UKIP are now a parliamentary party

[cunning fergus]

Well we have to fund tax cuts for the rich somehow. 76% of MP's are millionaires, they look after their own.

If you are happy for those suffering from Ebola to die and those living in extreme poverty to have no education or future then vote for a party that stops foreign aid, it's your democratic right and choice to do so.

I agree about the MPs, however the French put the tax rate for the rich up to 75% and it's been an unmitigated disaster which they are now dropping. So, like it or not higher tax is not the answer.

Even if it was the answer until this country has a balanced book we should not be borrowing money to spend on any military adventures or laudable causes, it is simply not fair to the taxpayers.

We already contribute more money to the EU than we get back and that includes money for aid the EU too, this is absurd. I would rather direct the entire overseas aid budget straight to NHS than have to borrow more money or put up taxes.

Given the amount of health tourism and fraud that goes through the NHS the third world would still get some benefit.

 

[dingodan]

32 pages, can someone sum up what they say for me?

 

[Soulman]

I'm not having a go at you, Africa is institutionally corrupt, but it's not alone in this.

The UK has committed to contribute 0.7% of GNI in foreign aid. That works out at £1 per week for a taxpayer on average earnings. I'm normally the first to have a pop at Cameron but spending by the Tories is higher than under Labour. If you consider this to be too high then fair enough.

However the devil is as always in the detail. What qualifies as overseas aid is murky, with a lot of it being sliced and diced by UK consultants, overseas governments bureaucracy and questionable projects (such as hydroelectric dams, military projects and so on).

Fair enough. As i have stated, i have no problem with aid going to the people that need it, but as i have pointed out in previous posts an awful lot is ending up in the pockets of those that either do not need it, or siphoned off by other governments/weapons.
Surely the aid can be got to those that need it.

 

[El Presidente]

I agree about the MPs, however the French put the tax rate for the rich up to 75% and it's been an unmitigated disaster which they are now dropping. So, like it or not higher tax is not the answer.

Even if it was the answer until this country has a balanced book we should not be borrowing money to spend on any military adventures or laudable causes, it is simply not fair to the taxpayers.

We already contribute more money to the EU than we get back and that includes money for aid the EU too, this is absurd. I would rather direct the entire overseas aid budget straight to NHS than have to borrow more money or put up taxes.

Given the amount of health tourism and fraud that goes through the NHS the third world would still get some benefit.

1: Agree with you entirely about the French.

2: Agree about the wars, not on letting the poor die in misery, simply because they had the misfortune to be borne elsewhere. I'm from a migrant family, which skews my viewpoint perhaps.

3: Whilst there is a net taxpayer contribution to the EU, business as a whole benefits from the lack of barriers to trade and having a single market.

4: Health tourism costs are estimated at £20m a year, it's an irrelevance compared to PFI, which is going to cost over £200 billion in my opinion, but let's agree to disagree.

 

[cunning fergus]

But also Home Secretarys who make decisions for political reasons or to appease the leader column of national newspapers (and this applies to both Labour and Tory) need some form of reference, otherwise they can abuse their powers.

Maybe, however we are not getting a point of reference are we, unelected foreign judges overall elected ministers and the British high court. Unacceptable situation I am afraid.

Moreover, the narrative that it's only the UK ministers and judges that are susceptible to the vagaries of the media, whilst European judges are paragons of independent virtue unencumbered by any influence on their judgement is naivety of the highest order.

 

[El Presidente]

Fair enough. As i have stated, i have no problem with aid going to the people that need it, but as i have pointed out in previous posts an awful lot is ending up in the pockets of those that either do not need it, or siphoned off by other governments/weapons.
Surely the aid can be got to those that need it.

I think we are in broad agreement, I give money to Oxfam each month, I hope they do the right thing with the money, I trust them more than politicians of any hue.

 

[El Presidente]

Maybe, however we are not getting a point of reference are we, unelected foreign judges overall elected ministers and the British high court. Unacceptable situation I am afraid.

Moreover, the narrative that it's only the UK ministers and judges that are susceptible to the vagaries of the media, whilst European judges are paragons of independent virtue unencumbered by any influence on their judgement is naivety of the highest order.

Fair enough, the Gary McKinnon case is a reason why I think judges can make better decisions than politicians, but let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Soulman]

I think we are in broad agreement, I give money to Oxfam each month, I hope they do the right thing with the money, I trust them more than politicians of any hue.

I believe that Susannah York used to be figure head for Oxfam, she left because of where the money was not going as i recall.

 

[El Presidente]

I believe that Susannah York used to be figure head for Oxfam, she left because of where the money was not going as i recall.

You are probably right, would changing my contribution to Action Aid or similar make a positive contribution though? I genuinely don't know.

York was a bit of a trendy lefty though from my vague recollection.

 

[cunning fergus]

1: Agree with you entirely about the French.

2: Agree about the wars, not on letting the poor die in misery, simply because they had the misfortune to be borne elsewhere. I'm from a migrant family, which skews my viewpoint perhaps.

3: Whilst there is a net taxpayer contribution to the EU, business as a whole benefits from the lack of barriers to trade and having a single market.

4: Health tourism costs are estimated at £20m a year, it's an irrelevance compared to PFI, which is going to cost over £200 billion in my opinion, but let's agree to disagree.

2. Their are poor people dying in misery in this country and people not able to access the best drugs and treatment etc. and they have paid into the system. The British people are and have always been incredibly generous to charitable causes so no doubt they will give again. They should not be forced to give when the country is in hock. I am not from an immigrant family so maybe I am skewed too.

3. The single market fine, the fact however is that we are paying money to the EU so they can give it to poorer EU countries, (see point 2.) and have lost sovereignty. Neither should be a consequence of accessing the single market.

4. Agree that PFI is a much bigger issue, as are public sector pensions and both matters are off the balance sheet which only makes our debt levels worse, see point 2. again. Accordingly in such circumstances I would argue preventing waste and fraud is even more important. As for the scale this senior Doctor said it was billions.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...osting-NHS-billions-senior-doctor-claims.html

 

[cunning fergus]

Fair enough, the Gary McKinnon case is a reason why I think judges can make better decisions than politicians, but let's just agree to disagree.

No probs, here is my case why they don't.......

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/w...verrules-britain-on-terror-detainee.html?_r=0

 

[Pogue Mahone]

32 pages, can someone sum up what they say for me?

You don't really need someone to do this, do you?

I haven't read it either. But like you, I know what it says.

 

[cunning fergus]

Still no one who wants out has been able to back up the claim we would be economically better off out of the eu over a long period of time. Do you have data to back up this claim or is it a pure guess? Because I refuse to vote based on wild guese.

I would start at where we are now, broadly and particularly for the working class they are confronting a perfect storm of rising costs, rising house prices and falling wages. This is with unemployment rates falling. The solution to the problem cannot be resolved by staying in the EU as we cannot control our internal labour market.

For big business capitalists, monetarists and orthodox Tories this current dynamic is perfect.

Presumably you are one of these because your view at the moment is that the system ain't broke?

 

[GT49er]

1: Agree with you entirely about the French.

Don't know enough about what's happening / happened in France, so can't comment. Personally, I do like the principle of higher taxes for the mega-rich; the devil's in the detail, of course.

2: Agree about the wars, not on letting the poor die in misery, simply because they had the misfortune to be borne elsewhere. I'm from a migrant family, which skews my viewpoint perhaps.

It's not about letting the poor die in misery - we can't help everyone; it's quite right that we do what we can, but we need to be careful how.

3: Whilst there is a net taxpayer contribution to the EU, business as a whole benefits from the lack of barriers to trade and having a single market.

Single market - hmm.....the only part of the EU that was democratically voted for; as far as I'm aware, UKIP is not against free trade.

4: Health tourism costs are estimated at £20m a year, it's an irrelevance compared to PFI, which is going to cost over £200 billion in my opinion, but let's agree to disagree.

Yes, PFI is a scandal which needs to be addressed - nothing to do with being in or out of Europe, though, is it? That doesn't mean health tourism should be accepted, though. I think £20M is an under-estimate, by the way - it doesn't take long for a two or three patients with serious long term complex conditions to rack up a million in health care costs.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The bizarre thing is UKIP's core vote is the over 60's, the ones who have benefited from being in the EU more than anyone else. I'm sure Victor Meldrew will be voting UK next May..

These are the voters who voted YES to join the Common Market to benefit from trading freely with other European states but find 40 years later their initial vote has led to a federal behemoth dictating what they think is best for everyone.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

4: it's an irrelevance compared to PFI, which is going to cost over £200 billion in my opinion, but let's agree to disagree.

That is what happens when New Labour think they can be Blue Labour.

 

[El Presidente]

As for the scale this senior Doctor said it was billions.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...osting-NHS-billions-senior-doctor-claims.html

Is that the senior doctor about whom his own colleagues said.....

http://www.rcgp.org.uk/news/2014/january/rcgp-responds-to-comment-from-prof-meirion-thomas.aspx

 

[Westdene Wonder]

Thats a bit ' Monty Pythonish ' isn't it?
A lot of people voting UKIP are doing so because they are sensible enough to work out what membership of the EU actually means and what it is costing us and what we are getting in return. They do not want to turn a blind eye to the bureaucratic corruption in Brussels and Strasbourg. The tens of millions going missing. The complete lack of accountability. The loss of control over much of our law-making. Faceless civil sevants controlling our lives and charging us a fortune for the privilege. They want some control back.

Iwill vote for UKIP because the other parties will have to listen to what the majority of voters want.

 

[spring hall convert]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/12/parties-ukip-british-politics?CMP=twt_gu

"But fair play to Ukip. Britain’s political elite has fuelled more than enough disillusionment for enterprising charlatans to exploit. Yes, there are honourable exceptions, but it has been abundantly clear what the political elite has been becoming for quite some time. Technocratic, rootless, soulless; a professionalised morass of time-servers who see ministerial posts as springboards to nice little earners on corporate boards; manoeuvring constantly not on the basis of political principle but for shameless self-advancement."

"Ukip talks of breaking the “political cartel” while peddling policies the entire political elite agree on, quibbling only on scale and detail: tax cuts for the rich, privatisation, slash-and-burn austerity, curtailing workers’ rights. They are the lone critics of immigration – leaving aside, of course, the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Times, the Tories and, oh, the Labour leadership too."

"parties have become the playthings of careerists inspired by their own ambitions and little else."

"Universal suffrage – fought for at such great cost by our forebears – is silently, stealthily unwinding: a huge gap in turnout now separates middle-class professionals and unskilled workers."

"But for a generation, politicians have surrendered democratic power to the market."

"With politics unable to satisfy basic needs and aspirations, and in the absence of a convincing message of hope, anger is directed at anyone but the powerful: immigrants, unemployed people, public-sector workers."

"For those of us who think politics should be about hope, about satisfying people’s needs and aspirations: well, it’s soul-searching time."

 

[cunning fergus]

Is that the senior doctor about whom his own colleagues said.....

http://www.rcgp.org.uk/news/2014/january/rcgp-responds-to-comment-from-prof-meirion-thomas.aspx

Yes the very same, and here is what the Professor of Oncology from the Royal Marsden had to say about health tourism and systemic fraud in the NHS by immigrants............in a Parliamentry Committe on the matter.

If you don't trust him because of his chauvinism you can consider the comments of the Jacqueline Bishop she is a lady.........

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmpublic/immigration/131029/am/131029s01.htm