend to vote for them, it's reasonable to suppose you are fully aware of what you're voting for and why.

Yes, but it is also the view of many people with modest incomes.

Example: newly qualified teacher with student loan to pay off, salary £25k,deductions (which is to all intents and purpoes the marginal tax rate) including pension contribution run at almost 50%.

A personal view that funding of the arts from public money is desireable, (which I hold), is not inconsistent with a view that mixed economies to work successfully require their citixens to have reasonable levels of personal disposable income.

[teamsaint]

I thought that teamsaint is a 'lefty'.

I think I'll be the judge of that, ta :)

Poltical beliefs, like all beliefs, are dangerous, to be treated with caution, and subject to change.

besides, if anybody can teach us about internecene warfare, it is surely the left.

[amateur51]

I think I'll be the judge of that, ta :)

Poltical beliefs, like all beliefs, are dangerous, to be treated with caution, and subject to change.

besides, if anybody can teach us about internecene warfare, it is surely the left.

Or the Tory 1922 committee, surely :winkeye:

[amateur51]

I know enough about the UKIP policies to make an informed voting choice. The questions are about detail, which is not my present concern. There are UKIP experts in this forum who are better placed to answer these questions.

Hefty taxation is wrong, whatever your income. I do not have a hefty income, but I know that people in government use the money in a way that is not beneficial to the people. Like having wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or giving free-school meals to children whose parents are on hefty incomes.

We should raise just enough tax to cover the fundamentals, and not leave any for liberals with guilty consciences, or war-mongers.

What about public-sector housing, does that fall into 'the fundamentals? I'd argue that it does.

[Anna]

Why tag a party as xenophobic because it wishes to control who comes into the country and have some proper management of the phenomenon?

I can call them xenophobic because of this for example.
There was a study document earlier this year, a consultation, (not a proposal to vote on, and written by a Hungarian group and referring to Hungary) about Roma women and the problems integrating them into society. One of the bullet points was about getting them involved in the local community. Gerard Batten, UKIP’s Immigration Spokesman seized on this consultation report and it resulted in a screaming headline in the Express among other papers about gypsy women being foisted on councils and Parliament. This comes from Nigel Farage’s own website:

A report outlining a quota scheme is set to go before MEPs and may soon be adopted by the European Parliament. If it becomes law, all the political parties in the UK will have to impose female gypsy candidates on the electorate and get them into Parliament.
The scheme is also aimed at using quotas to force gypsy civil servants and councillors on the British public.
The revelations about the contents of European Parliament’s Empowerment Of Romani Women report provoked outrage yesterday. Ukip Euro MP Gerard Batten said: “This is the start of yet another piece of ideologically motivated crackpot legislation from the EU. It is a treasure trove of politically correct nonsense, but it is also highly dangerous.”

Dangerous – yes because it’s scaremongering of the worst sort by spreading outright lies.

This is the man who stood for leadership and is second in command to N. Farage and who a couple of months ago, in a speech, confirmed he stood by his proposal of 2007 that all British Muslims should sign an agreement to 'behave themselves' and also that parts of the Koran should be rewritten, no further planning permission for mosques, etc. There is more from him along these lines but I won’t make this post longer than necessary. And again – he is the spokesman for immigration. I suspect those details about rules immigrants will have to follow in future, which are on their European Manifesto, were written by him.

[Beef Oven!]

I can call them xenophobic because of this for example.
There was a study document earlier this year, a consultation, (not a proposal to vote on, and written by a Hungarian group and referring to Hungary) about Roma women and the problems integrating them into society. One of the bullet points was about getting them involved in the local community. Gerard Batten, UKIP’s Immigration Spokesman seized on this consultation report and it resulted in a screaming headline in the Express among other papers about gypsy women being foisted on councils and Parliament. This comes from Nigel Farage’s own website:

A report outlining a quota scheme is set to go before MEPs and may soon be adopted by the European Parliament. If it becomes law, all the political parties in the UK will have to impose female gypsy candidates on the electorate and get them into Parliament.
The scheme is also aimed at using quotas to force gypsy civil servants and councillors on the British public.
The revelations about the contents of European Parliament’s Empowerment Of Romani Women report provoked outrage yesterday. Ukip Euro MP Gerard Batten said: “This is the start of yet another piece of ideologically motivated crackpot legislation from the EU. It is a treasure trove of politically correct nonsense, but it is also highly dangerous.”

Dangerous – yes because it’s scaremongering of the worst sort by spreading outright lies.

This is the man who stood for leadership and is second in command to N. Farage and who a couple of months ago, in a speech, confirmed he stood by his proposal of 2007 that all British Muslims should sign an agreement to 'behave themselves' and also that parts of the Koran should be rewritten, no further planning permission for mosques, etc. There is more from him along these lines but I won’t make this post longer than necessary. And again – he is the spokesman for immigration. I suspect those details about rules immigrants will have to follow in future, which are on their European Manifesto, were written by him.

You've posted a lot of words, but they don't really support you claim of xenophobia. That quota scheme in question raises my eye-brows, but I'm not the least bit xenophobic.

If you're against UKIP, challenge their policies. Tell them why low-taxation is bad, why you don't like grammar schools, why pubs shouldn't have smoking areas, why border control is wrong, why free-market entrepreneurial capitalism is bad. Tell them why the state needs to increasingly involve itself in the affairs of its citizens.

And by the way, the xenophobic tag isn't working. They are not like the rest and can't be dealt with, with the usual smears.

[ahinton]

Why tag a party as xenophobic because it wishes to control who comes into the country and have some proper management of the phenomenon?

Its intent alone ensures that it self-tags thus; there's no need for anyone else to do it for them.

It's not only offensive, however, but also impossible in practice because UKIP, even if it could form a majority government, would be unable to exercise total control over who comes to UK, because there are already many hundreds of thousands of people living outside UK who are entitled to exercise at any time their right of abode in UK and a UKIP government could do nothing to stop them. This problem would be twofold, in terms both of EU citizens who currently have a right to come to UK while it's an EU member state and of British citizens living abroad whose right of abode un UK in declared in their passports; OK, once UKIP had severed connections with EU, it might try to prevent EU citizens coming to UK (although it would almost certainly wind up in court for breach of contract towards them), but it would be entirely powerless to stop those British citizens living abroad whose rights of abode in UK are inalienable. Failure on UKIP's part to recognise these salient points make UKIP look rather silly, in my view.

[ahinton]

If you're against UKIP, challenge their policies.

Why should anyone who disagrees fundamentally with UKIP's stances (such as they've declared, which isn't a lot) necessarily "challenge" its policies per se? All that they have to do is vote for another party at election time!

Tell them why low-taxation is bad, why you don't like grammar schools, why pubs shouldn't have smoking areas, why border control is wrong, why free-market entrepreneurial capitalism is bad. Tell them why the state needs to increasingly involve itself in the affairs of its citizens.

Taxation isn't bad by being low or high; it's bad by being wrong, when it is so. UKIP is not the only party to support grammar schools. Pubs shouldn't have smoking areas any more than any other public places should for reasons that have been thoroughly debated in many European countries before measures were introduced to curtail them; why should UKIP try to fly in the face of what has been so widely agreed? No one is suggesting that all border control is wrong. UKIP does not have a monopoly on suppot for free-market entrepreneurial capitalism. From what you've said before, UKIP actually advocates involvement in the affairs of UK citizens but just not in the same way as other parties do.

And by the way, the xenophobic tag isn't working. They are not like the rest and can't be dealt with, with the usual smears.

It's working for most people, I think! We will se how well it has done so when we know how well UKIP has performed at the next UK General Election.

[amateur51]

You've posted a lot of words, but they don't really support you claim of xenophobia. That quota scheme in question raises my eye-brows, but I'm not the least bit xenophobic.

If you're against UKIP, challenge their policies. Tell them why low-taxation is bad, why you don't like grammar schools, why pubs shouldn't have smoking areas, why border control is wrong, why free-market entrepreneurial capitalism is bad. Tell them why the state needs to increasingly involve itself in the affairs of its citizens.

And by the way, the xenophobic tag isn't working. They are not like the rest and can't be dealt with, with the usual smears.

Ah memories of scottycelt & Mr Pee - wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. ... and the sound of moving goal-posts.

Nice post Anna!

[Richard Barrett]

I do not have a hefty income, but I know that people in government use the money in a way that is not beneficial to the people. Like having wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Indeed, tens of billions of pounds, not to mention the cost in lives, not to mention subsidising the failed gamblers of the financial sector, but none of that is an argument against high taxes, it's an argument against inappropriate expenditure of tax revenues.

giving free-school meals to children whose parents are on hefty incomes

... but I wonder why you even bother mentioning something which in comparison is small change on the government's part, except in the minds of Daily Mail readers and maybe UKIP supporters for whom no doubt it's a cosmic scandal... you started so well and then here comes that telltale aversion to anything that smacks of "welfare", unless it's for something that you yourself directly benefit from, like "cultural funding". What you call a "libertarian" attitude is I think better characterised as "selfish".

Why tag a party as xenophobic? Because its leader is on record as saying he wouldn't want a bunch of Romanians moving in next door to him. If that isn't xenophobic what is it?

[french frank]

You've posted a lot of words, but they don't really support you claim of xenophobia. That quota scheme in question raises my eye-brows, but I'm not the least bit xenophobic.

But Nigl Farage is an MEP - he must have known that it's a typical load of Express garbage. So must Gerald Batten, when he said: “This is the start of yet another piece of ideologically motivated crackpot legislation from the EU."

**************************

"The Daily Express reports today under the headline ‘Now EU “Crackpots” demand gypsy MPs’ that, if a resolution from the European Parliament becomes law “all the political parties in the UK will have to impose female gypsy candidates on the electorate and get them into Parliament.”

This story is ludicrous. First and foremost – and leaving aside the questionable terminology used by the Express – the EU only has the powers delegated to it by the Member States in unanimously agreed Treaties. Those powers do not include the power to intervene in how candidates for national elections are nominated. So it is quite simply impossible that the EU could pass such a law.

The story has been described by an MEP in a letter sent to the Express as “fabricated from beginning to end.”

The agreed European Framework for Roma inclusion looks into ways of helping integrate traveller communities into education, employment, healthcare and housing. It says nothing about political representation, let alone quotas.

What the MEPs concerned are trying to do is draw attention to the exclusion and discrimination faced by Roma communities all around Europe, around 90% of whom live below the poverty line."


What Mr Batten should have said was: “This is the start of yet another piece of ideologically motivated crackpot 'legislation' from the Daily Express."