Congratulations to UKIP

[JOHNNYAITCH]

 

If, as you say, you want to ensure that UKIP are taken seriously in order to show their true colours, it would help if you didn't misrepresent their policies. UKIP's health policy is to ensure that the NHS continues to be free at the point of delivery and time of need for all UK citizens. More to the point, it intends to abolish PFI, unlike Labour, which has already turned over £310bn of NHS estate to the private sector through its PFI privatisation policies, a prize piece of hypocrisy on their part, if ever I saw one.

 

When people hear allegations that UKIP intend to privatise the NHS and then find it's not true, it simply gives UKIP more and more credibility.

 

I'd just like to point out that the post referrefed to by CambridgeDon was not mine but was made by BeaSmith..but I can see how it became attributed to me

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Isnt that what was said in the 30s/40s?

 

 

No

[JOHNNYAITCH]

What do you want me to do other than not vote UKIP and campaign for another party (as I will be locally) and (as I did last time) transport elderly people to cast their vote (non-UKIPers) and condemn UKIPs policies which I have done consistantly, condemn their links witrh the far right (which I do), advocate people to learn all they can about the various party policies and get out and make their vote count (as I have previously on here for example), pick holes in UKIPs manifesto as I have done on many occasions?

 

I am active in politics locally and as such will be actively campaigning against UKIP..OVF is not part of my campaigning cos not many people in East Devon read OVF

 

Tell me please..what more?

 

I still await an answer? Anyone..doesn't have to be BeaSmith? ;)

[geosname]

No

 

I think your wrong

[geosname]

I still await an answer? Anyone..doesn't have to be BeaSmith? ;)

 

leeches? they dont work for the tax man but may be ok for some political parties... you could get the voters into the booth with a nagasaki nose throw... otherwise you seem to be pretty active

[CambridgeDon]

What Dennis Skinner said was not genius. In fact, up until the day he said that, I was quite a fan of Dennis Skinner. Now I believe his only interests are his own parties lines.

 

Stating that UKIP want to 'send those back from where they came', he also used examples of a recent heart bypass he had, and stated the surgeons involved who were all of foreign descent. If he had done his homework on UKIP (which he clearly has not) He would see that UKIP would be in favour of controlled immigration and those with real skills, so to use those skilled people as examples was really ridiculous.

 

And he never gave a mention to his own unemployed unskilled British constituents who struggle to find decent paid work because the majority of jobs go to migrants.

 

Ironic that Skinner also wants to ban the agencies who actually give the migrants the jobs in the first place before they even set foot in the UK, yet if he does his homework will see UKIP want to get rid of the Agency workers Directive act so on that issue he is in agreement with UKIP!!

 

I have always been a fan of Dennis Skinner who, to his credit, is one of the few ordinary working people in the House of Commons (the percentage of former manual workers has gone down from 16% in 1979 to 4% in 2010). As far as I can recall, he has also always lived right among his constituents, again much to his credit. He does though sometimes revert to purely ideological arguments without first analysing the policies of his opponents (nb, note I said "opponents' - his enemies, judging by recent events, are on the same side of the House).

[CambridgeDon]

Thank God for Dennis Skinner, a truly honest and genuine man and a rare species - honest politician. Just look at that boiled-egghead Tory traitor and compare the difference. If only there were 600 more of you in that cesspit of lies and back-stabbing Dennis.

 

Cambridge Don - I do not consider that just because the NHS is free at delivery point, it is fine. Privatisation, including some by Labour, of services and employees is wrong in my eyes and this is just hiding the back-door route to having useless support staff like some places have cleaners who get paid less than minimum wage from agencies who know they are here illegally.

I'm glad to see someone else recognises that the EU (and more so NATO) are responsible for the mess that is destroying Ukraine, where they promised money and never gave it, and encouraged far-right openly fascist parties and corrupt politicians.

 

I'm not particularly in favour of the privatisation of the NHS either but making sure it's available free and when people need it is more important in my view. What gets me is when the supporters of one party wholly misrepresent their opponents' policies (in this case UKIP though they're not unique in this respect). Some of the propaganda I've read demonising them and their policies is frankly bordering on the delusional (and it simply plays into UKIP's hands). If you're going to criticise, make sure you've got it right first (not you personally, Bea, this is just a general point in the interests of fair argument).

 

I'm glad you agree about the Ukraine and the EU who knowingly stirred things up with disastrous results. I disagree though on your point about NATO. From what I've read, it's been the CIA that has been doing the stirring. In my view, we should keep out.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I think your wrong

 

Why?

[carl]

It was a non-negotiable statement, not ab invitation for another of your deluded rants.

 

Genius

 

I suppose being a grade 'A' student you have heard the word 'Hypocrite'?? Obviously you cannot see, what I am getting at then, with my post. Maybe the thousands who voted for UKIP overwhelmingly in the European elections were all deluded as well. Keep it up fella...

[carl]

or any workers should have statutory holidays.

 

Where has UKIP said that workers should not have Statutory holidays? Where?

[carl]

I live in Liverpool now but remember the poverty well in the 60's 70's and 80's. It's been the same in North Staffs for years. They opposed any progress that's been made. As for the EU, the regional development fund has provided thousands of construction jobs in areas of mass unemployment while making sure there were common standards to stop the exploitation of workers.

 

Progress in the North Staffordshire area has been rather slow in that many companies have elected to locate elsewhere, with exception to Distribution hubs who choose the area due to location convenience above all else. It is a shame that many of these jobs go to Migrants before they even get the chance to be advertised. And the British workers who do work in these industries suffer with stagnant wages and consequently the wages remain low due to the heavy burden of companies using agencies and taking on migrants at ridiculously low rates.

 

Labour has made not much difference to the area at all except for slight changes in road infrastructure (which comes from continual increases in road taxes) The monies that could have been used for improvements of general infrastructure and housing has been wasted on pursuing HS2 and new offices for the council in Hanley (complete waste of money) instead of renewing park and leisure facilities improvements and ensuring the roads were kept clean.

 

Trade has been driven away from the main city center and surrounding towns and the communities of the 1980's and early 1990's have all but dissapeared. Pubs have closed, nightlife has eradicated due to people not having the relevant expenditure. The regional European fund has no say from the electorate where the monies go, and consequently we have spending which does not benefit the electorate directly.The many brownfield sites in the area remain derelict and not used for further housing development. Why? Because the council has wasted most of the money on pursuing pie in the sky developments and paying huge amounts to consultants in pursuing them.

 

The European fund dissolves its monies in ways which make it seem like it is improving the area, when in reality, the area is being ignored.

[geosname]

Progress in the North Staffordshire area has been rather slow in that many companies have elected to locate elsewhere, with exception to Distribution hubs who choose the area due to location convenience above all else. It is a shame that many of these jobs go to Migrants before they even get the chance to be advertised. And the British workers who do work in these industries suffer with stagnant wages and consequently the wages remain low due to the heavy burden of companies using agencies and taking on migrants at ridiculously low rates.

 

Labour has made not much difference to the area at all except for slight changes in road infrastructure (which comes from continual increases in road taxes) The monies that could have been used for improvements of general infrastructure and housing has been wasted on pursuing HS2 and new offices for the council in Hanley (complete waste of money) instead of renewing park and leisure facilities improvements and ensuring the roads were kept clean.

 

Trade has been driven away from the main city center and surrounding towns and the communities of the 1980's and early 1990's have all but dissapeared. Pubs have closed, nightlife has eradicated due to people not having the relevant expenditure. The regional European fund has no say from the electorate where the monies go, and consequently we have spending which does not benefit the electorate directly.The many brownfield sites in the area remain derelict and not used for further housing development. Why? Because the council has wasted most of the money on pursuing pie in the sky developments and paying huge amounts to consultants in pursuing them.

 

The European fund dissolves its monies in ways which make it seem like it is improving the area, when in reality, the area is being ignored.

 

Does anyone know why companies have relocated?... I understand that some of the pottery industry moved to the far east.

If you wanted to start/open a company would you choose s-o-t? if so why?

I may be out of touch or old fashioned but isnt the prime directive of a business to make money... if thats the case and it is financially viable to make more money somewhere else shouldnt they move? wouldnt you move?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Where has UKIP said that workers should not have Statutory holidays? Where?

 

Section 3.2 of their same small business manifesto says:

 

“The EU is responsible for a great deal of UK employment legislation. A good example of excessive EU regulation is proposals for 'longer and better maternity leave'...

 

...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 they will simply have to recruit from a smaller pool of potential employees.”

 

 

 

"We get our legal right to four weeks’ paid leave from European Law (along with a host of other rights). UKIP would withdraw from the EU, and leave us without this Europe-wide guarantee of four weeks’ paid leave.

 

If that’s not clear enough, they helpfully spell it out in section 3.1 of their small business manifesto:

 

“UKIP would put an end to most legislation regarding matters such as weekly working hours, holidays and holiday, overtime, redundancy or sick pay etc. and provide a statutory, standard, very short employment contract template.”

 

http://www.unionstogether.org.uk/blog/entry/ukip/

 

I'll leave it to others to judge if this constitutes UKIP saying that workers should not have staturory holidays

[CambridgeDon]

Interesting poll from YouGov, reported in the Express today, putting UKIP in second place after the Tories.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/539175/Boost-Farage-Ukip-second-Tories

 

it was undertaken, apparently, after the Rocester and Strood by-election, so UKIP may be benefiting from that result and the Emily Thornberry effect, which has been very damaging for Labour.

 

It's interesting because YouGov polls tend to underestimate UKIP support - usually they don't specifically mention UKIP (subsuming them under 'other parties'), though I'm not sure about their methodology in this poll.

 

This should certainly put the cat among the pigeons.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Why aren't more companies locating themselves in SoT if it's a cheap place for land, labour..has good transport links etc.

 

IMO it's cos it's seen as an inward looking (maybe even backward looking) "can't do" sort of place that seems to snub innovation and attempts to try new things..it's profile is very low and yet people seem to mock attempts to raise that profile and make the place more attractive to business

 

"The many brownfield sites in the area remain derelict and not used for further housing development. Why? Because the council has wasted most of the money on pursuing pie in the sky developments and paying huge amounts to consultants in pursuing them."

 

This is a very complex area..I am all for local authorities building more social housing and have alwasy been aganst right to buy as it reduces the social housing stock for future generations. However the cost of building (for example) 100s of council houses is massive compared to that spent on HS2 and the council offices so they are in no way the reasons why they aren't built. The reasons are policy (local, national and international) and cost as in having the budget to do so..not HS2 and new offices

 

However i have read from many sources and agree that the cost of not buildng council housing has been and will continue to be far greater than the cost of building them both financially and more importantly socially