More UKIP bother

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Every time an election rolls round the racists come crawling out making lots of noise.

[Sour Mash]

Stick up examples of where I said the policies are racist.

 

They pander to the racists by talking about isolating Britain and stopping people coming over here taking their jobs, there's 26 million people wanting to come here and take YOUR job don't you know.

 

Not to mention the fact that 95% of the time any other than Farage opens his mouth, something hateful, racist and often misogynistic comes out.

 

But, they got a load of black people on stage, so they can't be racist. Guarantee you look on BNP, EDL, Britain First pages they will hold up their minority of minority supporters. It's basically, "I can't be racist, I'm friends with the local black man".

So you don't think their policies are racist. Glad we're agreed on that.

[TwoPints]

 

Why don't you drop the other UKIP members from ethnic minorities a line and let them know how racist they're being? http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/474603/You-can-NEVER-call-us-racist-again-Ukip-s-black-and-ethnic-minority-members-fight-back

 

I think this is a fair point ... I counted all of 23 people (excluding Nige) in that photo out of 2,234 candidates as quoted by Nige in the article ... that's just about 1% ... clearly representative of the UK population rather than a token gesture. I wonder if any of them are from EU countries by origin?

 

I'm not sure you're helping your cause much here Mr Mash.

[Sour Mash]

I think this is a fair point ... I counted all of 23 people (excluding Nige) in that photo out of 2,234 candidates as quoted by Nige in the article ... that's just about 1% ... clearly representative of the UK population rather than a token gesture. I wonder if any of them are from EU countries by origin?

 

I'm not sure you're helping your cause much here Mr Mash.

Ah yes, I forgot about the huge number of ethnic minority candidates all the major parties have.

[TwoPints]

Ah yes, I forgot about the huge number of ethnic minority candidates all the major parties have.

 

I believe it's about 8-9% at the last count. Not representative I grant you that but 800-900% more representative that UKIP.

[Sour Mash]

I believe it's about 8-9% at the last count. Not representative I grant you that but 800-900% more representative that UKIP.

If you've got the stats on ethnic minority candidates across the parties, stick them up for all of us to have a read.

 

Do you think those ethic minority UKIP candidates have racist views?

[TwoPints]

If you've got the stats on ethnic minority candidates across the parties, stick them up for all of us to have a read.

 

Do you think those ethic minority UKIP candidates have racist views?

 

I don't have them but no doubt they can be Google'd.

 

I haven't said that UKIP are a racist party.. I am merely trying to make the point that parading your entire population of 20 or 30 ethnic minority candidates as some sort of evidence that it's not a racist party doesn't prove anything, one way or the other.

 

The BNP and EDL have had candidates from ethnic minorities in the past too so does that prove that they don't have racist views /policies I wonder?

[Sour Mash]

I don't have them but no doubt they can be Google'd.

 

I haven't said that UKIP are a racist party.

Right you are

[Verbal]

UKIP is a party that attracts racists in droves.

[pap]

I'm getting less impressed with this thread as it goes on. It's depressingly following the pattern of the national media, which has been hit piece after hit piece on UKIP. Reading across the site, it's clear that these charges of racism being universally applied to UKIP supporters won't fly. We've got a Britain First thread, an organisation founded by former BNP members, currently spreading bile on social media. I don't see any of the posters stridently arguing for an EU exit condoning any of the Britain First activities.

 

The pro-EU crowd are too often conflating the question of immigration with racism. It polarises the argument immediately, and labels people unfairly. If you're a Eurosceptic living in Hampshire, UKIP is your only choice. Is every person in Hampshire voting UKIP a racist? Hardly. They're driven to this because established political parties have kept the EU question off the agenda for decades.

 

In spite of all that, it has been amusing seeing people getting blown along by this political wind. I don't think I've ever seen the established parties as frit as they are with UKIP, or this level of attention lavished on such a relatively small player. Big parties are shítting themselves. This thread is just monkeys flinging the resultant faecal matter about.

 

Wake me up when someone has an opinion of their own, ta.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Can't say I agree with that pap.

 

It's absolutely not racist to talk about, or have concerns about immigration. I've explained my own above.

 

What is racist, is all the racist things UKIP affiliates keep saying. The way they frame the debate (26 million people coming for YOUR job, pap. Are you scared? YOU SHOULD BE!).

 

Let me guess, the young lady once a bit of a poster girl for UKIP (shamelessly pushed front centre for her sex and race - though all parties are guilty of that) who left dismayed by the race rhetoric of the party was an actor? She can't be right, I mean Farage took a photo with some black people (the most desperate attempt I've ever seen) so it can't be true right?

 

How about send police officers round to people who state their policies? I'd have thought that would be a hot button for you? It wasn't libellous, it simply provided links to UKIP policy.

 

Even if they aren't racist (which they are) they shamelessly pander to racists (those effing posters), and they are just generally nasty. Even me, as you know, a pretty non-left leaning guy thinks things like flat rate of tax (but they worry about the working man) is totally unfair.

 

I could also never support anyone that wants to make marital rape legal. Even with all the other stuff, that in of its own is disgusting.

 

If the Tories are the nasty party, what the f**k are UKIP?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Opinion of their own, yeah, you're the only one blaming the media for the attacks on them. Sure.

[ecuk268]

One of UKIP's rising stars (according to Farage), who was feted at their conference, has quit her post of head of the youth wing saying:

 

“Ukip is exploiting the stupidity of ignorant anti-immigrant voters for electoral gain,” she wrote. “While the party deliberately attracts the racist vote I refuse to be associated with them.

 

As a British-born Indian supporter of Ukip I should be proud that the party I joined at 18 has grown to challenge the Conservatives and Labour so strongly.

 

In reality, however, the direction in which the party is going is terrifying: Ukip has descended into a form of racist populism that I cannot bring myself to vote for.”

 

They certainly seem to have some odd people:

 

Janice Atkinson, who chairs the party in the South-east, thinks protesters who shout “fascist” at Ukip members should be arrested.

 

An unidentified councillor sent for the police because he objected to a tweet posted by a Green blogger, Michael Abberton, lampooning Ukip policy.

 

The Camden New Journal recorded a Ukip candidate in West Hampstead, Magnus Neilsen, reflecting that the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1888, which extended the vote to working-class men, may have been a mistake.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Can't say I agree with that pap.

 

It's absolutely not racist to talk about, or have concerns about immigration. I've explained my own above.

 

What is racist, is all the racist things UKIP affiliates keep saying. The way they frame the debate (26 million people coming for YOUR job, pap. Are you scared? YOU SHOULD BE!).

 

Let me guess, the young lady once a bit of a poster girl for UKIP (shamelessly pushed front centre for her sex and race - though all parties are guilty of that) who left dismayed by the race rhetoric of the party was an actor? She can't be right, I mean Farage took a photo with some black people (the most desperate attempt I've ever seen) so it can't be true right?

 

How about send police officers round to people who state their policies? I'd have thought that would be a hot button for you? It wasn't libellous, it simply provided links to UKIP policy.

 

Even if they aren't racist (which they are) they shamelessly pander to racists (those effing posters), and they are just generally nasty. Even me, as you know, a pretty non-left leaning guy thinks things like flat rate of tax (but they worry about the working man) is totally unfair.

 

I could also never support anyone that wants to make marital rape legal. Even with all the other stuff, that in of its own is disgusting.

 

If the Tories are the nasty party, what the f**k are UKIP?

 

I'm so looking forward to next Thursday when the peoples army stuff your sanctimonious pony where the sun don't shine.

[pap]

Can't say I agree with that pap.

 

It's absolutely not racist to talk about, or have concerns about immigration. I've explained my own above.

 

What is racist, is all the racist things UKIP affiliates keep saying. The way they frame the debate (26 million people coming for YOUR job, pap. Are you scared? YOU SHOULD BE!).

 

Let me guess, the young lady once a bit of a poster girl for UKIP (shamelessly pushed front centre for her sex and race - though all parties are guilty of that) who left dismayed by the race rhetoric of the party was an actor? She can't be right, I mean Farage took a photo with some black people (the most desperate attempt I've ever seen) so it can't be true right?

 

How about send police officers round to people who state their policies? I'd have thought that would be a hot button for you? It wasn't libellous, it simply provided links to UKIP policy.

 

Even if they aren't racist (which they are) they shamelessly pander to racists (those effing posters), and they are just generally nasty. Even me, as you know, a pretty non-left leaning guy thinks things like flat rate of tax (but they worry about the working man) is totally unfair.

 

I could also never support anyone that wants to make marital rape legal. Even with all the other stuff, that in of its own is disgusting.

 

If the Tories are the nasty party, what the f**k are UKIP?

 

I never expected you to agree with this. You've been one of the prime regurgitators of the panoply of UKIP hit pieces out there.

 

You're upset because an anti-EU party is framing a debate on immigration with the politics of fear? Isn't that exactly what the other parties are doing concerning UKIP? Making people too fearful or ashamed of voting for them?

 

Let's address the rest of your points. Thandi, eh? While I don't want to unfairly dismiss someone on the basis of their age, I rarely seek out 18 year olds for political insight, and if I did, someone that belonged to a political party would be even further down my list. She was a member of UKIP for 2 years and is now surprised that an anti-EU party is campaigning on the issues of immigration. What did she think the elections would be thought on? Onerous triple entry systems in the Brussels Parliament? I hear what she's saying, but I also realise that she's demonstrably naive.

 

The horse has already bolted on authoritarian issues, KRG. You give me a couple of coppers going around to someone's house, I'll raise you the enabling act that Labour passed in 2007, or the taxpayer money presently being spent on GCHQ's project to allow them to covertly turn on web-cams. The time to scream about your civil liberties was a decade ago.

 

Flat tax isn't currently their policy, even though I agree with it. Progressive taxation is great on paper; a fantasy in practice. Just ask David Cameron's dad.

 

Can you point me to the part in their manifesto where they say that, as a party, they'd like to make marital rape legal?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I'm so looking forward to next Thursday when the peoples army stuff your sanctimonious pony where the sun don't shine.

 

 

Peoples army. Wow.

[View From The Top]

I'm getting less impressed with this thread as it goes on. It's depressingly following the pattern of the national media, which has been hit piece after hit piece on UKIP. Reading across the site, it's clear that these charges of racism being universally applied to UKIP supporters won't fly. We've got a Britain First thread, an organisation founded by former BNP members, currently spreading bile on social media. I don't see any of the posters stridently arguing for an EU exit condoning any of the Britain First activities.

 

The pro-EU crowd are too often conflating the question of immigration with racism. It polarises the argument immediately, and labels people unfairly. If you're a Eurosceptic living in Hampshire, UKIP is your only choice. Is every person in Hampshire voting UKIP a racist? Hardly. They're driven to this because established political parties have kept the EU question off the agenda for decades.

 

In spite of all that, it has been amusing seeing people getting blown along by this political wind. I don't think I've ever seen the established parties as frit as they are with UKIP, or this level of attention lavished on such a relatively small player. Big parties are shítting themselves. This thread is just monkeys flinging the resultant faecal matter about.

 

Wake me up when someone has an opinion of their own, ta.

 

I disagree to to a certain degree. I do accept that if you are a Euro-sceptic then voting UKIP makes perfect sense and I've no issue with that, however, it's wrong to suggest that plenty aren't flocking to the banner simply because of their views on immigration as people clearly are.

 

Up here, people I know are quite open that they are voting UKIP for one reason and one reason only, immigration. Not immigration from the EU, just immigration in general. There is certainly and element of the English character that dislikes and mistrust Johnny Foreigner and UKIP have managed to tap into it and (some) people seem to think it's legitimised their racist views.

 

UKIP will do very well in the Euro Election but when it really matters, come May 2015, they will walk away with nothing. Still the florid cheeked Peoples Army will have a great night out next Thursday.

Edited 14 May, 2014 by View From The Top

[bridge too far]

UKIP won't like this!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/14/romania-bulgaria-immigrat_n_5321387.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

[KelvinsRightGlove]

UKIP won't like this!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/14/romania-bulgaria-immigrat_n_5321387.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

 

Sssssh, you're not allowed to talk about UKIP. It isn't fair.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I never expected you to agree with this. You've been one of the prime regurgitators of the panoply of UKIP hit pieces out there.

 

You're upset because an anti-EU party is framing a debate on immigration with the politics of fear? Isn't that exactly what the other parties are doing concerning UKIP? Making people too fearful or ashamed of voting for them?

 

Let's address the rest of your points. Thandi, eh? While I don't want to unfairly dismiss someone on the basis of their age, I rarely seek out 18 year olds for political insight, and if I did, someone that belonged to a political party would be even further down my list. She was a member of UKIP for 2 years and is now surprised that an anti-EU party is campaigning on the issues of immigration. What did she think the elections would be thought on? Onerous triple entry systems in the Brussels Parliament? I hear what she's saying, but I also realise that she's demonstrably naive.

 

The horse has already bolted on authoritarian issues, KRG. You give me a couple of coppers going around to someone's house, I'll raise you the enabling act that Labour passed in 2007, or the taxpayer money presently being spent on GCHQ's project to allow them to covertly turn on web-cams. The time to scream about your civil liberties was a decade ago.

 

Flat tax isn't currently their policy, even though I agree with it. Progressive taxation is great on paper; a fantasy in practice. Just ask David Cameron's dad.

 

Can you point me to the part in their manifesto where they say that, as a party, they'd like to make marital rape legal?

 

Pap, you know I like you. But, some of these double standards are just silly. Basically, because I dislike UKIP my opinions are invalid? You dislike the tories, does that mean you can have no opinion on them? I'm pretty sure you are happy to make remarks about them.

 

Yes, I am upset about the way they talk about it. I have said that repeatedly, well done on picking up on that.

 

I've never once said no other party does this, of course they do. Have you seen Labour's PPB? Or the Tories "don't give the keys back to the lot that crashed it" rhetoric. If UKIP don't like the hits, maybe, just maybe, their candidates should reel in the racist and misogynist chat. But no, it's obviously the media's fault they all keep saying this.

 

I agree, an 18 year old probably isn't the best place to go for political insight, but at 18 she can vote so is equally allowed her say like everyone else. She's also no longer 18, and has a pretty good insight to the party that most others haven't had. Certainly more than me, and unless I'm mistaken you as well. I agree, it was naive to join in the first place, but she should at least be commended for realising the mistake she had made.

 

Errm, so a decade ago, things were done, and have continued happening, so we should just give up now? People who highlight things a party have said, or actions they have taken should be forced to stop? I agree Labour's policies post 9/11-7/7 were disgusting. I said so at the time, but, as you say, who listens to teenagers?

 

We'll have to disagree on flat tax. Progressive tax is not perfect, I find it fairer, but do think work needs to be done to ensure the system works better in practice, no argument on that. It still hardly demonstrates Nigel (and lets be honest, his rich mates) are there for the people, and looking after the working man as has been suggested.

 

Well, it may not be in their manifesto, but their members voted against the "combating violence against women" in the EU act a few years ago. Yes, other parties dragged their feet on this for far too long, and it is shameful, but this far more recently.

 

These are not people I want representing me. For these reasons. There's more to the EU than immigration, but this has been all the EU election has become. Yes, that winds me up, I'm not remotely ashamed of that. I want to talk about immigration, I despise the way UKIP do it. Frankly pap, you are as bad as what you are accusing me of.

[pap]

Pap, you know I like you. But, some of these double standards are just silly. Basically, because I dislike UKIP my opinions are invalid? You dislike the tories, does that mean you can have no opinion on them? I'm pretty sure you are happy to make remarks about them.

 

Yes, I am upset about the way they talk about it. I have said that repeatedly, well done on picking up on that.

 

I've never once said no other party does this, of course they do. Have you seen Labour's PPB? Or the Tories "don't give the keys back to the lot that crashed it" rhetoric. If UKIP don't like the hits, maybe, just maybe, their candidates should reel in the racist and misogynist chat. But no, it's obviously the media's fault they all keep saying this.

 

I agree, an 18 year old probably isn't the best place to go for political insight, but at 18 she can vote so is equally allowed her say like everyone else. She's also no longer 18, and has a pretty good insight to the party that most others haven't had. Certainly more than me, and unless I'm mistaken you as well. I agree, it was naive to join in the first place, but she should at least be commended for realising the mistake she had made.

 

Errm, so a decade ago, things were done, and have continued happening, so we should just give up now? People who highlight things a party have said, or actions they have taken should be forced to stop? I agree Labour's policies post 9/11-7/7 were disgusting. I said so at the time, but, as you say, who listens to teenagers?

 

We'll have to disagree on flat tax. Progressive tax is not perfect, I find it fairer, but do think work needs to be done to ensure the system works better in practice, no argument on that. It still hardly demonstrates Nigel (and lets be honest, his rich mates) are there for the people, and looking after the working man as has been suggested.

 

Well, it may not be in their manifesto, but their members voted against the "combating violence against women" in the EU act a few years ago. Yes, other parties dragged their feet on this for far too long, and it is shameful, but this far more recently.

 

These are not people I want representing me. For these reasons. There's more to the EU than immigration, but this has been all the EU election has become. Yes, that winds me up, I'm not remotely ashamed of that. I want to talk about immigration, I despise the way UKIP do it. Frankly pap, you are as bad as what you are accusing me of.

 

Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm shouting for UKIP here. I know plenty of people that are, including lots of former Labour voters and people who aren't white. I won't be voting for them in the European Elections.

 

That said, I can spot an orchestrated campaign a mile off. What I object to is the cheap and easy labelling that both you and the mainstream press are passing off as debate. Take a look at the "pro-EU" posts on this thread and then consider how many of them actually make a case for the merits of the EU.

 

FWIW, Lord D's regurgitation of Farage's "people's army" bollócks is just as annoying.

 

Both sides of the arguments look like unwitting and unthinking mouthpieces, spewing up whatever it is they've heard, all the while giving the pretense of digestion.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm shouting for UKIP here. I know plenty of people that are, including lots of former Labour voters and people who aren't white. I won't be voting for them in the European Elections.

 

That said, I can spot an orchestrated campaign a mile off. What I object to is the cheap and easy labelling that both you and the mainstream press are passing off as debate. Take a look at the "pro-EU" posts on this thread and then consider how many of them actually make a case for the merits of the EU.

 

FWIW, Lord D's regurgitation of Farage's "people's army" bollócks is just as annoying.

 

Both sides of the arguments look like unwitting and unthinking mouthpieces, spewing up whatever it is they've heard, all the while giving the pretense of digestion.

 

This is why I like you. Fair points.

 

That last sentence, is that not just politics, and people talking politics in general?

[pap]

That last sentence, is that not just politics, and people talking politics in general?

 

Partially. Most people aren't politically active; most of those that are see it as a team sport, and yes, the suggestible little fúckers will lap up and repeat whatever it is their team is saying, even if it's something ridiculous.

 

It's completely pointless. If you're getting into politics, it should be to add your voice to the discussion. People tend to do the complete opposite, and adopt a bunch of views that aren't really their own or reinforce their cultivated pre-conceptions.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Partially. Most people aren't politically active; most of those that are see it as a team sport, and yes, the suggestible little fúckers will lap up and repeat whatever it is their team is saying, even if it's something ridiculous.

 

It's completely pointless. If you're getting into politics, it should be to add your voice to the discussion. People tend to do the complete opposite, and adopt a bunch of views that aren't really their own or reinforce their cultivated pre-conceptions.

 

Never understood the team idea of it. as an e.g. Gordon Brown on stepping down as leader of Labour said "I'm Labour til I die".

 

I find this odd. I'm not for one moment suggesting this is unique to him or Labour. But, why on earth would you make a decision based on today (which in many cases isn't true, it'll be parents views, a book they read, etc) and stick to that forever. Circumstances change, as do the candidates. Surely, it makes much more sense to vote on certain people, at certain times, given certain circumstances?

 

Or am I being silly?

[View From The Top]

Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm shouting for UKIP here. I know plenty of people that are, including lots of former Labour voters and people who aren't white. I won't be voting for them in the European Elections.

 

That said, I can spot an orchestrated campaign a mile off. What I object to is the cheap and easy labelling that both you and the mainstream press are passing off as debate. Take a look at the "pro-EU" posts on this thread and then consider how many of them actually make a case for the merits of the EU.

 

FWIW, Lord D's regurgitation of Farage's "people's army" bollócks is just as annoying.

 

Both sides of the arguments look like unwitting and unthinking mouthpieces, spewing up whatever it is they've heard, all the while giving the pretense of digestion.

 

I don't think many are Pro-EU. Pro-Europe yes, but not Pro-EU in terms of the monolithic behemoth it's become.

[View From The Top]

Never understood the team idea of it. as an e.g. Gordon Brown on stepping down as leader of Labour said "I'm Labour til I die".

 

I find this odd. I'm not for one moment suggesting this is unique to him or Labour. But, why on earth would you make a decision based on today (which in many cases isn't true, it'll be parents views, a book they read, etc) and stick to that forever. Circumstances change, as do the candidates. Surely, it makes much more sense to vote on certain people, at certain times, given certain circumstances?

 

Or am I being silly?

 

Yes, you're being silly.

 

I'm a leftie. Always will be but I vote Green at the moment having previously been a dyed in the wool Labour supporter. I would never, ever, vote Lib or Con.

 

I would suggest people with a political interest/leaning can move between parties on the same wing but not across wings whereas a person with no political interest/leaning would think nothing of moving across wings.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Yes, you're being silly.

 

I'm a leftie. Always will be but I vote Green at the moment having previously been a dyed in the wool Labour supporter. I would never, ever, vote Lib or Con.

 

I would suggest people with a political interest/leaning can move between parties on the same wing but not across wings whereas a person with no political interest/leaning would think nothing of moving across wings.

 

I guess that is kind of what I mean. I don't really support any party. I hate them all, if I'm honest.

 

I do feel though, at the moment I would be totally dismayed if I was a Labour supporter. Ed Milliband and the leadership are just utterly useless.

[solentstars]

Sssssh, you're not allowed to talk about UKIP. It isn't fair.

 

Its all the medias fault covering it all up.26 million from the crusty old ex Tory traitors who run ukip is the real count Lol.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Batman]

Ukips scare tactics is much the same as labours scare tactics that the NHS will be "destroyed" if the Tories get in on their own next year

 

(Same goes to everything else they oppose the Tories in)

[pap]

Never understood the team idea of it. as an e.g. Gordon Brown on stepping down as leader of Labour said "I'm Labour til I die".

 

I find this odd. I'm not for one moment suggesting this is unique to him or Labour. But, why on earth would you make a decision based on today (which in many cases isn't true, it'll be parents views, a book they read, etc) and stick to that forever. Circumstances change, as do the candidates. Surely, it makes much more sense to vote on certain people, at certain times, given certain circumstances?

 

Or am I being silly?

 

Our family in Southampton was always Labour, mostly because they had the distinction of being the party noted for looking after the common man. They're a complicated proposition these days; pro-business, willing to help to start wars, authoritarian and utterly in step to globalist interests, which of course, includes the EU. All of those are potential conflicts of interest to what's best for the people.

 

The common man is presently concerned with the stresses that membership of the EU is placing on the country. The major parties haven't listened and are still not listening. For many, UKIP are now seen to be the party of the common man. It's anecdotal, and not scientific, I was surprised at the number of people I spoke to on the Flower Estates, a multi-racial estate of some diversity, who said they were going to vote UKIP. Some of those were former Labour voters; others were people who'd never talked politics before in their lives.

 

I think that the UKIP adverts are distasteful, but find the hypocrisy unbelievable. It was only three years ago that the NO2AV multi-party campaign group, a greater hive of scum and self-interest you will never see, telling the British public that soldiers and babies would be killed if they voted for the proposed electoral system. I can understand why UKIP are taking this route; they want to win as many votes as they can. The posters are alarmingly worst-case, and in some cases inaccurate. Where that's the case, the ASA will pull them up on it and they'll be publicly reprimanded or fined. As of 28th of April, they'd had precisely 19 complaints.

 

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/04/28/asa-urges-those-offended-ukip-ad-campaign-contact-party-directly

[View From The Top]

Ukips scare tactics is much the same as labours scare tactics that the NHS will be "destroyed" if the Tories get in on their own next year

 

(Same goes to everything else they oppose the Tories in)

 

They are doing a very good job of making sure their mates, who bankroll them, are getting lovely great big fat NHS contracts.

 

Love the way they also take £400m from the primary schools budget for extra places to fill the £400m ideological black hole in Gove's Free School policy. Brilliant that is.

 

Also love the way that they make every young person go to college/training id they haven't got a job and then slash the budgets so much they teachers are getting laid off. Another genius idea.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Ukips scare tactics is much the same as labours scare tactics that the NHS will be "destroyed" if the Tories get in on their own next year

 

(Same goes to everything else they oppose the Tories in)

 

You only have to look to Wales to see just how safe the NHS is in labour hands.

 

Scare stories have always been a part of the establishments political campaigning , and you can not have a proper political debate because of it. Take tax , people don't argue about what brings in the most money but " tax cuts for millionaires" . We've seen it on this thread, with flat tax , and how the poorest pay the same as the richest. No they don't, the more you earn the more you pay. There's also no mention of the tax policy overall. Merging NI & Income tax ( described as sensible by ifs) and the raising of the tax free threshold much higher than it is now ( meaning less people pay tax and ni). It is a legitimate tax policy, which the taxpayers alliance and Adam smith institute have taken seriously . According to them at present the poorest 1/3 pay 9% of their income in tax and under UK IPS proposals they'll pay 0%.

 

This article explains it better than I can, although ukips 2010 policy allowed for a higher threshold than the 10k proposed by these people.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9202370/Osborne-urged-to-introduce-30pc-income-tax-for-all.html

 

 

Unfortunately instead of a grown up debate about it, there's just mud slinging and sound bites repeated over and over again. Its just a shame that Nigel appears to have let the liblabcon knock him off course on this issue.

[Lord Duckhunter]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-mp-austin-mitchell-faces-calls-to-be-sacked-after-describing-drugs-company-pfizer-as-rapists-in-astrazeneca-takeover-row-9370973.html

[Batman]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-mp-austin-mitchell-faces-calls-to-be-sacked-after-describing-drugs-company-pfizer-as-rapists-in-astrazeneca-takeover-row-9370973.html

 

doest that mean all labour voters/supporters are rapists?

[solentstars]

Those who finds the tax system complicated should employ an accountant. I'm self employed and manage to do my own. Most people are on PAYE so it's done by employer. Their proposals appear fair, except one size fits all taxation clearly benefit the rich considerably more than modest/middle/poor income brackets. I'm dubious about cuts to council grants and local taxation replacing or alongside council tax. £49 billion increase to deficit is a gamble too. Abolition of mansion /inheritance tax-music to Lady Bakewell's ears. She's had a terrible time of it recently, what with no robes and thrift, this is just the tonic a socialist peer needs. The government is unlikely to implement the proposals as dogmatic politicians rarely stray from the path, even one leading to the edge of a cliff. took this from the telegraph comments and i suppose is the same nonsence has we had in the 1980s of trickle down ecnomics which said if you made the super rich richer we would all be better of trickle down to the bottom.these right wing think tanks talk aload of b ollocks. just more greed for the selfish and what about ukips other barmy ideas from ex traitors of the tory party.

[Lord Duckhunter]

A % is a %. How is somebody on 80k a year paying 40% whilst somebody on 40k a year pays 20% "fair", the richer bloke still pays more revenue into the coffers if the % was the same. Because Rickie Lambert is more skilled at his job than I am at mine, why does his % have to increase? We are talking about earnt income here. In the strictest sense of the word , a flat tax is clearly the "fairest" .

[TwoPints]

So someone that earns £20000 paying 30% tax would be left with £14000 to live off. Someone earning £1000000 per annum would be left with £70000 per annum. Isn't it 'fair' for those that have more disposable income should spread some of that wealth to those that have very little? If the rate for the £1000000 earner was 40%, they would still have £600000 to spend and the extra £100000 would allow 50 people on £20000 to pay 20% meaning they have a whopping £16000 each to live on. I think I know which is fairer in a civilised society where those that are the weakest and less fortunate are not left to suffer at the expense of the super rich.

[solentstars]

Only fair to your ideas.I don't see how someone earning like the bankers up to 4 million a year by ripping of the public paying 30p in the pound has someone on income of £20000 has fair. because its not fair and just greed on a grand scale.I'm sure if I was a millionare I would not worry about paying the present rate.its about right in my opinion. Crack down on tax avoidance and loopholes and tax havens which even if the rich paid 30p in the pound they will still hide there money in these places.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Edited 14 May, 2014 by solentstars

[TwoPints]

It's also not quite correct to say that someone on £80k will be paying 40% whereas someone on £40k will only pay 20% as the £80k earner pays the same as the £40k earner until they get into the 40% tax rate at about £42k. So they're both paying the same rate of tax at the same levels of income.

[DuncanRG]

A % is a %. How is somebody on 80k a year paying 40% whilst somebody on 40k a year pays 20% "fair", the richer bloke still pays more revenue into the coffers if the % was the same. Because Rickie Lambert is more skilled at his job than I am at mine, why does his % have to increase? We are talking about earnt income here. In the strictest sense of the word , a flat tax is clearly the "fairest" .

 

Do you want to reduce the deficit?

Do you want poor people to have enough money to live on?

Do you oppose a flat tax?

 

You can answer no to two of these questions, but not all three.

Edited 14 May, 2014 by DuncanRG

[Lord Duckhunter]

Do you want to reduce the deficit?

Do you want poor people to have enough money to live on?

Do you oppose a flat tax?

 

You can answer no to two of these questions, but not all three.

 

Reduce the deficit? I would liken to eliminate it and then go on to become debt free. I don't believe that higher taxes automatically mean more revenue.

 

Define "poor"

 

Long term, I wouldn't rule it out.

[pap]

So someone that earns £20000 paying 30% tax would be left with £14000 to live off. Someone earning £1000000 per annum would be left with £70000 per annum. Isn't it 'fair' for those that have more disposable income should spread some of that wealth to those that have very little? If the rate for the £1000000 earner was 40%, they would still have £600000 to spend and the extra £100000 would allow 50 people on £20000 to pay 20% meaning they have a whopping £16000 each to live on. I think I know which is fairer in a civilised society where those that are the weakest and less fortunate are not left to suffer at the expense of the super rich.

 

Do you want to reduce the deficit?

Do you want poor people to have enough money to live on?

Do you oppose a flat tax?

 

You can answer no to two of these questions, but not all three.

 

Ah, the fantasy of lower income families doing alright on progressive taxation. I suppose you two lads have forgotten all about the various methods of indirect taxation, many of them regressive, that everyone has to pay. VAT, tax on fuel (which increases the cost of everything), beer, cigarettes, council tax and the like.

 

Also, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the less fortunate are being left to suffer at the expense of the super rich. Most of the super-rich got richer during the recession. Most normal people didn't. The panacea of progressive taxation hasn't delivered the social change you're after chaps, so what does that make these posts? Cheerleading for tax accountants?

 

None of your points have any substance behind them. Given your apparent blindness to the huge amounts of regressive taxation the poor have to pay, is it safe to say that neither of you have lived under a flat tax system?

 

You seem to have both fallen for the huge con that progressive taxation is somehow good for people and the economy. I suspect the real tax burden is somewhere approaching 50% for low earners. Progressive tax isn't about helping the poor, it's about obscuring that tax burden figure. It is entirely defensible in isolation, which is probably why you've such strong views. However, it's just a component of a wider taxation system in which the poor are shafted elsewhere.

 

I would rather just pay the burden, whatever the fúck it really is, and know that everything else is mine.

[TwoPints]

Ah, the fantasy of lower income families doing alright on progressive taxation. I suppose you two lads have forgotten all about the various methods of indirect taxation, many of them regressive, that everyone has to pay. VAT, tax on fuel (which increases the cost of everything), beer, cigarettes, council tax and the like.

 

Also, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the less fortunate are being left to suffer at the expense of the super rich. Most of the super-rich got richer during the recession. Most normal people didn't. The panacea of progressive taxation hasn't delivered the social change you're after chaps, so what does that make these posts? Cheerleading for tax accountants?

 

None of your points have any substance behind them. Given your apparent blindness to the huge amounts of regressive taxation the poor have to pay, is it safe to say that neither of you have lived under a flat tax system?

 

You seem to have both fallen for the huge con that progressive taxation is somehow good for people and the economy. I suspect the real tax burden is somewhere approaching 50% for low earners. Progressive tax isn't about helping the poor, it's about obscuring that tax burden figure. It is entirely defensible in isolation, which is probably why you've such strong views. However, it's just a component of a wider taxation system in which the poor are shafted elsewhere.

 

I would rather just pay the burden, whatever the fúck it really is, and know that everything else is mine.

 

I don't disagree with you pap but the question was about a flat rate of income tax. I'm not for one minute extolling the virtues of the other flat rate taxes that you refer to and I'm not sure why you would assume that I would be when I'm opposing a flat rate of income tax.

 

Things are far from great but a flat rate of income tax would surely compound the problem. I think we're on the same page here.

[pap]

I don't disagree with you pap but the question was about a flat rate of income tax. I'm not for one minute extolling the virtues of the other flat rate taxes that you refer to and I'm not sure why you would assume that I would be when I'm opposing a flat rate of income tax.

 

Things are far from great but a flat rate of income tax would surely compound the problem. I think we're on the same page here.

 

On the same page? We're not even reading the same book.

 

I am talking about the overall tax burden, which is what actually matters when considering taxation.

 

You're defending the one fluffy bit that exists as if it matters, and isn't a smokescreen to hide all the other money we give to the government.

[TwoPints]

Whatever you say pap. I was merely answering the point about a flat rate of income tax. If you want to read into that my opinion on the taxation system as a whole then you do so but really its rather ridiculous to do so. However if you want to gave a rant about something completely different to the point of discussion and make assumptions about people's views on completely different points then you go ahead.

[pap]

Whatever you say pap. I was merely answering the point about a flat rate of income tax. If you want to read into that my opinion on the taxation system as a whole then you do so but really its rather ridiculous to do so. However if you want to gave a rant about something completely different to the point of discussion and make assumptions about people's views on completely different points then you go ahead.

 

Similarly, if you have such problems with flat taxation, maybe you'd care to enumerate them keeping a holistic view of the tax burden situation.

 

Narrowing your argument to what you can defend doesn't solve your problem; it just shows you weren't thinking comprehensively in the first place.

[TwoPints]

I wasn't narrowing any argument, I'll say again, I was answering the specific point made about a flat rate of income tax. If I'd responded by detailing my views of every piece of tax legislation from income tax, through inheritance tax, stamp duty to VAT and fuel tax then the point I was trying to make against the specific question would have been lost in pages of text.

[pap]

I wasn't narrowing any argument, I'll say again, I was answering the specific point made about a flat rate of income tax. If I'd responded by detailing my views of every piece of tax legislation from income tax, through inheritance tax, stamp duty to VAT and fuel tax then the point I was trying to make against the specific question would have been lost in pages of text.

 

To what end?

 

How many people do you know that just pay income tax? If these people exist ( they don't ), then great, your argument is relevant. If not, then you have to consider the overall burden of taxation, which you're not.

 

The panoply of tax legislation is a big part of the problem. In practice, this means that progressive tax doesn't really work (anyone that can afford an accountant gets out of it), corporations get away with paying way under the corporate tax rate.

 

Not your argument, but DuncanRG seems to think that progressive tax is key for beating down the deficit. I'd disagree. Simplify the lot, take it at source and make everyone pay. Binman, lawyer or multinational - you all pay the same proportion of your income, but whatever you have left is yours.

 

That is fair, imo. Mollify yourself as much as you like with ideas of fairness in progressive taxation, but remember that the notion of the rich paying more is just a fantasy, and while it theoretically might be "fairer" for those on low incomes to have a lower percentage burden on their income tax, the wider practice doesn't bear this out.

[TwoPints]

So your proposing the removal of tax on alcohol and cigarettes for example?

[TwoPints]

... and presumably tax breaks to encourage people to save for retirement through pensions?