UKIP

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • ''work to live, dont live to work''


    True enough. Seen so many of 'em, in the good times, racking up the overtime, Saturdays, Sundays, 12-hour shifts, etc. Taking on big debts, big houses, smart furniture, all that shyte. Then the work dries up, the long hours and overtime end, and the poor bastards are tupped, scratting around for anything they can find, doing two or three jobs and still sinking financially. It's not worth it, just enjoy your life here if you can, and cruise along at your own pace.

  • Quote

    Thats easy to say when you dont have two rents to pay, due to circumstances i pay my own rent in aberdeen. The second most expensive city in britian to live in.
    I also pay as much of my ex's rent and bills as i can, so my sqon has a roof over his head and can have things that children need, ie food clothes toys ect


    I personally dont really care about money, but my landlord does so does the shops when i want food so i have no choice


    The more i earn the better i can provide for my son its as simple as that im afraid,


    i suppose everyone's circumstances are different, i never made a family so never had to think about funding children through life. that will be my regret if i ever tell a youn 'un some advice, 'have some kids'


    :(

  • How about some figures - so The help to buy scheme has about 20,000 deals up and running.


    In the past fiscal year 2012 - 2013 there were over 60,000 court repossession orders granted. That means over 60,000 families is such need.

  • Fuck it the recession kind of shaftted us a bit, i intend to work hard and make money and what s made with the recession hardening me up i intend to spend fuck all, so that its saved for another recession I intend to try n write me motgage off so i can be free in a way thatl do me. Its still fiercly competetive round me, the clients still have the money but they arnt stupid, guess its the sites where its at.


    But i always think sites just create debt and flash in the pan money. It never really flows from the big companies back to the tax payer. in that there s no vat on labour and materials on new builds so basicly goverments chuck money at new houses it hamourages away then bang a receesion follows.


    why oh why cant the big players pay a bit of vat back even 5 to 10 % then at least some money flows from the big bosses of the house builders back to government.


    Kind of riles us (a tiny family business) competing against cash contractors no vat ers


    So the vat tab is left to us the small to medium sized businesses of 20% on lab and materials. Its a funny one good brikies are going back to the sites round us where as the general builders are pritty much the same (competeive business as usual) I guess things might go mad soon but i learnt a hell of a lot off me dad. I swept him into buying bits of fancy kit and vans in the last boom, fuck that ill ride about in crap and keep the pennies thank you. aint going through the hell of 2007 8 again

  • You know what i honestly think vat on new builds would control the market, like the interest rate hits every bugger thanks to greedy companies if the vat could be fiddled about with on newies it could keep the market from overheating.

  • A great deal of work could be provided if the government invested in a great deal of social housing, as there is dire need for such housing all over the country. But this would not please their friends in the property business, as this would inevitably slow down property prices on the private market.


    Another good thing would be the government providing fixed mortgages, so that people could take on buying a place without being afraid of over-reaching themselves financially. I know working people who bought houses on a fixed mortgage back in the 1960's, for about £7,000 to £15,000 then, and now those places are worth £250,000 plus. Again, this would not please the mortgage suppliers who like a (highly) variable interest rate.


    As this is thread is supposed to be about UKIP, anyone know their housing policies?

  • Thanks for the link; a very mixed mish-mash of ideas there. Plus some of them may no longer be valid, as the 2010 manifesto has been destroyed. (So we are told).


    I do wonder exactly how many committees, or groups, or even single individuals, have been working on their manifesto so far. Not many, it seems. The 2010 manifesto was only written by a very few people, maybe just one or two, and Nige just okayed it without reading it. (So we are told).


    Fun to hear about their housing spokesman, about the same as most other parties there, then! Say one thing and practise another.


    I think they will have a bit of a success at the European election, then fall into the background again before the UK General Election next year.

  • Well all I could find on their website could be paraphrased and summarised as follows:


    "immigrants are taking our homes ... whine whine whine ... send them all back ... whine whine whine ... not fair ... whine whine whine"


    They have this ridiculous single-mindedness that comes with having only one agenda. I had to laugh at this response (posted by someone on another website) from the UKIP MEP Derek Clark to a letter asking him to take action against the killing of wild birds in Malta:


    "Thank you for your message but there is nothing I can do. Just before I became an MEP in 2004 the EU issued a directive to put a stop to shooting down birds of passage. This mostly happens along the Mediterranean coast as the birds fly North in Spring. The Directive has been almost totally ignored.


    You see, in the countries where this occurs it’s usually young men in their teens who shoot down these birds. It is a rite of passage into manhood and it is therefore a cultural thing. Result, families encourage it, as does the local community so there is no report to the local Police who stay indoors anyway. No written report or complaint means that it never took place at all.


    All of which simply illustrates the complete uselessness of the EU, and why we are still a member I do not understand.
    Yours sincerely
    Derek Clark MEP"


    They really are laughable. How the hell anyone can take anything they say seriously is beyond me.

  • While cycling home from from work this morning i passed a UKIP billboard in Easton, Bristol. It showed the union jack with a european flag invading the centre of the billboard as if it was taking over. The slogan starts- Who realy rules britain?
    Someone had come alone in the night, riped of the bottom half of the poster and sprayed on- "Rich white men". Made me chuckle on way home from a long night shift.

  • Personally I think that UKIP might get plenty of votes in the EU elections but they really have very little to offer and won't get far in British elections, let's face it they were only created by the old boy's network to take votes from the BNP which I have to say in my opinion do have some pretty good policies. I have read most of the policies and see no evidence of racism only policies that put British citizens first in their own country. They have put up with more crap than most with various organisations and the media but are still there and apparently the accounts are in the black unlike most of the other party's, they have also been responsible for exposing paedophiles not just the muslim grooming gangs but others connected with political party's and various authorities see labour 25 for a start, they also played a large part in getting the Charlene Downs case re opened and exposing the thieving politicians and their fraudulent expenses claims.

  • Hey, another Highlander! :waves: Though I'm not quite in the same camp as you, being at the moment mostly anti-independence (and there are actually quite a few of us around - most of the people I know say they won't be voting Yes in the referendum). But don't imagine for a second that because I don't think independence is the right thing for Scotland, that I'm in favour of the current government in any way. I have the same opinion of the Tories as, I suspect, everyone else here (except Ayami, probably). But I don't trust that things will be any better if we become an independent country. The SNP are offering no real answers on anything, and every time a genuine concern is raised it's dismissed as 'scaremongering' (their very favourite word!). But what's touting it about that we're going to get 'punished' by Cameron if we vote No, if not scaremongering?


    Having said that though, I'm delighted that UKIP doesn't have any real popularity in Scotland. I'll be voting in the European elections this month, if only to add numbers to anyone but them.


    Well it's good to hear that you are at least anti-tory. I don't know what you want for Scotland but what I for Scotland is a system of government that isn't thrust upon us by Westminster and after I hope we have a successful referendum Scotland will be able to elect it's own government with functional powers, not powers as discussed, dictated and arranged with westminster; no toothless lion rampant this time. It needent be the SNP in power, the SNP are offering the foothold to elect them and the elect them out if you want and elect in the party Scotland chooses. Not a party foisted upon us by the westminster, made up mostly of inherited peers and millionaires who probably view Scotland as somewhere nice to come once a year to shoot, but its awfully cold and the accent is terribly hard to understand. If you vote no what chance do you have whatever way you vote of having your vote really count in the next general election? I mean Cameron wasnt even voted in as the magority this time.


    Scaremongering? Read your political history regarding what happened here after we won the last devolution referendum in 1979 but didnt get the 40% and same year in came Thatcher herself. And yes I am scared, really scared that people like you will vote no because they are too scared to vote yes and we will end up with another tory government thrust upon us by westminster that we did not vote for.

  • Well it's good to hear that you are at least anti-tory. I don't know what you want for Scotland but what I for Scotland is a system of government that isn't thrust upon us by Westminster and after I hope we have a successful referendum Scotland will be able to elect it's own government with functional powers, not powers as discussed, dictated and arranged with westminster; no toothless lion rampant this time. It needent be the SNP in power, the SNP are offering the foothold to elect them and the elect them out if you want and elect in the party Scotland chooses. Not a party foisted upon us by the westminster, made up mostly of inherited peers and millionaires who probably view Scotland as somewhere nice to come once a year to shoot, but its awfully cold and the accent is terribly hard to understand. If you vote no what chance do you have whatever way you vote of having your vote really count in the next general election? I mean Cameron wasnt even voted in as the magority this time.


    Scaremongering? Read your political history regarding what happened here after we won the last devolution referendum in 1979 but didnt get the 40% and same year in came Thatcher herself. And yes I am scared, really scared that people like you will vote no because they are too scared to vote yes and we will end up with another tory government thrust upon us by westminster that we did not vote for.


    Shouldnt we have giant pandas in charge of Scotland?
    Theres more of them here than tory held seats!


    Anyone whos old enought to mind milky snatcher remembers that she wasnt called the hammer of the scots for fun.


    Daisysmum do u want to go out getting ppl to think a bit more about independence? Sounds like youve got ur head screwed on

  • Well it's good to hear that you are at least anti-tory. I don't know what you want for Scotland but what I for Scotland is a system of government that isn't thrust upon us by Westminster and after I hope we have a successful referendum Scotland will be able to elect it's own government with functional powers, not powers as discussed, dictated and arranged with westminster; no toothless lion rampant this time. It needent be the SNP in power, the SNP are offering the foothold to elect them and the elect them out if you want and elect in the party Scotland chooses. Not a party foisted upon us by the westminster, made up mostly of inherited peers and millionaires who probably view Scotland as somewhere nice to come once a year to shoot, but its awfully cold and the accent is terribly hard to understand. If you vote no what chance do you have whatever way you vote of having your vote really count in the next general election? I mean Cameron wasnt even voted in as the magority this time.


    Scaremongering? Read your political history regarding what happened here after we won the last devolution referendum in 1979 but didnt get the 40% and same year in came Thatcher herself. And yes I am scared, really scared that people like you will vote no because they are too scared to vote yes and we will end up with another tory government thrust upon us by westminster that we did not vote for.


    It was thanks to the SNP that we ended up with Thatcher.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1…rnment_of_James_Callaghan


    How is voting yes going to change anything? Whatever government elected will still have to deal with the austerity that the system demands, there is no way around it at the moment.


    http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4772


    Total public spending increased under Thatcher.


    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/c…tish-independence-debate/

  • I hope Scotland do get their independence, at least that will put an end to the "Midlothian question".


  • Sorry but I've learned from academia that you never trust any reference to blogs or the dreaded wikipedia. Anything cited would be wonderful Ayami. Yes austerity is a worldwide issue but I would prefer to take my chances with a government that I voted in and if they start to prop up a corrupt banking system rather than make decisions beneficial to my country at least I know my country and its people has the power to vote them out again.


    Alex Salmond actually was an economist, not a towel folder or speech writer like Yobsborne. Give the man credit love him, hate him or be indifferent to him he has held down a job and would seem to have a high degree of economy savvy from banking to oil.


    http://www.snp.org/people/alex-salmond


    Apologies for using the party URL it was the easiest to find and had the least comical picture and out of date picture.


  • http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/spec…round/pastelec/ge79.shtml


    Ok...this should help.


    Well I sure hope the party you vote for...after independence gets in! Or else they won't be your government. But even if you did vote them in what can they do to end austerity?
    So Salmond was an economist...the treasury is full of 'em! They are 10 a penny these days and none of them are any help in getting us out of austerity.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…acklash-praise-Putin.html


    He is certainly gaffe prone...lets hope he doesn't do a Putin once you get independence!

  • I've just read this blog post explaining why UKIP supporters should consider voting Green and it seems to make sense ...


    http://anotherangryvoice.blogs…p-voters-green-party.html


    Well if they all read that blog and vote Green, they might end up with 2 MPs at the next election.


    But this is just one of the reasons I would never vote Green.


    http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ec.html



    http://www.worldsocialism.org/…c-income-dangerous-reform

  • Excellent link Marshlander.


    Ayami the Green party link was huge, was it just the basic income you were opposed to or the whole economic model? The fact that it was tried and failed over 200 years ago doesn't mean it won't work now; we're in a very different situation. Though personally I support the raising of the minimum wage to an amount that people can actually live on rather than rely upon government hand-outs that are at best unreliable.

  • Excellent link Marshlander.


    Ayami the Green party link was huge, was it just the basic income you were opposed to or the whole economic model? The fact that it was tried and failed over 200 years ago doesn't mean it won't work now; we're in a very different situation. Though personally I support the raising of the minimum wage to an amount that people can actually live on rather than rely upon government hand-outs that are at best unreliable.


    But if you raise the minimum wage too high it will end up costing jobs. Then those people put out of work will be dependent on welfare.
    But I know what you mean about welfare, it is your right to have this yet you are given it as a handout, like you are asking for charity.

  • Surely it only costs jobs by the company being under-productive or charging too little? A company shouldn't rely on a government sponsoring its workforce to make it profitable.


    Or conversely, the cost of living needs to come down to meet the pockets of those on minimum wage.

  • Ayami, I think the SPGB in your link have got the wrong end of the stick, as have the orthodox economists they quote.


    The example given in the opening paragraphs about Speenhamland is far more in context with what is happening here today, with working people on low wages being subsidised by government benefits, and thereby subsidising the employer giving low wages, than by comparison with any Green Party policy, which looks at giving people enough to reasonably live on.

    If we were being paid sufficient to live on by the state without working, all this means is that those content to live at that level of material existence would roll happily along without working, and those who wanted to acquire more material possessions, or acquire money for any other purpose, would look for work to enable them to do so.


    If the employers offered them very little, they would refuse to work for this low sum, so employers would be obliged to put up wages in order to attract workers. So this would result in a relatively low-growth economy, and one in which employers would have to be content with a reasonably low profit, rather than an excessive one. All this would be in line with the low-growth sustainable type of economy envisaged by the Green Party.


    For example, let us say that that I am just able to get along on my pension, barring any sudden personal financial disasters. Now if an employer comes along and asks me to work for a few hours a week at £1 an hour, I would tell him exactly where to put his offer. If the same employer came along and asked me to work for a few hours a week at £12 an hour, I would probably do so.
    If everyone was in this enviable position the results would be exactly the same: those employers who offered a decent wage would get decent workers. Those who offered peanuts would go out of business.


    Your SPGB and their ilk are still stuck with the older model of an economic structure; they think that it is necessary to continuously expand into new markets with new products and new sales. Such an economic model burns out the natural resources of the land, the country, and eventually the planet upon which it is based.