The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Joey66]

UKIP are racists. That much is obvious to anyone. As such, they would not be an option for me even if I did want the UK to leave the EU.

Why are they racist ? when all they want is a points system on immigration, and our country to set its own laws and save a fortune - Norway manage outside the EU - I remember when we did also things were cheaper, and better! we can trade all over the world and pay 1 % import and export duty extra to trade with the EU like Norway do!
The EU is for gravy train politicians to further their careers look at its history its has not audited its accounts for the last 20 years!
We could also start manufacturing our own engineering goods again, as we were the world leaders in that field!

 

[Clint Planet]

Why are they racist ? when all they want is a points system on immigration, and our country to set its own laws and save a fortune - Norway manage outside the EU - I remember when we did also things were cheaper, and better! we can trade all over the world and pay 1 % import and export duty extra to trade with the EU like Norway do!
The EU is for gravy train politicians to further their careers look at its history its has not audited its accounts for the last 20 years!
We could also start manufacturing our own engineering goods again, as we were the world leaders in that field!

http://leftfootforward.org/2014/10/ukip-policies-dangerous-costly-and-yes-racist/

I can sympathise with anyone who might want out of the EU (though I myself don't want it). I just refuse to vote for nasty little racists.

 

[Tubey]

Why are they racist ? when all they want is a points system on immigration, and our country to set its own laws and save a fortune - Norway manage outside the EU - I remember when we did also things were cheaper, and better! we can trade all over the world and pay 1 % import and export duty extra to trade with the EU like Norway do!
The EU is for gravy train politicians to further their careers look at its history its has not audited its accounts for the last 20 years!
We could also start manufacturing our own engineering goods again, as we were the world leaders in that field!

There is a sizeable element of their support and indeed members who are racists, hidden behind the charm of Farage.

My guess is that as the election approaches and scrutiny increases on policy, you'll see quite a few things slip. Indeed, it's happened regularly with Ayling, the racist comedy routine at one of their conferences about Poland. It doesn't stop there either; they are extremely anti-gay, with some members linking them to pedophiles, competely against civil liberties, believe black people have higher levels of schizophrenia because of their island cultures, and so on.

People don't know what they're doing if they actually think UKIP is a legitimate electoral choice. What they actually are are a very good protest vote, as it shows the establishment that people are prepared to vote for the insane in order to express their disapproval.

 

[GBH73]

Why are they racist ? when all they want is a points system on immigration, and our country to set its own laws and save a fortune - Norway manage outside the EU - I remember when we did also things were cheaper, and better! we can trade all over the world and pay 1 % import and export duty extra to trade with the EU like Norway do!
The EU is for gravy train politicians to further their careers look at its history its has not audited its accounts for the last 20 years!
We could also start manufacturing our own engineering goods again, as we were the world leaders in that field!

Yup, like the 24 UKIP gravy train politicians who are currently MEPs.

As for UKIP being racist - enough of their councillors, prospective candidates and supporters have come out with racist and sexist comments to make the whole party 'tainted', despite what any of us think of their policies.

In some ways UKIP remind me of LFC supporting the sewer rat after he racially abused Evra. When they have expelled party members for telling Lenny Henry to move to a 'black country' etc it smacks of too little, too late.

Actually if I remember correctly, they didn't expel the clown who said that, he quit of his own accord. Yeah ok, maybe they are inherently racist...

 

[rascal]

Neither do UKIP, unless the term "men of the people" includes public-school educated commodities brokers from the City.

I was taking the urine, lid.

 

[toffee matt]

Why are they racist ? when all they want is a points system on immigration, and our country to set its own laws and save a fortune - Norway manage outside the EU - I remember when we did also things were cheaper, and better! we can trade all over the world and pay 1 % import and export duty extra to trade with the EU like Norway do!
The EU is for gravy train politicians to further their careers look at its history its has not audited its accounts for the last 20 years!
We could also start manufacturing our own engineering goods again, as we were the world leaders in that field!

Ukip are poisonous mix of ex BNP supporters, Tories dissatisfied with Cameron and Labour voters who are dissatisfied with the lack of message on issues such as immigration.

Farage has capitalised on this on telling people what they want to here and basically using the easy target that is the eu to blame all Britain's issue's on.

Scratch below the surface and they have not one feesable policy on anything.

They probably won't last long after the election anyway in their current form , farage is a control freak and will inevitably fall out with Douglas Carswell leaving a split in the party

 

[Blue 1]

Probably one credible accusation there, the rest is bullshit.
I'd wage my left bollock that you base your UKIP stance on conjecture. Don't worry, you're not alone, most people do. Others base it on party political propaganda.

It's all monkey brained.

OK mate x

 

[Mrk]

UKIP = Mental, slightly racist and completely unfit to hold public office.
Conservatives = Trying too hard to be UKIP.
Labour = Conmen.
Lib Dems = Who?
Greens = Hilariously inept.

That was easy.

 

[Milk]

Ukip are poisonous mix of ex BNP supporters, Tories dissatisfied with Cameron and Labour voters who are dissatisfied with the lack of message on issues such as immigration.

Farage has capitalised on this on telling people what they want to here and basically using the easy target that is the eu to blame all Britain's issue's on.

Scratch below the surface and they have not one feesable policy on anything.

They probably won't last long after the election anyway in their current form , farage is a control freak and will inevitably fall out with Douglas Carswell leaving a split in the party

Apropos nothing at all really but I see that the Ku Klux Klan are advertising for black, Asian and homosexual members.

If the KKK can try and be perceived as mainstream, maybe there is some hope for UKIP

Vote Looney

 

[Woolly Blue]

The what now? Since when did the receipt of welfare become an income? It isn't a job, you haven't done anything to earn it, it's given to you. This is the same nonsense that brands things like the bedroom tax as a tax. Being given less of something you've done bugger all to earn is not a tax!

People who work earn an income. A large chunk of their income is then taken from them and distributed via welfare. If less of that original income is taxed than previously, it isn't stolen from whomever the recipient might be because it isn't their money to begin with!

And yet you have this constant rhetoric that the rich are taking from the poor. It's madness. They're not going into the pay packet of someone on the minimum wage and saying "I'll have a bit of that, thank you very much".

We still live in a society whereby the wealthiest pay the vast majority of income tax, with the bottom 10% of earners contributing around 0.6% of the total income tax raised in the UK. Indeed, the bottom 50% of earners only contribute just over 10% of the total income tax generated. What's more, I think I'm right in saying that the bottom 70% in terms of income receive considerably more in state services than they actually pay for in taxes.

So really, the 'transfer of income' is largely going one way, just as it always has.

I get your point about where the money comes from, but the acid test of a civilised society is how it looks after the weak and poor. Yes, that means that some people will take advantage, but that's the price we pay. Personally I think it's a price worth paying and ( mostly ) happily pay my taxes knowing that :-

a ) The government of the day will waste a percentage of it and
b ) Some of the tax I pay will end up going to people who probably don't deserve it

For the sake of balance and openness, I do legally minimise some of my tax bill, but I ain't perfect.

 

[Woolly Blue]

Not too mention their stance on nuclear weaponry

As an aside ...

The main reason we didn't ditch an independent nuclear deterrent when Labour ( who, when in opposition weren't so keen on it ) were in power, was a political one rather than a military one. Having an independent deterrent gives you a seat at many important tables and politicians hate giving up power and influence.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I get your point about where the money comes from, but the acid test of a civilised society is how it looks after the weak and poor. Yes, that means that some people will take advantage, but that's the price we pay. Personally I think it's a price worth paying and ( mostly ) happily pay my taxes knowing that :-

a ) The government of the day will waste a percentage of it and
b ) Some of the tax I pay will end up going to people who probably don't deserve it

For the sake of balance and openness, I do legally minimise some of my tax bill, but I ain't perfect.

Oh for sure, I very much support helping those in need, it just doesn't sit easily with me labeling welfare as income as that marks it out as an entitlement, which I don't think is right.

 

[The Esk]

The what now? Since when did the receipt of welfare become an income? It isn't a job, you haven't done anything to earn it, it's given to you. This is the same nonsense that brands things like the bedroom tax as a tax. Being given less of something you've done bugger all to earn is not a tax!

Not all benefits are unearned, the whole principle of the National Insurance system is that whilst in work you contribute to a scheme which will provide you with benefits at a time of need.

However we need to look at the principles of social security, from which benefits derive regardless of employment history.

Social security exists to maintain income at a time when through unemployment, illness, disability or age, employment is not possible. It provides huge benefits to society as a whole, including:

• the relief of poverty
• social protection - The idea of 'social security' implies that people ought to be able to feel secure. This involves, not only being protected against poverty, but being protected against the hardships that may arise through a change in circumstances.
• redistribution - Benefits which go to people who have inadequate incomes, at the expense of people who are more, are progressive.
• solidarity - Social security should not be seen simply as charity, but as a form of mutual co-operation. It is a principle which is extended across the welfare state.

People who work earn an income. A large chunk of their income is then taken from them and distributed via welfare. If less of that original income is taxed than previously, it isn't stolen from whomever the recipient might be because it isn't their money to begin with!

This is a nonsensical argument - there is no subsidiarity in the income tax system, individual governments make policy decisions to determine the level of benefit spending. However, because there is an entitlement to benefits (like it or not) when the entitlement is reduced or removed it is not unnatural for recipients to feel as if it has been "stolen".

And yet you have this constant rhetoric that the rich are taking from the poor. It's madness. They're not going into the pay packet of someone on the minimum wage and saying "I'll have a bit of that, thank you very much".

Perhaps Lord Freud might be accused of that!

However let's look at the rich taking from the poor. I employ several thousand people. I'm very conscious that there is a huge sensitivity in the affect of changing the level of wages the majority earn. Wages account for roughly 20% of my costs, so a 10% wage cut adds 2% to my margins and a 10% pay rise reduces my margins similarly by 2%. The point here is that 2% either way makes no difference to my lifestyle yet a 10% increase or decrease in wages makes a huge difference to the lifestyle of my employees. A 10% reduction would have serious consequences for the majority I would guess. I am very conscious that as an employer I determine the standard of living of my employees and could quite easily "take from the poor" if I wished to do so. I and other employers have almost complete control in this sense.

We still live in a society whereby the wealthiest pay the vast majority of income tax, with the bottom 10% of earners contributing around 0.6% of the total income tax raised in the UK. Indeed, the bottom 50% of earners only contribute just over 10% of the total income tax generated. What's more, I think I'm right in saying that the bottom 70% in terms of income receive considerably more in state services than they actually pay for in taxes.

It's true that the top earners collectively pay more income tax than the bottom earners, but surprise, surprise, that's because they collectively earn more. It's also true that lower earners receive more in state services than they contribute in taxes and higher earners pay for more than they receive. But that's the point of progressive taxation, which almost everyone accepts is a good idea.

What's more important though is to look at the amount of total taxes the poor and the rich pay relative to their income. We need to include indirect taxation here too - VAT, car tax, alcohol taxes etc etc.

So, using ONS figures the poorest 20% pay a total of £4,743 in taxes per person, £1,256 in direct taxes and £3,488 in indirect taxes. The top 20% of earners pay £29,462 on average, £20,322 in direct taxes and £9,140 in indirect taxes.

As a % of income we get the following:

Lowest earners pay on average 55% of their earnings in direct and indirect taxes
Highest earners pay on average 47% of their earnings in direct and indirect taxes

So really, the 'transfer of income' is largely going one way, just as it always has.

Correct, just not in the direction you believe!

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

Oh for sure, I very much support helping those in need, it just doesn't sit easily with me labeling welfare as income as that marks it out as an entitlement, which I don't think is right.

I see what you mean, personally however I disagree regarding the entitlement to welfare. My ideas tie in with the basic idea behind the liberal welfare reforms around 1906 where a certain level of what I consider income is guaranteed. I don't doubt for a second that some will take advantage, however basically, it gives each and everyone a starting point from which they may escape poverty and work towards prosperity. It also keeps those in poverty from falling deeper into poverty. I think it should be an entitlement.

I know that is controversial these days, and it stems from the sort of personal experiences that we all have, but I think it is a good, albeit imperfect, system.

 

[Clint Planet]

Not all benefits are unearned, the whole principle of the National Insurance system is that whilst in work you contribute to a scheme which will provide you with benefits at a time of need.

However we need to look at the principles of social security, from which benefits derive regardless of employment history.

Social security exists to maintain income at a time when through unemployment, illness, disability or age, employment is not possible. It provides huge benefits to society as a whole, including:

• the relief of poverty
• social protection - The idea of 'social security' implies that people ought to be able to feel secure. This involves, not only being protected against poverty, but being protected against the hardships that may arise through a change in circumstances.
• redistribution - Benefits which go to people who have inadequate incomes, at the expense of people who are more, are progressive.
• solidarity - Social security should not be seen simply as charity, but as a form of mutual co-operation. It is a principle which is extended across the welfare state.

This is a nonsensical argument - there is no subsidiarity in the income tax system, individual governments make policy decisions to determine the level of benefit spending. However, because there is an entitlement to benefits (like it or not) when the entitlement is reduced or removed it is not unnatural for recipients to feel as if it has been "stolen".




Perhaps Lord Freud might be accused of that!

However let's look at the rich taking from the poor. I employ several thousand people. I'm very conscious that there is a huge sensitivity in the affect of changing the level of wages the majority earn. Wages account for roughly 20% of my costs, so a 10% wage cut adds 2% to my margins and a 10% pay rise reduces my margins similarly by 2%. The point here is that 2% either way makes no difference to my lifestyle yet a 10% increase or decrease in wages makes a huge difference to the lifestyle of my employees. A 10% reduction would have serious consequences for the majority I would guess. I am very conscious that as an employer I determine the standard of living of my employees and could quite easily "take from the poor" if I wished to do so. I and other employers have almost complete control in this sense.



It's true that the top earners collectively pay more income tax than the bottom earners, but surprise, surprise, that's because they collectively earn more. It's also true that lower earners receive more in state services than they contribute in taxes and higher earners pay for more than they receive. But that's the point of progressive taxation, which almost everyone accepts is a good idea.

What's more important though is to look at the amount of total taxes the poor and the rich pay relative to their income. We need to include indirect taxation here too - VAT, car tax, alcohol taxes etc etc.

So, using ONS figures the poorest 20% pay a total of £4,743 in taxes per person, £1,256 in direct taxes and £3,488 in indirect taxes. The top 20% of earners pay £29,462 on average, £20,322 in direct taxes and £9,140 in indirect taxes.

As a % of income we get the following:

Lowest earners pay on average 55% of their earnings in direct and indirect taxes
Highest earners pay on average 47% of their earnings in direct and indirect taxes



Correct, just not in the direction you believe!

*applause*