Ukip

[For Us All]

Not unless the country they were travelling to had the same system that we had. As far as I know if you move to another country and become unemployed or need healthcare you claim what you can according to their rules not ours so any change we make here wouldnt change anything for people living and working abroad. One of the problems we have is that currently our countries benefits sytem is more attractive than everyone elses. Thats why so many go through other EU countries to come here.

 

Anybody know how the benefits systems in France,Germany,Spain and Italy for instance compares to ours?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

As long as you are aware of that possibility prior to making the choice to move here you can make provision to cover yourself against that eventuality or you can choose to go to a different country if their terms are more attractive to you than ours are

 

The question was what would UKIP do.....deny NHS treatment and deport?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

As long as you are aware of that possibility prior to making the choice to move here you can make provision to cover yourself against that eventuality or you can choose to go to a different country if their terms are more attractive to you than ours are

 

I just don't see it as a joined up policy..all for the principle but the reality will justn not work cos of what can happen once here.

[TheJoker]

Anyone who is serious about coming to this country to work and have a better future than they would in their own country would surely have no problem with serving a qualifying period before claiming benefits and free healthcare because they would be taking the long term view.

 

The ony people who are likely to seriously object to this are those who are only making a beeline for the UK to take advantage of our generous benefits system and free healthcare. Those are the people I personally dont want here so it all seems perfectly.....

 

 

For example.

 

Person X comes over to UK to work as a nurse for the nhs. They are here for 4 years with fully paid health insurance when they suddenly get struck down with cancer. They have to leave work due to being too ill to work. Would person X be refused treatment and left to die?

 

If so then that is enough reason not to vote for a party who would treat someone who has looked after British people in hospital in that way.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Well their health insurance might cover them but yes I'm with you on the principle

 

Obvioulsy we should say thanks but we don't need you now and deport them..let 'their' country treat them.

 

We ned UKIp to say what would happen in such circumstances..the devil of such a policy is in the detail

[Andyregs]

 

I dont believe in an overly generous unemployment benefit system full stop. I think unemployment benefits should be a safety net to avoid poverty for those with a genuine reason for being unable to support themselves, hopefully as a short-term solution until they are able to help themselves. Not an actual alternative to working which gives a similar lifestyle to people who are working for the minimum wage.

 

 

I agree that it should be a safety net for those who find themselves in a situation they don't want to be in. However, there will always be people unemployed because there aren't enough jobs. The big business that fund right wing parties that you support have no interest in 100% employment, as that would put the power in the hands of the workers, who could demand much higher wages. Unemployment is good for business as it means workers will be willing to work for less, and have enough fear to not push for better conditions.

What you suggest only works as a short term solution if the jobs are there for the taking, and those unemployed are by choice.

I understand many choose not to work, and that there is not simple solution. The options are to combat the career benefit claimants but also make life extremely difficult to genuine claimants, or to support those in extreme poverty but also have a number of those who choose not to work to also benefit.

What also bugs me is that the focus of most seems to be on those on benefits, where as it pales in significance to the billions lost in taxes to multinational corporations. And the biggest chunk of benefits by a long way is pensions.

As for the comments on the NHS, i have paid taxes since I was 16, and am happy the NHS is free,mans I agent been brainwashed into anything. I know where the money comes from, and I'd actually pay more. There is a comfort in knowing that in the future, if for any reason I can't work that I will still be looked after. And I'm happy that the weakest and most vulnerable in society can also benefit from that. I have nothing against those who work hard having more than those who don't. However there is a vulgar gap between the haves and have nots in the world, name have no wish to open that gap even further.

[bookworm]

You're not really bothered by two men kissing are you?

 

as long as i'm not one of them.

[kevin_struggles]

For example.

 

Person X comes over to UK to work as a nurse for the nhs. They are here for 4 years with fully paid health insurance when they suddenly get struck down with cancer. They have to leave work due to being too ill to work. Would person X be refused treatment and left to die?

 

If so then that is enough reason not to vote for a party who would treat someone who has looked after British people in hospital in that way.

 

Very dramatic but the reality is that for the first five years they would have to make their own provision meaning paying for a private health plan. If they don't feel they can afford to pay for that from the wages on offer in a job here then they can go elsewhere. It's not like we make them come here it's their choice and they would need to make an informed decision prior to moving here.

[kevin_struggles]

I agree that it should be a safety net for those who find themselves in a situation they don't want to be in. However, there will always be people unemployed because there aren't enough jobs. The big business that fund right wing parties that you support have no interest in 100% employment, as that would put the power in the hands of the workers, who could demand much higher wages. Unemployment is good for business as it means workers will be willing to work for less, and have enough fear to not push for better conditions.

What you suggest only works as a short term solution if the jobs are there for the taking, and those unemployed are by choice.

I understand many choose not to work, and that there is not simple solution. The options are to combat the career benefit claimants but also make life extremely difficult to genuine claimants, or to support those in extreme poverty but also have a number of those who choose not to work to also benefit.

What also bugs me is that the focus of most seems to be on those on benefits, where as it pales in significance to the billions lost in taxes to multinational corporations. And the biggest chunk of benefits by a long way is pensions.

As for the comments on the NHS, i have paid taxes since I was 16, and am happy the NHS is free,mans I agent been brainwashed into anything. I know where the money comes from, and I'd actually pay more. There is a comfort in knowing that in the future, if for any reason I can't work that I will still be looked after. And I'm happy that the weakest and most vulnerable in society can also benefit from that. I have nothing against those who work hard having more than those who don't. However there is a vulgar gap between the haves and have nots in the world, name have no wish to open that gap even further.

 

I think you should reasses the reasons why there are no jobs. It wasn't right wing parties that destroyed our industry it was short sighted unionists who bankrupted the companies their members worked for and it was unionists who went over to the far east and trained their workers to do our jobs helping them to set up pottery manufacturing for instance.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

but wouldnt that also apply to brits traveling to europe?

you have to accept that what any party states pre election is designed to tempt votes... what they do and how it affects others is not comparable to the promises they make

 

So true if Nazi Nige and Propoganda Paul get in the doors will close and the drawbridge will be pulled up, we are all doomed, doomed I tell you doomed! :D

[kevin_struggles]

I agree that it should be a safety net for those who find themselves in a situation they don't want to be in. However, there will always be people unemployed because there aren't enough jobs. The big business that fund right wing parties that you support have no interest in 100% employment, as that would put the power in the hands of the workers, who could demand much higher wages. Unemployment is good for business as it means workers will be willing to work for less, and have enough fear to not push for better conditions.

What you suggest only works as a short term solution if the jobs are there for the taking, and those unemployed are by choice.

I understand many choose not to work, and that there is not simple solution. The options are to combat the career benefit claimants but also make life extremely difficult to genuine claimants, or to support those in extreme poverty but also have a number of those who choose not to work to also benefit.

What also bugs me is that the focus of most seems to be on those on benefits, where as it pales in significance to the billions lost in taxes to multinational corporations. And the biggest chunk of benefits by a long way is pensions.

As for the comments on the NHS, i have paid taxes since I was 16, and am happy the NHS is free,mans I agent been brainwashed into anything. I know where the money comes from, and I'd actually pay more. There is a comfort in knowing that in the future, if for any reason I can't work that I will still be looked after. And I'm happy that the weakest and most vulnerable in society can also benefit from that. I have nothing against those who work hard having more than those who don't. However there is a vulgar gap between the haves and have nots in the world, name have no wish to open that gap even further.

 

I forgot to mention that I take extreme issue with your suggestion that pensions are benefits. I have paid national insurance for 37 years so far so my pension if i live long enough will not be a benefit it will be my right because I have paid into it.

[kevin_struggles]

So true if Nazi Nige and Propoganda Paul get in the doors will close and the drawbridge will be pulled up' date=' we are all doomed, doomed I tell you doomed! :D[/quote']

 

First of all nige won't get in so relax. Second even if he did the drawbridge would only go up for those coming here with their hands out.

 

Ukip are basically an anti politics party. A vote for them is designed to shake the liblabcon up to let them know that they are excluding the views of millions of the electorate. Those of you who are happy with the liblabcon can vote for them. There's no problem the big bad wolf won't carry you away in the night.

[carl]

 

Ukip are basically an anti politics party. A vote for them is designed to shake the liblabcon up to let them know that they are excluding the views of millions of the electorate. Those of you who are happy with the liblabcon can vote for them. There's no problem the big bad wolf won't carry you away in the night.

 

It already has shaken the tories up due to their recent concern over Europe. It will be interesting to see how further negotiations go between now and May and the fact that Merkel is not prepared to compromise the EU constitution to the UK's idealist immigration policy.

 

I can see any delay or hesitation on this issue losing tory votes. On the flip side I am astounded at Milliband's lack of challenge towards any recent issues and you really do get the feeling that Labour are taking their electorate for granted. That is a bad bad mistake- I can see both parties losing crucial votes and will lead to the most unpredictable general election for years.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

First of all nige won't get in so relax. Second even if he did the drawbridge would only go up for those coming here with their hands out.

 

Ukip are basically an anti politics party. A vote for them is designed to shake the liblabcon up to let them know that they are excluding the views of millions of the electorate. Those of you who are happy with the liblabcon can vote for them. There's no problem the big bad wolf won't carry you away in the night.

 

I know they won't, if they get 5-8% of the public vote (that's voters that vote not 5-8% of those eligible) then I think they will have done well as they will be unmasked by many when people look into their 'policies' and people will always land of the side pf caution at the last moment.

 

Just trying to bring some light to a dark debate :)

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Personally whilst I don't support UKIP (but have some sympathy for wanting to get better control on immigration) I think it's great that for the first time in many years there is some real debate going on, some radical ideas and things getting shaken up, that people feel engaged in what's happening and the main parties feel that they cannot take their voters for granted. It may well lead to a 'messy' hung parliament but that does not have to be a bad thing and some of those radical ideas might actually happen to maintain a coalition..the devil will be in the detail of that.

 

Get out there and learn what the party's are proposing and vote!!!!