Ukip launch 2015 Manifesto

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32312687
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-04-15/u...o-key-pledges/

Ukip manifesto: EU, veterans, and an £18bn 'tax giveaway' among key pledges

Party launches a 'fully costed' manifesto for the General Election in target seat of Thurrock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC News

UKIP would make working people better off through a "low-tax revolution", Nigel Farage has said as he launched his party's election manifesto. It would keep workers on the minimum wage out of tax, raise the 40p tax rate threshold to £55,000, introduce a new 30p tax band and scrap inheritance tax.

He said UKIP was the only party with a "credible plan" for immigration and a positive vision for the country. The Conservatives have said there is a "£37bn black hole" in UKIP's proposals. But Mr Farage said his was the only party with fully costed plans, which have been verified by independent economic think tank, The Centre for Economic and Business Research.

The party's proposals also include an increase of up to £3bn extra a year in NHS funding, a commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence and a five-year ban on unskilled immigration. UKIP, which wants to quit the EU, has said it will hold an in/out referendum "as soon as possible" in the next Parliament.

Mr Farage said his was the only party which had the "self confidence and belief in the nation" that the UK should govern itself, make its own laws and negotiate its own international trade deals.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj57uG34arQ

Quote:

---

Key Ukip manifesto pledges:

• In/out referendum on EU membership "as soon as possible"
• Five-year ban on unskilled migrants coming in to the UK
• A points-based system for other migrants
• Allow comprehensive state schools to be able to apply to become grammar schools
• £12bn for the NHS
• £5.2bn for social care budgets
• Defence spending above Nato's 2% of GDP target
• Cutting foreign aid by £9bn a year
• Create 6,000 police, prison and border jobs for people leaving the armed forces
• Build a dedicated military hospital
• Waive stamp duty on new homes worth up to £250,000 built on brownfield sites
• Cut business rates for small businesses
• Scrap hospital parking charges
• End sham marriages by restoring the 'primary purpose' rule
• Bin the HS2 project
• People will be able to claim pension, at a lower rate, from the age of 65
• Repeal the climate change act
• Increase carer's allowance from £62.10 a week to £73.10 a week
• Scrap bedroom tax

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBC News

'Big tax giveaway'

Setting out the party's election offerings at a hotel in Thurrock, Essex, the UKIP leader said politics had become dominated by giant corporate business interests while ordinary people had been "left behind" with "nobody to speak for them". But he added: "UKIP has a plan, we genuinely want to make working people better off. And we will do that by leading the charge and making the argument for a low tax revolution.

"We genuinely want to make work pay and for people to have incentives to do better. And we believe that will unleash a kind of economic dynamism that has not been seen in this country in a long time." Mr Farage said he was proposing an £18bn "big tax giveaway", paid for by cutting £32bn a year from government spending. This would including cutting foreign aid spending, leaving the EU, scrapping the HS2 rail link and changing the Barnett funding formula for the nations.

---

Watch: Telegraph journalist booed at Ukip manifesto launch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yHNcckE3oE

Don't agree with it all but boy is there more common sense in just one page compared to the two main parties. I know a friend of mine who considers himself left wing has been won round by them and is voting for them in May... as is another who wasn't interested in politics until now.

Nice try by the Telegraph journalist but that bird doesn't fly anymore mate. Full manifesto can be found via http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2015

Thoughts?

Completely fails to show how these things can be afforded, and pretends to be about making all spending essential but states that they want to spend £3bn on building a palace.... Some nice ideas but none that can actually be enacted, just a load of empty rhetoric and what-ifs. None of the others are much better but they aren't pretending that you can magically cut tax and increase spending at the same time just by closing two projects. Not to mention all the obvious associated costs of setting up and administrating all these new processes and promises

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Completely fails to show how these things can be afforded, and pretends to be about making all spending essential but states that they want to spend £3bn on building a palace....

---

Where is this palace in the manifesto? First I have heard of such plans.

If you are talking about the multi-billion refurb of the Palace of Westminster, that's not Ukip policy that is happening anyway. And so it should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Some nice ideas but none that can actually be enacted, just a load of empty rhetoric and what-ifs. None of the others are much better but they aren't pretending that you can magically cut tax and increase spending at the same time just by closing two projects.

---

Um, yes you can. It's a common economic misconception that cutting taxes must be 'paid for' in cuts to spending. Not always. The monetarist approach in the 1980s after all under Reagan and Thatcher had taxes cut back, but over all spending wasn't drastically reduced at all in the British case only in certain budgets. The truth is that by keeping money in the productive private sector, growth takes place faster which then increases the tax take from increased productivity.

At least this has been costed - whether right or wrong is another - but I haven't heard anything about the Tories or Labour manifestos being costed. And besides, most of the spending promises are clearly being funded by the end of EU contributions (£8bn to 15bn), foreign aid (£10bn), no HS2 (£50bn), and the scrapping of the Climate Change Act which costs us a massive £18bn a year. That's £38bn and HS2's £50bn saved right there = £88bn saved.

The saving of £88bn dwarfs any of the spending promises they've made.. so how are you coming to the conclusion that it doesn't add up when it does?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Not to mention all the obvious associated costs of setting up and administrating all these new processes and promises

---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCoHBCiWgAAwwuX.jpg:large

Whether they'd do all of this is another thing, but hey it's worth a try and better than what the other are offering.

Better to cut wasteful budgets/close entire useless departments than to cut pensions, raise taxes or cut benefits.

You've literally just given me a screenshot of the page that shows where this ridiculous £3bn spending is suggested, and even showed half of the sentence in that screenshot :P
http://i.imgur.com/QvjHwLt.png

Didn't say just cutting taxes, I said cutting taxes and increasing spending.

HS2 is stupid and expensive and I wholly oppose it, but its costs are a one-off thing, not a yearly saving. A single bonus of £50bn is obviously great and something I would like to see happen, but isn't something you can claim as sustainable savings.

Closing a couple of stupid departments and setting up much bigger, much more active ones in their place is not saving any money. Again it's a good idea to get rid of pointless quangos but pretending that doing so will make way for huge projects is nonsense. Cutting non-essential costs and keeping everything else as it is would be saving money, replacing these with something more expensive is not saving anything and is not in any way pragmatic - especially when you're already planning to use all of that money restoring a palace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

You've literally just given me a screenshot of the page that shows where this ridiculous £3bn spending is suggested, and even showed half of the sentence in that screenshot :P

---

Oh, well that is nothing new. Westminster is heading for a multi-bn refurb anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30137334

Hardly building a new Palace for Lord Nigel. Restoring our beautiful parliament building or £3bn for the India Space Programme? It's a no-brainer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Didn't say just cutting taxes, I said cutting taxes and increasing spending.

---

Spending isn't being increased, any spending increases are coming out of the savings mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

HS2 is stupid and expensive and I wholly oppose it, but its costs are a one-off thing, not a yearly saving. A single bonus of £50bn is obviously great and something I would like to see happen, but isn't something you can claim as sustainable savings.

---

If HS2 takes 2 years to build, that is £2bn a year saved from projected spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Closing a couple of stupid departments and setting up much bigger, much more active ones in their place is not saving any money. Again it's a good idea to get rid of pointless quangos but pretending that doing so will make way for huge projects is nonsense.

---

It depends entirely how the departments are winded down. Often with governments, they come into office claiming to want to abolish certain quangos and do - but set it up again just under a different name. Whether Ukip would be any different at this remains to be seen and I would judge on the record, but ejecting these pointless departments out of their Whitehall palaces and abolishing things like the Climate Change Act (£18bn a year) would mean a lot less administration.

And what huge projects? Most of this is closing projects and simply refunding the money into already existing departments (NHS, grammars).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Cutting non-essential costs and keeping everything else as it is would be saving money, replacing these with something more expensive is not saving anything and is not in any way pragmatic - especially when you're already planning to use all of that money restoring a palace

---

You keep going on about restoring a palace which is going to happen anyway, but even if we take away the £3bn for the Houses of Parliament you still have £85bn to play with as I added up earlier: and that's without all the quangos I would hope the party would close.

It is all costed as I say, but whether the party would implement properly is another thing. I'll take the chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Oh, well that is nothing new. Westminster is heading for a multi-bn refurb anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30137334

Hardly building a new Palace for Lord Nigel. Restoring our beautiful parliament building or £3bn for the India Space Programme? It's a no-brainer.

---

Didn't say they were building it for him, the point is that it's a huge expense which UKIP want to pay for by closing down departments - thus meaning we don't actually gain anything from their closure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Spending isn't being increased

---

Flat out lie, not even sure why you'd say such a thing when there are lots of points in your very first post that speak of spending increases

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

And what huge projects? Most of this is closing projects and simply refunding the money into already existing departments (NHS, grammars).

---

Everything to do with their immigration plans. It's not something you can just wave a wand and have happen, it would need massive amounts of administration and would obviously have huge costs in setting up and running. Doesn't sound like you've actually read the manifesto yourself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

You keep going on about restoring a palace which is going to happen anyway, but even if we take away the £3bn for the Houses of Parliament you still have £85bn to play with as I added up earlier: and that's without all the quangos I would hope the party would close.

---

Still pretending that one-off costs are the same as yearly running costs... if you plan to spend an extra £17.2bn a year on just two parts of the budget, plus set up an expensive immigration system that keeps workers out of the country, plus cut a load of taxes, plus create a random 6000 jobs, plus pay for all these changes in the first place, a one-off £50bn (minus the costs of sorting out what happens to any work already put in) isn't going to do a lot. By your own admission, the actual saving is about £2bn a year, so you absolutely do not have 85 as a total to work with. The projections are just completely unfounded and costings are massively incomplete

• Support “age-appropriate” sex and relationship education at secondary level, but not for primary school children. Support right of parents to home-school their children. Support and funding for free schools.
• A commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence initially, looking to increase it substantially after that.
  
  • Increase for what, exactly?
  
  
• Allow British businesses to employ British citizens first.
  
  • Not understanding this, you could quite easily do this already - I disagree with someone getting a job solely on their nationality.
  
  
• A cut in business rates for small businesses. Retain zero-hours contracts but subject them to a binding code of conduct.
  
  • Retain zero hour contracts? Brilliant. Party for the people.
  
  
• Cut by £9bn, prioritising disaster relief and schemes to provide water and inoculation against preventable diseases.Close the Department for International Development (DfID) and merge its essential functions with the Foreign Office.
  
  • Disagree with this entirely.
  
  
• Scrapping of HS2 project. Maintenance of concessionary bus passes and requirement that foreign trucks contribute to upkeep of UK roads and fuel duty. Ensure that speed cameras are used as deterrent and not as “revenue raiser”.
  
  • We need modern infrastructure for a modern world. After all, the bloody roads are all filled with immigrants (according to Farage) - got to get up and down the country some how! Having said that, I still cannot get my head around how long it is going to take to build it (nor the cost, for that matter!).
  
  
• Repeal Climate Change Act. Encourage redevelopment of British power stations.
  
  • Building a future for our children. Or not.

Disagree entirely with all of the above points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conservative

• Support “age-appropriate” sex and relationship education at secondary level, but not for primary school children. Support right of parents to home-school their children. Support and funding for free schools.
• A commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence initially, looking to increase it substantially after that.
  
  • Increase for what, exactly?
  
  
  Increase for our defence
  
• Allow British businesses to employ British citizens first.
  
  • Not understanding this, you could quite easily do this already - I disagree with someone getting a job solely on their nationality.
  
  
  You couldn't though as you would be seen as discriminating against the other person
  
• A cut in business rates for small businesses. Retain zero-hours contracts but subject them to a binding code of conduct.
  
  • Retain zero hour contracts? Brilliant. Party for the people.
  
  
• Cut by £9bn, prioritising disaster relief and schemes to provide water and inoculation against preventable diseases.Close the Department for International Development (DfID) and merge its essential functions with the Foreign Office.
  
  • Disagree with this entirely.
  
  
  Why
  
• Scrapping of HS2 project. Maintenance of concessionary bus passes and requirement that foreign trucks contribute to upkeep of UK roads and fuel duty. Ensure that speed cameras are used as deterrent and not as “revenue raiser”.
  
  • We need modern infrastructure for a modern world. After all, the bloody roads are all filled with immigrants (according to Farage) - got to get up and down the country some how! Having said that, I still cannot get my head around how long it is going to take to build it (nor the cost, for that matter!).
  
  
• Repeal Climate Change Act. Encourage redevelopment of British power stations.
  
  • Building a future for our children. Or not.

Disagree entirely with all of the above points.

---

okay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conservative

• Support “age-appropriate” sex and relationship education at secondary level, but not for primary school children. Support right of parents to home-school their children. Support and funding for free schools.
• A commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence initially, looking to increase it substantially after that.
  
  • Increase for what, exactly?
  
  
  On the point of 2%, that's the NATO guideline percentage. For the rest, well I suspect so that we actually have up to date resources (which many in the military have complained about) but obviously I cannot say.
  
• Allow British businesses to employ British citizens first.
  
  • Not understanding this, you could quite easily do this already - I disagree with someone getting a job solely on their nationality.
  
  
• A cut in business rates for small businesses. Retain zero-hours contracts but subject them to a binding code of conduct.
  
  • Retain zero hour contracts? Brilliant. Party for the people.
  
  
  Zero hour contracts are actually useful for some people so outright abolishing it would probably be worse.
  
• Cut by £9bn, prioritising disaster relief and schemes to provide water and inoculation against preventable diseases.Close the Department for International Development (DfID) and merge its essential functions with the Foreign Office.
  
  • Disagree with this entirely.
  
  
• Scrapping of HS2 project. Maintenance of concessionary bus passes and requirement that foreign trucks contribute to upkeep of UK roads and fuel duty. Ensure that speed cameras are used as deterrent and not as “revenue raiser”.
  
  • We need modern infrastructure for a modern world. After all, the bloody roads are all filled with immigrants (according to Farage) - got to get up and down the country some how! Having said that, I still cannot get my head around how long it is going to take to build it (nor the cost, for that matter!).
  
  
  I don't think anybody is opposed to upgrading the railways in general, just that the actual gain from it is so small compared to the cost of the project. Many would say that it would be better to upgrade internet speeds across the country much more quickly.
  
• Repeal Climate Change Act. Encourage redevelopment of British power stations.
  
  • Building a future for our children. Or not.

Disagree entirely with all of the above points.

---

Just some notes I also decided to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbgtz

Just some notes I also decided to make.

---

I disagree with 'substantial' increases - where is this funding coming from?

Zero hour contracts are bad news for the vast majority of people.

Upgrading the railways, however you do it, will cost an absolute fortune. Infrastructure projects, unfortunately, cost huge amounts of money. Not to mention the years of delays required to 'upgrade' existing railways. If you live near London, you would surely understand the sheer chaos that occurs even for minor maintenance...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottish

okay

---

The bit that concerns me regarding the defense budget is the 'substantial' increase.

You can employ whoever is best for the job. Employing somebody because of the nationality is ridiculous.

I support Foreign Aid, that's why.

More money on our defence the better, if the way I see it.

I believe the point regarding British citizens first is saying no I want a British citizen not an immigrant (ergo discrimination and you lose a lawsuit) which is currently the case would be abolished and you could pick a British citizen over an EU citizen without any consequence or justification for your choice.

Silly you :P

idk i don't care for politics and even less for UKIP though so could be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottish

More money on our defence the better, if the way I see it.

I believe the point regarding British citizens first is saying no I want a British citizen not an immigrant (ergo discrimination and you lose a lawsuit) which is currently the case would be abolished and you could pick a British citizen over an EU citizen without any consequence or justification for your choice.

Silly you :P

idk i don't care for politics and even less for UKIP though so could be wrong.

---

What sort of business picks a British person over a better qualified EU citizen just for being... British? :L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conservative

What sort of business picks a British person over a better qualified EU citizen just for being... British? :L

---

My aunty had a Spanish student working as a nanny and she applied for jobs and remarked that she couldn't believe how over here people didn't put British people first when applying for jobs. She said that in Spain the Spanish always try to put their own first when it comes to employing people for jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conservative

What sort of business picks a British person over a better qualified EU citizen just for being... British? :L

---

It is totally stupid and a wasted business opportunity for the boss obviously, but personally I think private businesses should be able to do near enough as they please in these cases - if they lose out that's their own stupid fault, just like with those who refuse to serve certain people or whatever

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

My aunty had a Spanish student working as a nanny and she applied for jobs and remarked that she couldn't believe how over here people didn't put British people first when applying for jobs. She said that in Spain the Spanish always try to put their own first when it comes to employing people for jobs.

---

My dad has never had problems when he worked in Spain for multiple firms. The Spanish also have a HIGHER percentage of immigrants (as a percentage of the population) than the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

It is totally stupid and a wasted business opportunity for the boss obviously, but personally I think private businesses should be able to do near enough as they please in these cases - if they lose out that's their own stupid fault, just like with those who refuse to serve certain people or whatever

---

Firms can pretty much do this already. The issue is, if you open this up to nationality, why not do it for race, sexuality and gender, too? After all, people don't simply pick their nationality when they are born...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conservative

Firms can pretty much do this already. The issue is, if you open this up to nationality, why not do it for race, sexuality and gender, too? After all, people don't simply pick their nationality when they are born...

---

On that basis we shouldn't have any border controls at all then, is that what you support?

And judging from previous replies to this thread, it's clear to see why you support the useless Conservative Party. Doesn't even believe in national defence. Wants to piss money up the wall across the world. Believes in spending £50bn for a pointless railway. Believes in spending £18bn a year on wind turbines.

When the Tories fail to win another election this time (haven't won one since 1992 now), if you need to ask yourself why then...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

On that basis we shouldn't have any border controls at all then, is that what you support?

And judging from previous replies to this thread, it's clear to see why you support the useless Conservative Party. Doesn't even believe in national defence. Wants to piss money up the wall across the world. Believes in spending £50bn for a pointless railway. Believes in spending £18bn a year on wind turbines.

When the Tories fail to win another election this time (haven't won one since 1992 now), if you need to ask yourself why then...

---

I believe in national defense. I just want to know what 'substantial increases' are, and how the bloody hell we are going to pay for these. Withdrawing from the EU and stopping ALL foreign aid wouldn't even pay for a 1% increase in national defense. So, how on earth can we pay for a substantial increase?

I believe in Foreign Aid spent CORRECTLY. To me, this means SLIGHTLY reducing the amount sent overseas, and MORE spent on people who actually know how to spend it best.

HS2 - I wish it could be cheaper, but unfortunately in this country building infrastructure is bloody expensive. However, seeing as you live in Liverpool, I guess you don't understand the absolute nightmare that any minor infrastructure and maintenance issues cause commuters on a daily basis. Upgrading all of our railways would take decades, and I - along with millions of other British people - cannot deal with decades of railway delays which are an absolute certainty if we rebuild all of our existing railways.

The Climate Change Act is not just about wind turbines (can't stand them, by the way, absolute eye sore). But I do not think reversing action on climate change is a smart decision either.

At least the Conservatives have had five years of influence since 1997, and nine years since 1993. That would be nine years more than UKIP, and it may well soon be even more than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conservative

I believe in national defense. I just want to know what 'substantial increases' are, and how the bloody hell we are going to pay for these. Withdrawing from the EU and stopping ALL foreign aid wouldn't even pay for a 1% increase in national defense. So, how on earth can we pay for a substantial increase?

---

The Defence budget, as others have alluded to, is recommended by NATO to be 2% of state spending. Not a large amount. Yet the Tories want to cut the budget from the £31bn to £35bn we spend on it at the moment... just like they did back in the 1980s which then led to the Falklands being invaded by Argentina and this country just about saving face, with the lives of many men lost in the process. The Tory Party is supposed to be and poses as the patriotic party, yet it is anything but.

Let's say to keep it at 2%, we have to add £3bn to the MoD over the next parliament. Take it from the overseas aid budget which is £11bn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conservative

I believe in Foreign Aid spent CORRECTLY. To me, this means SLIGHTLY reducing the amount sent overseas, and MORE spent on people who actually know how to spend it best.

---

How about the Ukip plan of scrapping non-essential aid and retaining a budget of £1bn to £2bn which would be spent only on disaster relief with the armed forces likely to organise this? It seems sensible to me, and is certainly better than going to the Indian Space Programme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conservative

HS2 - I wish it could be cheaper, but unfortunately in this country building infrastructure is bloody expensive. However, seeing as you live in Liverpool, I guess you don't understand the absolute nightmare that any minor infrastructure and maintenance issues cause commuters on a daily basis. Upgrading all of our railways would take decades, and I - along with millions of other British people - cannot deal with decades of railway delays which are an absolute certainty if we rebuild all of our existing railways.

---

Actually I travel from Liverpool/Lancashire to the other side of Yorkshire on almost a weekly basis, and I know how bad services are on the Yorkshire side. On the Lancashire side though, they're pretty good and up here we're using very old trains compared to all the investment down south. But do I think we should splurge cash on the supposed privatised railways when we have a huge national debt? No. Do I think £50bn for a railway line that is completely pointless (HS2) is a sensible use of money? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conservative

The Climate Change Act is not just about wind turbines (can't stand them, by the way, absolute eye sore). But I do not think reversing action on climate change is a smart decision either.

---

Any money spent on battling global warming climate change by this country is literally tilting at windmills or pissing in the wind. India and China are going to continue to vastly expand with a large rise in carbon emissions, and us spending £18bn a year on subsidies to rich landowners for having wind turbines on their land is absurd. It may make you feel good, but it is utterly pointless: and we haven't got the money to make us feel good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conservative

At least the Conservatives have had five years of influence since 1997, and nine years since 1993. That would be nine years more than UKIP, and it may well soon be even more than that.

---

Little point in having influence if you do exactly the same as the government you replaced.

The Conservative Party is on her last legs and only held in place by the voting system and its twin rotting party. Time to take out the corpse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conservative

What sort of business picks a British person over a better qualified EU citizen just for being... British? :L

---

A business that has a conscience for the betterment of the local area? To help local people get work and therefore help the local economy? Stop high local unemployment rates and therefore reducing crime and social problems in the area?

Migrants are needed to fill the GAPS in the job market, not fill places that locals are perfectly capable of doing.

Why don't you migrate to India/America/France/Spain/Morocco/Poland/Russia/*insert 180 further countries here* and take a job as a train station platform attendant, or perhaps a street sweeper, or warehouse labour, or maybe a postal worker. If you took any such type of low skilled work in ANY of these countries you would be seen as taking a job that could be done by a local, which in turn may put a local out of work, you would not be welcomed to do that type of work.

In fact I don't think you would even EXPECT to be given such a job in any other country if they had locals out of work that could more than easily fill the available roles. I certainly don't expect to be able to get up and relocate to Greece/Italy/Iceland/Mexico/Switzerland/Norway to become a shelf stacker, I'd be told to shove it and the job would be given to a local.

Charity starts at home, look after your own first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conservative

where is this funding coming from?

---

Have you overlooked the fact that the manifesto has been independently verified by an economic think tank? And have you actually read the document? I assume you haven't or you wouldn't be asking such questions.

I could ask where all this extra money is coming from that Labour want to spend, they've said they want to spend tens of billions more but the cuts they've announced don't even add up to one billion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

snip

---

i cant wait for UKIP to get hardly any seats (will they even get 1???). will you cry -:Undertaker:-? also, re your avatar, the stars on the EU flag dont represent countries.... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Okeanos

i cant wait for UKIP to get hardly any seats (will they even get 1???). will you cry -:Undertaker:-? also, re your avatar, the stars on the EU flag dont represent countries.... :rolleyes:

---

Well you are right, FPTP (which I support) means they'll hardly get any seats. Next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Well you are right, FPTP (which I support) means they'll hardly get any seats. Next.

---

yet a few months ago you said theyd win loads! are you gutted? you didnt answer my second point. your av is a LIE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Okeanos

yet a few months ago you said theyd win loads! are you gutted?

---

Did I?

I may have posted polls, but I have never made any predictions just as I wouldn't say that the SNP are going to win swathes of seats. A week is a long time in politics and you'd be tempting fate to make claims for yourself or others, hence why I never said "X is going to happen in the 2014 European Elections".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Okeanos

you didnt answer my second point. your av is a LIE

---

The stars on the former EEC and now EU flag are commonly thought of as representing the original member states.

In any case, you get the message of what is a slogan. Basically that this country is capable of governing itself as an independent sovereign state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Did I?

I may have posted polls, but I have never made any predictions just as I wouldn't say that the SNP are going to win swathes of seats. A week is a long time in politics and you'd be tempting fate to make claims for yourself or others, hence why I never said "X is going to happen in the 2014 European Elections".



The stars on the former EEC and now EU flag are commonly thought of as representing the original member states.

In any case, you get the message of what is a slogan. Basically that this country is capable of governing itself as an independent sovereign state.

---

You definitely have been bigging up the elections that UKIP were going to be some huge revolution blah blah blah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conservative

You definitely have been bigging up the elections that UKIP were going to be some huge revolution blah blah blah

---

I posted all by-elections, two of which Ukip won. I posted polling for the European Elections, which they also won.

I've also posted General Election polling more recently for the SNP and the Greens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The stars on the former EEC and now EU flag are commonly thought of as representing the original member states.

---

maybe you and your merry band of UKIPers thought that, but that doesnt meant everyone else thinks that. i repeat, the stars do not represent any countries, founding or otherwise - your avatar is filthy propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Okeanos

maybe you and your merry band of UKIPers thought that, but that doesnt meant everyone else thinks that.

---

The twelve stars are often taken to represent the twelve original members.

In any case, that still doesn't address the crux of the slogan which is that this country is good enough to govern itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Okeanos

i repeat, the stars do not represent any countries, founding or otherwise - your avatar is filthy propaganda.

---

Filthy?

Filthy is lying at every single election to the public over intentions concerning the EEC/EU.
Filthy is launching a war on lies which killed thousands of people and destabilised an entire region.
Filthy is covering up the child abuse of thousands of English children in towns like Rotherham and Rochdale.
Filthy is posing as the party and champion of the NHS to your working class voters whilst privatising it in office.

Watching Okeanos and Undertaker 'debate' is really fun. Like a dog chasing it's tail.

OT: Interesting manifesto.

Filthy is Kardan's pants

#voteukip
#bnp
#bantheburka
#keepbritainbritish
#theytookourjobs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The twelve stars are often taken to represent the twelve original members.

In any case, that still doesn't address the crux of the slogan which is that this country is good enough to govern itself.

---

again, just because you (foolishly) assumed the stars represented the original members, doesnt mean everyone else does. the uk wasnt even an original member so your avatar makes no sense at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Filthy?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Filthy is lying at every single election to the public over intentions concerning the EEC/EU.
Filthy is launching a war on lies which killed thousands of people and destabilised an entire region.
Filthy is covering up the child abuse of thousands of English children in towns like Rotherham and Rochdale.
Filthy is posing as the party and champion of the NHS to your working class voters whilst privatising it in office.

---

UKIP is more filthy. behold the filthy UKIP scumbags:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXebwm7RRo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Watching Okeanos and Undertaker 'debate' is really fun. Like a dog chasing it's tail.

OT: Interesting manifesto.

---

this isnt a debate fool

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Okeanos

again, just because you (foolishly) assumed the stars represented the original members, doesnt mean everyone else does. the uk wasnt even an original member so your avatar makes no sense at all.

---

It's a slogan lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Okeanos

UKIP is more filthy. behold the filthy UKIP scumbags:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXebwm7RRo

---

Oh yes, that is terrible, but here's something even worse.

http://nopenothope.blogspot.co.uk/20...ors-their.html

Quote:

---

291 Lib/Lab/Con/SNP Councillors & their unreported indiscretions - downloadable document


We have received a number of enquiries about downloadable versions of our list of councillors from other parties who have escaped national media attention for crimes and actions far worse than anything done by the odd UKIP candidate.

The list features - 21 relating to paedophilia, 2 rapists, 1 terrorist, 13 racists, 6 sexists or homophobes, 1 drug related, 1 abusing people with mental health issues, 8 expenses cheats, 4 benefit fraudsters, 28 relating to theft or fraud, 13 assaults and 3 sexual scandals with the other 190 falling into the 'general misconduct' category (which may include elements of any of the above, but short of a trial). Rather puts a handful of UKIP candidates into perspective, doesn't it? It is worth mentioning that included in the list are 2 Hope not Hate activists - one raped an under-age girl, and the other broke his wife's jaw.

---

Here's the PDF document.

Enjoy xx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

It's a slogan lol.



Oh yes, that is terrible, but here's something even worse.

http://nopenothope.blogspot.co.uk/20...ors-their.html



Here's the PDF document.

Enjoy xx

---

not worth reading cos its all BS. if any MP, mayor or councillor did any of those things itd be in the news. this is how ukip operates, throw mud at everyone else to stop people looking to closely at you. you nazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Becca

#voteukip
#bnp
#bantheburka
#keepbritainbritish
#theytookourjobs

---

#votelabour
#labourhasservingcouncillorsex-bnp
#givenorthernenglishgirlstopedophiles
#bombanddestabiliselibya
#depresswageswithmassimmigration

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Okeanos

not worth reading cos its all BS. if any MP, mayor or councillor did any of those things itd be in the news. this is how ukip operates, throw mud at everyone else to stop people looking to closely at you.

---

You made your move and you came up short. Too bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Okeanos

you nazi.

---

Well i'm not a national socialist as i'm a libertarian conservative.

But given we could have a Labour-SNP government soon, mmmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

#votelabour
#labourhasservingcouncillorsex-bnp
#givenorthernenglishgirlstopedophiles
#bombanddestabiliselibya
#depresswageswithmassimmigration

---

the third one offends me

It really annoys me how ignorant people are about UKIP and it's believes, the BBC releases its left wing propaganda and no one can see past it at all.

-:Undertaker:- you're not allowed two accounts...

I doubt anyone believes the propaganda but don't like the party for a variety of other reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottish

-:Undertaker:- you're not allowed two accounts...

I doubt anyone believes the propaganda but don't like the party for a variety of other reasons.

---

Ye and that would be believing in England which apparently is completely wrong.