ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Any UKIP supporters on here? What exactly are you voting for?(799 Posts)
I confess I don't know what the UKIP policies are, but wondered if the people voting for them could explain to me what they are please. Thanks.
I think that is another group the Tories have lost. People are still really angry about the Child Benefit policy. Not the fact wealthy people are losing benefits as such (although I suppose that might annoy some) but the clear distinction that works against SAHPs on much lower incomes than families where both parents work for a much higher combined income.
Even people who are SAHPs and haven't lost their benefit (because their spouse earns below the threshold) are angry about it in the message is sends out to people doing what they want or what they see as the best thing for their family.
I don't know if that would benefit Labour or UKIP though - I don't know if any party says it will change or overturn this.
'I'm 37 and I have voted UKIP because the other mainstream parties don,t listen to the people.'
you've fallen for the oldest line in the book
It's just too easy though. I'm no fan of the Condems either but I'm sure if there was a way of making himself more popular by spending money George Osborne would be first in line. Even the Tories know that if you take money away from people they tend not to vote for you.
I just think if it was as easy as Farage & co. claim somebody would have done it by now.
There is a long and ignoble tradition of facist, racist parties doing well when countries are in bad economic times and without credible mainstream politicians. Very worrying to see that playing out in the UK.
Also very disheartening for Labour to start playing to the (racist) gallery by saying their immigration policies were too lax, because it just gives the racists more grist for their nasty little mills.
never vote for a twat. Whatever they promise you, because simply put, they are a twat, so their promises mean nothing. They will screw you over.
wasabipeanut - the advantage of being a small (protest) party is that you don't have to have all the answers. You are looking for influence not overall power.
Parties like Labour however have suffered because, like UKIP a lot of their policies are unknown to voters or are seen to not stack up but, unlike UKIP, they cannot get away with this. They have a genuine shot at taking power so they need more meat on the bones than smaller parties do to convince people to vote for them.
The far right got +/- 20% of the votes at the last French elections and generally get 15% and more. Most French people who vote for them would say they are not racist but...
The problem is the French far right, and the UKIP, have had a makeover to make them more palatable to ordinary voters who are fed up of the mainstream parties.
You don't have to scratch very far under candidates' skin to get to the real point of their politics, which is fear and hatred of aything that doesn't conform to the white middle-working class ideal. I watched a very interesting documentary on French TV a few weeks ago where someone went in with a hidden camera to one of the closed meeting and the jokes they told and the comments they made between themselves were beyond vile. There have been many examples of murkiness in various UKIP candidates past aswell.
If you compare the 'manifesto' of the French Front National and the UKIP there are almost no differences.
It is very frightening. We know what happens when extremism takes hold. And when poltical parties play on mistrust of those funny foreigners, and people get sucked into it, it is a very dangerous downward spiral.
Unfortunately many did vote for a twat which is why we have DC and GO.
The least twatish politician interviewed increasingly these days is Nigel Farage. He really does hold his own in a debate,he listens,answers the question,seems to have a sense of humour and rarely loses his cool.
So refreshing after the past 2 years of toff,question avoiding,we're all in it together,call me Dave rhetoric.
Walison - not just Labour. ALL major parties are now keen to be seen to be tough on immigration.
Immingration is a policy which more than half of all voters hold concerns over - including the very youngest voters - all age groups in fact. In any democracy, there has to be a place to discuss immigration controls without racism coming into it and without people being fearful of being labelled racist.
People deeply dislike being called racists (well actual racists may not mind I suppose) so have kept their views to themselves. But in the ballot booth, they can freely express what they think. And if only UKIP will come out and cover the issue for them, then that's how they'll vote. The main parties must engage with the issue too simply because the majority of the electorate have varying views on it that they wish to be represented.
Yes Blue he has got the charm offensive down to a tee. Do you really believe that this affable image is the real deal?
Conservatives have just Tunbridge Wells East to Ukip
At the moment,yes.
The charm offensive(and lies) given by the other 3 main parties have shown their cracks.
Only time will tell with Ukip.
Hi Blueskies, amongst other things, UKIP wants to abolish statuatory maternity leave and abolish legislation that prohibits discrimination of women of child bearing age in the workplace
I also don't agree with the flat tax rate of 31% and abolition of higher tax bands - lets make the rich richer hey? Even moreso than the bloody Cons.
Oh and their attitude in fracking ("just sacremongering") is ridiculous as well, but then that's from a party that has previously claimed that fossil fules can be renewed WTF?
We had only 4 candidates here (v safe Conservative area). Had I had the choice of voting Green or for an Independant I believed in then maybe I would have.
That said, I have never been a supporter of being "in Europe" (although geographically we always will be), so I suppose I do agree with more UKIP policies than Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem at this moment in time.
Hmmm not keen on the maternity leave policy,will need keeping an eye on and weigh it up across all 4 main party policies during the next 2 years.
Jesus Tunbridge wells? That's a short train ride from here.
This is quite frightening. If I were an immigrant living in the UK I'd be seriously scared at what this turn of events would encourage/legitimise.
Blueskies. From the UKIP manifesto:
"UKIP proposes to vastly simplify this legislation. It would be up to each employer to decide whether to offer parental leave and this would be one of the items included in the standard employment contract (see above). An SME which refuses to offer parental leave will either have to offer young women higher salaries than other businesses which offer a long leave period or simply have to recruit from a smaller pool of potential employees.
UKIP accepts that there is a tension between helping young families at a time when they have to accept a significant fall in income and improving the employment prospects of young women while reducing the compliance burden and costs on businesses.
But, on close inspection, the rules on SMP are simply ridiculous. Paying SMP is primarily the liability of the employer, but large employers can reclaim 92% and small employers can recover 104.5% of the cost by reducing their monthly PAYE payments accordingly9.
UKIP is in favour of simplifying the welfare system and reducing wasteful bureaucracy. Rather than playing the money-go-round with the attendant administrative burden, UKIP would abolish SMP entirely and simply allow parents who stay at home with their children to claim a weekly parental allowance set at the same level as the Basic Cash Benefit proposed in our welfare policy (in other words, around £64 per week for parents aged 25 and above) regardless of how long they are off work and regardless of the other spouses income."
So, translated, no maternity leave unless your employer wants to give it to you. If they don't offer maternity leave they will either have to offer women more money <<I can hear the howls of laughter from here>> or simply not employ women.
Despite the fact that SMPs can reclaim 104% of Statutory maternity pay, this is obviously a ridiculous situation and it's best simply not to employ women of childbearing age.
And, to add insult to injury:
"The same principles would be applied to Statutory Sick Pay, Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay. The taxpayer would pay for a basic level of £64 a week, but this would be dealt with as part of the welfare system with no need for employer involvement."
So if you are a woman it's OK to discriminate in your employment practices because women might get pregnant. And if you are ill then 64 quid a week is all you can expect.
Don't want to jump on the UKIP people, but how is all this - universal CB, free unis - going to be funded? The Uk actually makes money from the EU, and evil immigrants like me - who have paid Uk taxes for 20+ years - are not soaking up money so much as putting it into the economy.
This is quite an interesting analysis of what's going on with UKIP. End result could be resurgence of a more right-wing Conservative party?
Rooney you're being over dramatic.
Slug thanks that's interesting,will keep a eye on that particular policy.
Sieg the cuts to universal CB have saved little and cost money to administer which is exactly their reason for not touching WFA.
Sieglinde - I think the basic answer is that it can't be funded. Ukip's manifesto is vote-winning pie in the sky and would never work if they actually had to budget for it. But luckily (I hope) they will never get close enough to power to have to try.
Join the discussion
Please login first.