Love Britain ? - Vote UKIP.

[cheesyboy]

Not true. remember we dont manufacturer much here anyway esoecially consumer items and what use are cheaper goods if no one can afford them due to being unemployed anyway?

Restricting free movement would stop the huge influx of non English speaking people. We don't need more non eu either. Q country with 2 million unemployed does not need to import a work force im sorry to break that to you.

We actually manufacture more now than we ever have (recession notwithstanding). Check out some analysis on the UK's Index of Production;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/

Manufacturing is just not as big a part of our economy as it once was, due to much bigger growth in other industries (hence we are richer than ever before)

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Fear of change!, ever thought that people just don't like it and are happy as they are? so why should they change.

Evidently, considering the amount of change proposed in this country, a very small proportion of the population are actually resistant to change. An example of change is allowing same sex marriages - a huge change for many people, resisted heavily by conservative thinkers and OAPs (aka UKIP voters).

Change isn't a bad thing, it leads to progress, which is part of why the UK is so successful. We have been leaders in progress for centuries, and should continue to be.

Fear of change is the enemy of progress.

When your country is relatively wealthy but with generous benefits and free NHS how can freedom of movement be a good thing for us. You are suggesting an ideal that will decrease the wealth of the country.

Yes indeed. Perhaps I have greater concerns than wealth.

 

[Kemik]

To be fair to Nigel, the media has pointed this picture of him as a racist and everyone hears UKIP and thinks "whites only". It's the same impression I had until I actually researched him and his beliefs.

1. He dislikes being governed excessively, hence dislikes the EU.
2. He has actually worked a real job and it was on an international stage so knows how the world works. Promotion of manufacturing and R&D.
3. He understands the need for home produced power.
4. He wants to simplify the tax system, reducing tax "loop holes" and removing more people out of the tax net.
5. He wants to cut public spending.

Those are the reasons I would probably vote for them, rather than "everyone out!!".

Labour in the mean time are coming up with crazy ideas to get more votes and spend more money. They really need to stop thinking micro and start thinking macro.

 

[deuse]

Evidently, considering the amount of change proposed in this country, a very small proportion of the population are actually resistant to change. An example of change is allowing same sex marriages - a huge change for many people, resisted heavily by conservative thinkers and OAPs (aka UKIP voters).

Citation needed. Or is this your own opinion? if so then please say.

Change isn't a bad thing, it leads to progress, which is part of why the UK is so successful. We have been leaders in progress for centuries, and should continue to be.

Fear of change is the enemy of progress.

Tell that to the indigenous people of the usa or the people in Libya\Afghanistan\Somali\Iraq I don't think they like change either.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Citation needed. Or is this your own opinion? if so then please say.

Which part are you referring to?

Tell that to the indigenous people of the usa or the people in Libya\Afghanistan\Somali\Iraq I don't think they like change either.

We're not talking about turning the country on its head! You're taking extreme examples to prove a point, which, as you know, is not an acceptable method of argument.

 

[Hyburnate]

We can "expel" terrorists from our own country, and there was up until very recently plans from House of Commons to extend those powers to make people stateless if need be and this was allowed by the ECHR, it was shot down by the House of Lords.

Not that there's any real need, terrorists are rarely successful in this country and I have faith in our prison system over one in Pakistan etc.

 

[Sankari]

4. He wants to simplify the tax system, reducing tax "loop holes" and removing more people out of the tax net.

Reducing tax loopholes would ensure more people pay tax. Yet he wants fewer people to pay tax.

5. He wants to cut public spending.

What will the government do with the money it's saved by reducing public spending?

 

[Kemik]

Reducing tax loopholes would ensure more people pay tax. Yet he wants fewer people to pay tax.

You simplify the tax system. Remove a large portion of weird allowances and reliefs, leaving only those that are simple and targeted at growth.

A flat rate tax (or close to it) would reduce the need to avoid taxes and hugely reduce the admin burden. Then up the personal allowance to minimum wage or approximately £12k a year. Increasing this allowance removes hundreds of thousands from the tax net.

What will the government do with the money it's saved by reducing public spending?

Pay off more of that lovely debt balance we have. Sooner we start paying that down, the sooner we have more money to spend on things other than interest.

 

[deuse]

Which part are you referring to?

very small proportion of the population are actually resistant to change

That one.

We're not talking about turning the country on its head! You're taking extreme examples to prove a point, which, as you know, is not an acceptable method of argument.

If you knew the UK 50+ years ago this is "about turning the country on its head"

 

[Sankari]

A flat rate tax (or close to it) would reduce the need to avoid taxes and hugely reduce the admin burden.

Try telling corporations you've come up with a scheme that 'reduces the need to avoid taxes.' They'll laugh all the way to their offshore accounts.

No matter what you do, the highest income earners will use every trick in the book to avoid paying their fair share of taxes—and the irony is, they're in the best position to do it.

Then up the personal allowance to minimum wage or approximately £12k a year. Increasing this allowance removes hundreds of thousands from the tax net.

Australia's already done that. Our tax free threshold was tripled to $18,000 in 2012. This removed 1 million people from the tax net.

Pay off more of that lovely debt balance we have. Sooner we start paying that down, the sooner we have more money to spend on things other than interest.

Firstly, why public spending cuts? Why not some other approach, like a mixture of public spending cuts and something else?

Secondly, how many cuts would you have to make in public spending before you were saving enough money to make an appreciable dent in the debt balance?

Thirdly, how are you going to compensate for all the money lost by raising the tax free threshold?

I think it makes more sense for a government to come up with ways to generate money rather than clawing it back from taxpayers.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

That one.

What I am referring to is the fact that we are a progressive country, we do move forward and spearhead change. How are you supposed to determine this accurately? I'm using judgement.

If you knew the UK 50+ years ago this is "about turning the country on its head"

Yes but in 50 years things have changed, have they not? Our current starting point for change is 2014, not 1964, which UKIP seems to think it is.

 

[Zethor]

Not true. remember we dont manufacturer much here anyway esoecially consumer items and what use are cheaper goods if no one can afford them due to being unemployed anyway?

Restricting free movement would stop the huge influx of non English speaking people. We don't need more non eu either. Q country with 2 million unemployed does not need to import a work force im sorry to break that to you.

500k people arrived in the UK in 2013, half of which were not EU citizens. Are you suggesting these people are not needed?

 

[The Running Man]

We actually manufacture more now than we ever have (recession notwithstanding). Check out some analysis on the UK's Index of Production;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/

Manufacturing is just not as big a part of our economy as it once was, due to much bigger growth in other industries (hence we are richer than ever before)

Quite and note how manufacturing in the recession was omitted from the chart.

Explain why having free immigration during a recession is then a good thing when we see contraction in manufacturing?
[
Of course proportionately manufacturing is a smaller part of our economy. Again fails to address what our 2 million unemployed could be employed to do.

ZETHOR that's exactly what im suggesting. Not needed. The ones who are genuinely needed would be a fraction of that. I.e skilled workers perhaps 10-20% of that number might be 'needed'.

 

[deuse]

What I am referring to is the fact that we are a progressive country, we do move forward and spearhead change. How are you supposed to determine this accurately? I'm using judgement.

So please say "in my opinion" this makes it so much clearer.

Yes but in 50 years things have changed, have they not? Our current starting point for change is 2014, not 1964, which UKIP seems to think it is.

Yes things have changed but for the worse. And in my opinion more people liked the UK in the 50s-70s

 

[dirtychinchilla]

So please say "in my opinion" this makes it so much clearer.

It's not really an opinion though, is it. We have changed substantially.

Yes things have changed but for the worse. And in my opinion more people liked the UK in the 50s-70s

What's worse than it was then?

 

[TFC]

What scares me most is that Labour should have any chance of winning the next election, they are in total denial that they had anything to do with the mess that this country is in.

 

[kitch9]

500k people arrived in the UK in 2013, half of which were not EU citizens. Are you suggesting these people are not needed?

When we have 1.2 million youth unemployed we don't need building sites full of poorly trained and low wage eastern europeans when they could be full of the next generation of apprentice joiners, builders, electricians, craftsmen no.

We currently have a lot of over subscribed skill sets on this country which is driving down wages and quality to the benefit of large companies who in turn are using every trick in the book to avoid paying tax and to top it off vast sums of money is getting sent abroad by the very people who are causing these problems in the first place.

I agree with the EU in principle, our problem is we don't have the same currency as the EU (Nor should we have.) yet we are just as nuts deep in the thing as all the other who do have the same currency which causes huge imbalances and we end up being this shining beacon of (perceived) wealth which attracts migrants from all over when we are just as skint as the rest of em.'

Labour like the migrants, to them its a small price to pay for the free votes to them, they are even willing to ignore that they drive down the wages of the normal working man and pretend it isn't happening because of it, but when you have foreign speaking tradesman willing to work for £60.00 -70.00 a day what company wouldn't use them?

 

[iamtheoneneo]

What scares me most is that Labour should have any chance of winning the next election, they are in total denial that they had anything to do with the mess that this country is in.

They have no chance whilst under miliband and even many labour advocates iv spoken acknowledge that.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

When we have 1.2 million youth unemployed we don't need building sites full of poorly trained and low wage eastern europeans when they could be full of the next generation of apprentice joiners, builders, electricians, craftsmen no.

We currently have a lot of over subscribed skill sets on this country which is driving down wages and quality to the benefit of large companies who in turn are using every trick in the book to avoid paying tax and to top it off vast sums of money is getting sent abroad by the very people who are causing these problems in the first place.

You honestly don't think that English people are inherently lazy, and that a number of those 1.2 million unemployed, are very lazy?

This whole argument of "people stealing our jobs" is just not valid, because those jobs would not be available if English people had filled them in the first place.

 

[shadow_boxer]

You honestly don't think that English people are inherently lazy, and that a number of those 1.2 million unemployed, are very lazy?

Spot on. What proportion of that so called hard working young British population would be happy to work as cleaners for minimum wage or get up at 4am and pick cabbages on a farm! Not many I bet.