Not like the rest at all ?

[Anna]

The problem is that UKIP don’t have a Manifesto (until September of this year, the 2010 was ordered to be shredded by N. Farage) I have however read their 2014 local manifesto and their 2013 European one. In the latter they say “On leaving the EU we will keep the trade agreements we entered as a EU member prior to the Lisbon Treaty” To be honest, I don’t know whether this is pure fantasy or achievable, I suspect fantasy.

They are a mass of contradictions, in the Manifesto they say they will close borders to immigrants and operate a points system and in the next breath say ‘If it’s good enough for Norway [to go it alone], it’s good enough for us’ completely omitting to mention that Norway has freedom of movement of people.

They say: Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependants for 5 years and have private health insurance, pay for private education and private housing. All tourists entering Britain must show proof of private health insurance. Prioritise social housing for those whose parents and grandparents were born locally. No benefits unless you have lived in the UK for 5 years. They will abolish the 2008 Climate Change Act, wind and solar farms. Shale gas is the future and revenues from fracking will be put in a British Sovereign Wealth Fund (following Norway’s example) No Political Correctness – it stifles free speech. Remove UK from jurisdiction of European Human Rights Court. Abolish inheritance tax. And that's it really.

It really is a rag-bag, a total mish-mash put together on the back of a fag packet.

[ahinton]

The problem is that UKIP don’t have a Manifesto (until September of this year, the 2010 was ordered to be shredded by N. Farage)

For starters, I imagine that this very fact alone is likely to inspire less than no confidence in most people wishing to consider their voting options.

I have however read their 2014 local manifesto and their 2013 European one. In the latter they say “On leaving the EU we will keep the trade agreements we entered as a EU member prior to the Lisbon Treaty” To be honest, I don’t know whether this is pure fantasy or achievable, I suspect fantasy.

I suspect the same but, even if otherwise, it is surely clear that UKIP would not have and could not exercise control over those trade agreements post severance, not least because they were entered into by "us" (i.e. UK) when UK was an EU member.

They are a mass of contradictions, in the Manifesto they say they will close borders to immigrants and operate a points system and in the next breath say ‘If it’s good enough for Norway [to go it alone], it’s good enough for us’ completely omitting to mention that Norway has freedom of movement of people.

But Mr Farage has elsewhere sought to assuage some of the most vociferous critics of what passes for his party's immigration policies by claiming that UKIP would shut the door on immigration into UK only selectively, not totally, so one wonders whether one so far unwritten UKIP policy is in fact to spread as much confusion over such matters as possible. Your point about Norway is well made though clearly falls on the wilfully deaf ears of Mr Farage and his confederates.

They say: Immigrants must financially support themselves and their dependants for 5 years and have private health insurance, pay for private education and private housing. All tourists entering Britain must show proof of private health insurance. Prioritise social housing for those whose parents and grandparents were born locally. No benefits unless you have lived in the UK for 5 years. They will abolish the 2008 Climate Change Act, wind and solar farms. Shale gas is the future and revenues from fracking will be put in a British Sovereign Wealth Fund (following Norway’s example) No Political Correctness – it stifles free speech. Remove UK from jurisdiction of European Human Rights Court. Abolish inheritance tax. And that's it really.

It really is a rag-bag, a total mish-mash put together on the back of a fag packet.

...without even declaring what the party would do about taxing tobacco! A rag-bag indeed is is.

Paying for private health insurance doesn't help when the insured finds him/herself having to attend A&E; would UKIP deny A&E facilities to immigrants for the first 5 years of their UK residence, whether or not they have adequate health cover?

What about those immigrants who can't afford - or, because of pre-existing health conditions, cannot obtain - private health insurance? - would UKIP seek to turn Britain into a nation where all immigrants must be sufficiently wealthy to be able to fund private healthcare and sufficiently healthy to be entitled to obtain it? Would UKIP seek to insist that such health insurance be purchased in UK alone?

Some of the same goes for private education and housing; would UKIP wish to restrict immigration to those who can already afford both of these things when first they arrive in Britain?

Tourists' health insurance likewise won't cover A&E care following accidents, so will they likewise be denied such care?

Social housing only for the "locally born"? Does this mean that anyone living outside UK with an EU / British passport that grants right of abode in UK and who wishes to take up residence there must be denied such housing? What in any case would "locally born" mean? (I ask as someone born in Scotland); what about those non-British citizens already living in Britain?

Would UKIP seek to deny all state benefits, including retirement benefit, to everyone who has not lived in UK for a full five years? - so any British citizen who's left Britain to live and work outside it for at least 5 years would not be entitled to receive any for the next five years of residence in Britain following the date of his/her return?

Would UKIP manage somehow to abolish climate change as well as the legislation covering it? I'm no great fan of wind farms, but why abolish solar ones? Would UKIP also make individually and corporately owned turbines and solar installations illegal? Isn't shale gas what emanates from the mouths of kippers? Would revenues from fracking still be invested in a "British Sovereign Wealth Fund" following dissolution of the monarchy should that occur? - and what would that fund be used for?

Who defines "political correctness" and "free speech" and how? - will they both be defined in legislation?

What makes UKIP think that summary removal of UK from the jurisdiction of ECHR would make any difference to citizens' human rights, unless it plans also to abolish the UK Human Rights Act? How in any case could it legally withdraw access to the jurisdiction of ECHR by citizens of other EU nations already living in Britain? - its immigration policy confusions and contradications are bad enough in themselves, but even UKIP hasn't yet announced any intention of chucking out all the Germans, Spaniards, French, Swedes et al from Britain.

Abolish Inheritance Tax? Good grief! One sensible policy, presumably arrived at by accident!

I'd almost be willing to suggest that even BNP, utter disgrace to society though it is, at least has policies that are less confused and confusing than those of this lot!

[Richard Barrett]

If it’s good enough for Norway [to go it alone], it’s good enough for us’ completely omitting to mention that Norway has freedom of movement of people.

From the website of Norway's mission to the EU:

"Through the EEA and Norway Grants, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein contribute to reducing social and economic disparities in Europe and to strengthening bilateral relations with 15 countries in Central and Southern Europe. 1.79 billion euro has been set aside under the Grants for the 5 year programme period 2009 - 2014. Norway provides around 97 per cent of the funding. The beneficiary states are Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Slovakia, Latvia, Greece, Portugal, Estonia, Spain, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta and Croatia (from July 2013).

The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement includes a goal to reduce social and economic disparities in the European Economic Area. Thus, the EEA EFTA States Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway have contributed to European cohesion efforts since the EEA Agreement entered into force in 1994. The total contribution since 1994 is around 3.27 billion. The EEA and Norway Grants are not distributed through the EU budget but directly to each beneficiary state.

Norway participates in a number of EU programmes and agencies through provisions in the EEA Agreement or on the basis of bilateral agreements with the EU. Norway (and our EEA partners Iceland and Liechtenstein) contributes to the budget of the EU programmes and agencies we participate in. In 2013, Norway’s contribution was around 296 million euros."

I wonder if it would be "good enough" for Farage and chums so generously to fund EU countries from outside the union?

[MrGongGong]

Indeed Richard
I've done several EU funded projects that include Norway
so not sure that the kippers would like the Norwegian style relationship

[Serial_Apologist]

Paying for private health insurance doesn't help when the insured finds him/herself having to attend A&E; would UKIP deny A&E facilities to immigrants for the first 5 years of their UK residence, whether or not they have adequate health cover?

What about those immigrants who can't afford - or, because of pre-existing health conditions, cannot obtain - private health insurance? - would UKIP seek to turn Britain into a nation where all immigrants must be sufficiently wealthy to be able to fund private healthcare and sufficiently healthy to be entitled to obtain it? Would UKIP seek to insist that such health insurance be purchased in UK alone?

Some of the same goes for private education and housing; would UKIP wish to restrict immigration to those who can already afford both of these things when first they arrive in Britain?

Yes it all seems remarkably anti-working class for someone with such ingrained antipathy to middle class people, judging by what he says about their use of words, for Mr Beef Oven to be supporting. Unless he sees the working class as a purely British phenomenon.

One of the consequences of the immigration policies claimed to be UKIP's would of course be a what-is-sauce-for-the-goose-must-be-sauce-for-the gander type of retaliation against British passport holders working abroad, so unless UKIP has policies for their job creation there looks likely to be quite a bit of conflict requiring expensive policing between those not yet settled here who can't afford their own living insurances and returnees granted first places in the DSS queue.

[MrGongGong]

One of the consequences of the immigration policies claimed to be UKIP's would of course be a what-is-sauce-for-the-goose-must-be-sauce-for-the gander type of retaliation against British passport holders working abroad, so unless UKIP has policies for their job creation there looks likely to be quite a bit of conflict requiring expensive policing between those not yet settled here who can't afford their own living insurances and returnees granted first places in the DSS queue.

So what will happen to the Philharmonia's extensive touring schedule ?

[ahinton]

Yes it all seems remarkably anti-working class for someone with such ingrained antipathy to middle class people, judging by what he says about their use of words, for Mr Beef Oven to be supporting. Unless he sees the working class as a purely British phenomenon.

One of the consequences of the immigration policies claimed to be UKIP's would of course be a what-is-sauce-for-the-goose-must-be-sauce-for-the gander type of retaliation against British passport holders working abroad, so unless UKIP has policies for their job creation there looks likely to be quite a bit of conflict requiring expensive policing between those not yet settled here who can't afford their own living insurances and returnees granted first places in the DSS queue.

What all of this gois to show above all else is that the rabid offensiveness of some of UKIP's policies is on a par with the sheer confusion within and about them which UKIP itself appears not yet even seen fit to recognise, let alone address; that said, if, come the next General Election, enough has already been made sufficiently often about the latter alone, the UKIP's credibility among the electorate as a party that knows what it wants to do across the board and why may well have disappeared beneath the radar, which can, of course, be no bad thing, especially when taken together with the offence caused to many by the prospect of those policies that UKIP has tried to put forward.

[Flosshilde]

Social housing only for the "locally born"? Does this mean that anyone living outside UK with an EU / British passport that grants right of abode in UK and who wishes to take up residence there must be denied such housing? What in any case would "locally born" mean? (I ask as someone born in Scotland); what about those non-British citizens already living in Britain?

Prtesumably this 'policy' would mean that someone moving to Spain, for example, aged 5 with their parents, living & working in Spain & paying income tax etc to the Spanish government, could then return to the UK aged 65 & demand social housing?

(Assuming that Spain would accept the family - presumably they would institute the same immigration policies as the UK)

[Serial_Apologist]

So what will happen to the Philharmonia's extensive touring schedule ?

How many fiddles have they got? <winkey>

[Serial_Apologist]

Prtesumably this 'policy' would mean that someone moving to Spain, for example, aged 5 with their parents, living & working in Spain & paying income tax etc to the Spanish government, could then return to the UK aged 65 & demand social housing?

(Assuming that Spain would accept the family - presumably they would institute the same immigration policies as the UK)

Exactly!

[Beef Oven!]

I wonder if it would be "good enough" for Farage and chums so generously to fund EU countries from outside the union?

They certainly are not "stupid" enough to fund such a nonsense.

[MrGongGong]

They certainly are not "stupid" enough to fund such a nonsense.

Why not have a look at the kind of "nonsense" that the Norwegians have been funding ?
I suspect much of it (in the area of music and the arts) you would be passionately enthusiastic about and consider it money well spent (as the Norwegian partners do)

[Beef Oven!]

Indeed Richard
I've done several EU funded projects that include Norway
so not sure that the kippers would like the Norwegian style relationship

You must stop using that 'kipper' term. We've already been given a steer on this by the moderator.

[MrGongGong]

You must stop using that 'kipper' term. We've already been given a steer on this by the moderator.

The problem with you libertarian fighters for freedom is that you really want more and more rules
I went to Arbroath last week would Smokies but more acceptable ? ("Who the f is Nigel?")

[Beef Oven!]

Why not have a look at the kind of "nonsense" that the Norwegians have been funding ?
I suspect much of it (in the area of music and the arts) you would be passionately enthusiastic about and consider it money well spent (as the Norwegian partners do)

You might get loved up by a bit of protected cheese, but I aint getting sucked in.

And while I'm passionate about that music and that art, I believe the answer is to roll-back the ignorance and prejudice concerning what constitutes music and art, not piss about with funding little projects.

It's not funding that is the issue, it's the narrow-mindedness of people. For example, too many people in this forum are happy to discuss this CD version of that Elgar Cello Concerto, or that Magnard etc, instead of wanting to discuss different types of music and things we're not familiar with, with the same gusto as that 'Argerich CD'. (Nothing personal is meant by this)

So don't be telling me that the answer is EU funding.