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.

Old labour wasnt centre left.... it was maybe centre left left.. if you get my meaning.  It was also very very interventionist and authoritarian.  New labour has many of the same ideas.... they are just hidden, its a sham.  This Labour governement has taxed the average man more than any governement ever.... and wasted the lot.

from what ive read about old Labour, they were alot beter than New Labour, im not an expert on them though, i wasnt born till 1988, lol, they were gone by the time i followed politics.

not all taxes are bad, im an advocate of Progressive taxation personally, which generally is good for the average man or woman (average income is 22k or so, if i remember correctly) New Labour i agree have been bad on that, theyve been using reggressive taxation, that said, the Conservatives taxation policys are even more regressive from what i know of them, so take what you can get, i doubt someone on 22k a year would be better off under Cameron, 220k a year, now thats a different story, imo youre luck if you earn that though, its 10x the average wage.

Old Labour supported the working class and trade unions. There is no more working class, (everyone who is on benefits isn't; everyone who isn't can't be called poor any more.) Everyone, even the unemployed, can afford holidays and luxuries now, which wasn't the case in the past. There are no more trade unions - membership has fallen, and the power and idealism of trade unions have waned as they become more corporate. At the same time, working conditions are good enough so that they don't need to be reformed [except for too many hours worked IMO; we need to join the European Working Time Directive].

Old Labour has no purpose in a modern society. Who and what would they represent?

--

I dispute your tax thing. From my standpoint, everyone below 25k recieves so many benefits that they have the same purcahsing power as someone on 50k. Everyone on 50k is hit with every sort of tax while recieving no benefits. Cameron isn't much better, but at least he would give people on 22k a lifestyle appropriate to 22k. There should be an incentive to work harder and earn more. At the same time, the actual rich have got much richer under Labour because of all of the tax avoidance they can afford. It's the 30k-100k which are hit hardest (and my parents are on the low end of that).

Example: Since many parents are divorced, children live with the "poor" mother and get EMA and lots of benefits, while the "rich" dad on 50k and the kids recieve money from that. I know 30+ people in my year of 200 in this situation. When these kids go to uni, they get their tuition and many other things paid, as well as dad paying for their lifestyle, while I have to pay full tuition and will end up poorer during and with more debt after my time at uni.