|
FootballFan said:
I put this in a different thread but im still trying to work out how UKIP are vile. Unfair hate without any reasoning i say. Highwaystar doesnt like UKIP either, but i didnt get the feeling he thought they were vile.
Here are a few policies from their website.
We will re-embrace today’s fast-growing Commonwealth and we will encourage UK manufacturing so that we make things again.
The UK exists because of services, especially financial services. Taking the focus away from that, even in a recession, would damage the economy. We can't become a manufacturing power again without dropping worker salaries and protections to compete with LEDCs. The best direction for our country to head is to take advantage of our arguably superior eductaion system and universities and do management, research & developement, and financial services.
We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ‘no home no visa’ work permits to ease the housing crisis.
These immigrants are the ones supporting our country. I agree that the jobless ones should be deported and certainly not given benefits, but without the working immigrants our pensions crisis will be worse (they prevent our demographics from being more top-heavy) and wewould have few people willing to do menial but necessary jobs.
We will give people the vote on policing priorities
The police are the least broken public service in the country. Letting the public vote on the issue is a good idea but we have more important things to be worried about. People would get overly upset about terrorism, which doesn't kill many people at all, and would direct funding towards counter-terrorism which restricts our civil liberties whilst saving few lives. The money would be better spent on health or education.
We will scrap Inheritance Tax
Inheritance Tax is fine. It was only ever intended for the super-rich; the housing boom caused many people who aren't to suddenly fall under that bracket. Raising the threshold would be ideal.
We will support our armed forces with more spending on equipment, military homes and medical care. We will save our threatened warships and add 25,000 more troops.
Simply reducing the number of deployments would do that. None of the deployments are helping our economy nor making much headway in improving the countries we are in. It's just costing lives, and money we don't have. There is no need for a large standing defence force or navy any more - almost all situations can be handled using diplomacy and appopriate, remote, reconnaissance using planes or UAVs. So better spending the money and resources we already have towards the kind of operations we intend to have would be better than 25,000 more troops.
Also, the definition of 25,000 more troops in politic-speak is sending the ones we already have 10% more often. Which is bad.
Do you have any problems with any of these? I know alot of people think there ban immigration for 5 years is considered racist by some but it in my opinion its certainly isnt.
They have traditionally supported policies and i see them as very achievable and popular.
They want to pull out of the EU as it is consting the British taxpayer 40 million £ per day.
It's making us far MORE money having an economic union. MOST of our trade is with europe; having barriers to that would cost trillions. And the immigration issue is not as clear-cut as they say. I think immigration net benefits us.
|
