To be honest with you, it doesn`t merit a response plus I have work to do but I will be back on this thread for a good laugh later today. It`s all about opinions isn`t it? I couldn`t give a toss what anyone thinks of my opinion and I couldn`t give a toss about theirs!
This is just one question of many but one that I really care about. Why did this appear on Paul Nuttall's website and why has he since taken it down? It's the White Man and forked tongue bit that deeply troubles me.
Any responses to this please?
Yes, it is not on the manifesto so therefore it means nothing. All political parties propose things and then"U-turn" do they not?. Whilst you are so concerned about the NHS you will know that it is currently being privatised by stealth by the coalition. Oh, by the way, NHS privatisation was first proposed by Tony Blair in 2007. So much for Labour being the champions of the NHS eh? The NHS is the only lie that Labour have left to cling onto, they have been found out on everything else!
Do you really believe he has changed his mind? Why didn't he say he had changed his mind, could it be that we are we being told whoppers by UKIP?
It was Thatcher that started the privatisation processes and Tony Blair accelerated it. I have never sought to defend that and I left the Labour Party over the Iraq issue. Currently unattached but the NHS is very very precious to me and maybe, just maybe, I know a little bit about it and I remain deeply sceptical of UKIP on this issue. Sheep and wolves.
UKIP will require foreign vehicles to purchase a Britdisc, before entry to the UK, in order to contribute to the upkeep of UK roads and any lost fuel duty.
Another nail in the coffin of the tourist industry. I can just see a German tourist, "Have I got my NHS-approved health insurance and my britdisc? Sod it, it's too difficult, I'm going to France instead". As for trucks. Well on the intra-UK Belfast route, often only the trailers get on the ferries and are picked up by another lorry at the other end. That's what would happen at Dover too. So no money brought in. Meanwhile the Eurotunnel could not cope with that system on its freight trains and would quickly go bust.
The Germans are proposing something simular from 2016 although it the EU states it is against its rules. but the Germans are saying there are ways around it,
Don't fancy actually responding to the points Chizz made then E?
If I could be bothered I would reply to the points Chizz makes. But can't see much point as clearly he just wants to paint UKIP rascist whatever they say.
For example:-
"We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession" - why is this limited to foreigners?
It's limited to foreigners because as far as I am aware British people, of all colour and creed, going into the medical profession can already speak English to a high standard!
Foreign health service professionals coming to this country and not speaking English properly is a real problem. There have been a whole series of cases in which patients have died or suffered poor care as a result of doctors speaking sub-standard English.
I want to be safe when I visit my doctor and if that means a foreign doctor has to take an English proficiency test, so be it.
And as for charging foreign drivers coming here, what do you think other countries have been doing to UK drivers for years (particularly freight ones). If there are any HGV drivers who drive abroad on here they will astound you with stories about how much they have to pay. The fact is foreign HGV companies who use this country roads are at huge advantage over our own drivers and this has contributed to the UK freight industry being brought to its knees.
Don't fancy actually responding to the points Chizz made then E?
If I could be bothered I would reply to the points Chizz makes. But can't see much point as clearly he just wants to paint UKIP rascist whatever they say.
For example:-
"We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession" - why is this limited to foreigners?
It's limited to foreigners because as far as I am aware British people, of all colour and creed, going into the medical profession can already speak English to a high standard!
Foreign health service professionals coming to this country and not speaking English properly is a real problem. There have been a whole series of cases in which patients have died or suffered poor care as a result of doctors speaking sub-standard English.
I want to be safe when I visit my doctor and if that means a foreign doctor has to take an English proficiency test, so be it.
And as for charging foreign drivers coming here, what do you think other countries have been doing to UK drivers for years (particularly freight ones). If there are any HGV drivers who drive abroad on here they will astound you with stories about how much they have to pay. The fact is foreign HGV companies who use this country roads are at huge advantage over our own drivers and this has contributed to the UK freight industry being brought to its knees.
Thanks for responding to one of the points. My question referred to the distinction being drawn between "British" healthcare workers and "foreign" healthcare workers. Should British people be subjected to a language skills test? Isn't it equally important that British staff can speak, write and communicate in the language of the patient? What if they only speak, for example, Welsh? What if both the patient and the healthcare worker speak better Hindi, Urdu or Tagalog? Do we insist that all patient-doctor conversations take place only in English? And if so, who monitors that? What's the punishment?
Why the distinction between foreigners and British people?
Of course, UKIP is the oly political party that has banned former members of the BNP from joining. Presumably because they're exactly the type that are most likely to be attracted to UKIP..?
Don't fancy actually responding to the points Chizz made then E?
If I could be bothered I would reply to the points Chizz makes. But can't see much point as clearly he just wants to paint UKIP rascist whatever they say.
For example:-
"We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession" - why is this limited to foreigners?
It's limited to foreigners because as far as I am aware British people, of all colour and creed, going into the medical profession can already speak English to a high standard!
Foreign health service professionals coming to this country and not speaking English properly is a real problem. There have been a whole series of cases in which patients have died or suffered poor care as a result of doctors speaking sub-standard English.
I want to be safe when I visit my doctor and if that means a foreign doctor has to take an English proficiency test, so be it.
And as for charging foreign drivers coming here, what do you think other countries have been doing to UK drivers for years (particularly freight ones). If there are any HGV drivers who drive abroad on here they will astound you with stories about how much they have to pay. The fact is foreign HGV companies who use this country roads are at huge advantage over our own drivers and this has contributed to the UK freight industry being brought to its knees.
Thanks for responding to one of the points. My question referred to the distinction being drawn between "British" healthcare workers and "foreign" healthcare workers. Should British people be subjected to a language skills test? Isn't it equally important that British staff can speak, write and communicate in the language of the patient? What if they only speak, for example, Welsh? What if both the patient and the healthcare worker speak better Hindi, Urdu or Tagalog? Do we insist that all patient-doctor conversations take place only in English? And if so, who monitors that? What's the punishment?
Why the distinction between foreigners and British people?
And what if your aunt had balls? Yep she would be your uncle. You can twist almost anything to interpret what you think it means. Ridiculous arguement as they are all fucking liars (political parties), you know it, I know it , we all know it
There have been a whole series of cases in which patients have died or suffered poor care as a result of doctors speaking sub-standard English.
Not doubting you but I haven't seen any, can you link an article?
Colt, I know about this through a number of friends who work in the NHS and personal experience (a foreign locum doctor who came out at the weekend to see my dear old mum who had been taken seriously ill who we could scarcely communicate with).
A quick google search - without spending any time on it - throws up:
There have been a whole series of cases in which patients have died or suffered poor care as a result of doctors speaking sub-standard English.
Not doubting you but I haven't seen any, can you link an article?
Colt, I know about this through a number of friends who work in the NHS and personal experience (a foreign locum doctor who came out at the weekend to see my dear old mum who had been taken seriously ill who we could scarcely communicate with).
A quick google search - without spending any time on it - throws up:
Just do a google search and it throws up a lot on this .
So one case then.
I'm not disagreeing that health workers shouldn't at the very least have basic English and it seems the government are already putting this in place from the articles you have posted.
Don't fancy actually responding to the points Chizz made then E?
If I could be bothered I would reply to the points Chizz makes. But can't see much point as clearly he just wants to paint UKIP rascist whatever they say.
For example:-
"We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession" - why is this limited to foreigners?
It's limited to foreigners because as far as I am aware British people, of all colour and creed, going into the medical profession can already speak English to a high standard!
Foreign health service professionals coming to this country and not speaking English properly is a real problem. There have been a whole series of cases in which patients have died or suffered poor care as a result of doctors speaking sub-standard English.
I want to be safe when I visit my doctor and if that means a foreign doctor has to take an English proficiency test, so be it.
And as for charging foreign drivers coming here, what do you think other countries have been doing to UK drivers for years (particularly freight ones). If there are any HGV drivers who drive abroad on here they will astound you with stories about how much they have to pay. The fact is foreign HGV companies who use this country roads are at huge advantage over our own drivers and this has contributed to the UK freight industry being brought to its knees.
Thanks for responding to one of the points. My question referred to the distinction being drawn between "British" healthcare workers and "foreign" healthcare workers. Should British people be subjected to a language skills test? Isn't it equally important that British staff can speak, write and communicate in the language of the patient? What if they only speak, for example, Welsh? What if both the patient and the healthcare worker speak better Hindi, Urdu or Tagalog? Do we insist that all patient-doctor conversations take place only in English? And if so, who monitors that? What's the punishment?
Why the distinction between foreigners and British people?
And what if your aunt had balls? Yep she would be your uncle. You can twist almost anything to interpret what you think it means. Ridiculous arguement as they are all f****g liars (political parties), you know it, I know it , we all know it
The argument goes away if the manifesto has the word "foreign" removed.
Perfectly simple change to make. Totally reasonable to expect everyone working in the NHS to speak one (or more) of the British languages (eg English, Gaelic, Welsh, etc). But the manifesto refers directly and exclusively to "foreign" people. No need for it; unpleasant, xenophobic and, yes, if you like: deliberately racist.
There have been a whole series of cases in which patients have died or suffered poor care as a result of doctors speaking sub-standard English.
Not doubting you but I haven't seen any, can you link an article?
Colt, I know about this through a number of friends who work in the NHS and personal experience (a foreign locum doctor who came out at the weekend to see my dear old mum who had been taken seriously ill who we could scarcely communicate with).
A quick google search - without spending any time on it - throws up:
Just do a google search and it throws up a lot on this .
So one case then.
I'm not disagreeing that health workers shouldn't at the very least have basic English and it seems the government are already putting this in place from the articles you have posted.
As I say, I haven't spent any time looking for stats and just posted up a couple of the first things that came up on google. Have a look yourself if you really think it's only one case.
Don't fancy actually responding to the points Chizz made then E?
And as for charging foreign drivers coming here, what do you think other countries have been doing to UK drivers for years (particularly freight ones). If there are any HGV drivers who drive abroad on here they will astound you with stories about how much they have to pay. The fact is foreign HGV companies who use this country roads are at huge advantage over our own drivers and this has contributed to the UK freight industry being brought to its knees.
To use an old saying, two wrongs don't make a right.
To use another one: if all economists in the world were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion.
But many economists (most, all?) will tell you that protectionism is a very bad thing indeed and that's just what many UKIP policies are about. UKIP would learn, quickly I suspect, that other countries will not say "oh well, never mind": there would be "retaliation". Their proposals would not benefit the UK economy and might lead to catastrophe, who knows?
According to wiki (with my emphasis): In 2013 the UK was the 4th-largest exporter in the world and the 4th-largest importer, and had the 2nd-largest stock of inward foreign direct investment and the 2nd-largest stock of outward foreign direct investment. The UK is one of the world's most globalised economies.
The service sector dominates the UK economy, contributing around 78% of GDP; the financial services industry is particularly important and London is the world's largest financial centre. The British aerospace industry is the second or third-largest national aerospace industry depending on the method of measurement. The pharmaceutical industry plays an important role in the economy and the UK has the third-highest share of global pharmaceutical R&D. The automotive industry is also a major employer and exporter......
I don't know what impact UKIP policies, in particular, leaving the EU, would have on those statistics and neither does UKIP. Personally, I would rather not take the risk.
@ Dippenhall I'd be interested in concrete examples you've got of how EU regulations affect you. Not just to have an argument. I definitely agree with you that the British legal tenets of precedent and proportionality are superior, and I miss them, when I run up against the law here. On the other hand a lot of EU regulations are based on directives, which actually have no legal precedent over UK law, and that's why for example many goods in the UK are still sold with a one year guarantee when the EU directive says it should be two years, as we discussed here a couple of weeks ago.
The "reasonable man" might think that if you buy a book from Amazon UK, and it is sent to your London address, the transaction happened in the UK, and the idea that Amazon should pay tax on it in Luxembourg is laughable. Unfortunately so far the great British legal system hasn't brought Amazon to court to pay up. But the EC is getting its teeth into them now, as it has successfully done already with several big multinationals. Your roaming charges are lower as a result, for example.
So I'd say that countries should keep the EU together while negotiating to preserve national superiority in key laws. Such negotiations require mature outward looking people who show that they actually want to be in the same club as their 27 counterparts. Farage clearly isn't such a person.
I am in dispute with a Spanish property developer who failed to complete an off plan development on time having had over £250k up front. Had more or less waived goodbye to the money having found we'd been stitched up by our lawyers who also worked for the developers. The whole Spanish legal system is corrupt where the concept of conflict of interest has no meaning. Out of the blue this year we receive a lengthy document wholly in Spanish claiming we now owe the developer £200k for not completing on the property now it has been finished. If their claim is accepted by a SPANISH court and they get judgement, the ENGLISH Courts, without any right of appeal on my part, simply accept it and pursue me for the claim on behalf of the Spanish court as if it were an English court decision. The fact that the developer is making a spurious claim means I have to appoint Spanish lawyers to act on my behalf to prevent an uncontested action in Spain being applied by English Courts on behalf of a Spanish court. We are also told we can sue the Spanish lawyers, all told it will cost about £100k to attempt to recover our losses but having to rely on the integrity of a foreign legal system which has only proven to me to be completely untrustworthy.
I am also involved in pension trustee work and give just one example, the effect of European Court judgements on the UK pension system in terms of the cost of compliance with sex equality. The UK enacted rules to comply as best we could to equalise pensions for men and women, but interaction with the permitted unequal state system unique to the UK, meant some features could not be addressed. The European Court deemed the UK had not complied, so our government made some more laws that tried to address the defect. Problem is that it is now impossible to comply because lawyers cannot interpret the law so as to allow a correct benefit adjustment to be made. It has been fudged and DWP cannot confirm if any scheme complies or not, even though it is their responsibility to ensure compliance. It is like working in an asylum run by the inmates.
Regarding the hope of JonnyK and Cameron that the "acquis" can be re-negotiated, it is like saying that we all play to the FA rules of association football but Man U have negotiated different rules so that handling a ball by one of their players is not handball unless the manager agrees. We in the UK simply don't understand the way the EU works and offering our own ideas of fair play and logic to change the EU is pointless.
Oh, and this is from the Freight Transport Association which is campaigning regarding a shortage of drivers: "For a number of years industry has been concerned about the combined impact of an ageing professional hgv driver workforce and the lack of new entrants coming through to replace those who leave the sector as a result of retirement or to pursue different careers."
And this from the Govt. Estimates from the Labour Force Survey show there were 299,000 HGV drivers in 2010, a 5 per cent increase on the 2009 figure of 285,000.
So, more drivers, yet more still needed (no doubt in part because of the boom in on-line shopping).
Meanwhile the Eddie Stobart fleet travels the equivalent of 24 laps of the earth, every day, has 38,000 tyres in use at any one time and makes a delivery in Europe every 20 seconds.
That indicates that all is not doom and gloom in the road freight industry.
For those interested this is a selection of the UKIP manifesto for 2015. This is a manifesto of pure common sense, something severely lacking in the Con/Lib/Lab triplets mindset. I urge anyone to find just 1 racist or xenophobic policy in here and then explain in detail why you think it is racist. I have voted UKIP, I do vote UKIP and I will vote UKIP and with policies like these is it any wonder that a hell of a lot of other people will be voting UKIP too.
"Cut foreign aid budget by £9bn" - clearly an indication that the brilliant work done by UK overseas aid funding is abolished. After all, they're only foreigners, aren't they? If not "racist", then this is at the very least blinkered xenophobia.
"UKIP will ensure the NHS is free at the point of delivery and time of need for all UK residents" - so "foreigners" are not allowed to use the NHS. Again, anti-foreigner. Incidentally, has anyone considered how this is supposed to work in practice? Do patients have to prove their residency before being treated? If so, I strongly suggest that anyone leaving home, should travel with at least two forms of ID and a recent utility bill, in case you're ever involved in an accident.
"We will ensure that visitors to the UK, and migrants until they have paid NI for five years, have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK" - so, if you're "foreign", you have to pay NI for five years. But if you're British, there's no need. Utterly and totally xenophobic.
"We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession" - why is this limited to foreigners?
"UKIP will reinstate the primary purpose rule for bringing foreign spouses and children to the UK" - if you know what the Primary Purpose rule is (and I suspect that most people don't), you'll know that its abolishment was widely welcomed. It has been described as "cruel and malicious", which might be what attracted UKIP to it in the first place.
"Food must be labelled to include the country of origin, method of production, method of slaughter, hormones and any genetic additives" - OK, I think we can guess which bit they're getting at here. Are they really saying we need to be warned whether a chicken has been properly stunned in a bath of electrolyte before being slaughtered; or whether a partridge has been estate shot? Or are we just looking at an anti-halal piece of discriminatory legislation. Ask yourself this: did you know, or need to know, how the last piece of meat you had was slaughtered?
"UKIP will require foreign vehicles to purchase a Britdisc, before entry to the UK, in order to contribute to the upkeep of UK roads and any lost fuel duty" - OK, this is getting silly now. Do these guys even proofread their own manifesto? Do they really expect CARS to PURCHASE a Britdisc? Really? Not the owners? Or drivers? But the vehicles themselves? Despite this being preposterously silly, we can include it in the "mildly racist" bucket with the others.
"UKIP recognises and values an overarching, unifying British culture, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values, regardless of their ethnic or religious background". What? I mean... just... what?
That was fun. A total of eight, highly-questionable, xenophobic, borderline racist items in a short manifesto. Well done UKIP!
Incidentally, I couldn't let this one pass without comment: "Conduct a skills review to better inform our education system and qualifications" Brilliant. One sentence about skills reviews in education and they still managed to make themselves look foolish by including a split infinitive.
I believe Britain spends more in overseas aid than most other countries. This isn't spare money we have. This is money we borrow, in order to give away. Yes of course we should contribute, but not to the likes of India who are funding space travel projects. We need to be more selective, with the aid given. We have millions of people in this country, who could do with extra aid. Once again, it's about opinion. Is it xenophobic to want to look after your own people first ?
Chizz, do you priortise your own family before others, or do you make sure others come before your family ? By your way of thinking, it seems to me, that anyone who looks after there own family first is discriminating.
Foreigners can use the NHS, as long as they have medical insurance. I can't see what's wrong with this. Why should we allow anyone in the world, the opportunity to use a very expensive service for free ?
To query whether it is good practice for foreign doctors to be able to speak English and are properly qualified is just crass. Yes, of course British doctors should be able to speak English as well and be qualified. That goes without saying. Let's continue a mature debate please, without being silly.
How would you feel this afternoon, if you are rushed to hospital with severe pains and are greeted by no one that can speak English and aren't actually qualified doctors at all ?
Regarding food, there was a discussion on here recently and many people thought it very important, that they needed to know, how their food was slaughtered (many didn't as well). Some people even need to know whether Charlton serve vegetarian cheese !
"UKIP recognises and values an overarching, unifying British culture, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values, regardless of their ethnic or religious background"
Once again it's opinion isn't it ? You feel it is wrong for a British government to want a British culture, which is open and inclusive to anyone, who wishes to identify with Britain and British values.
Personally, I do not understand why anyone wants to live in Britain if they do not wish to identify with Britain and British values. Yes, identify with another culture as well, but please do identify with Britain and British cultures if you want to live in Britain.
The suggested schedule is for debates on 2, 16 and 30 April, ahead of the election on 7 May.
There would be:
One head-to-head debate between the "two leaders who could become prime minister", Mr Cameron and Labour's Ed Miliband, on Sky and Channel 4 and chaired by Jeremy Paxman
Another, also to include the Liberal Democrat leader, to be hosted by David Dimbleby, on BBC TV, radio and online
Another debate, on ITV and chaired by Julie Etchingham, featuring the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and UK Independence Party
As others have stated it's, on the whole, an extremely good standard of discussion, well done to all involved.
Farage, rightly or wrongly resonates with a lot of voters but I can't believe we've got this far without discussing the quality of the rest of the leading party members.
This is a party that is portrayed as representative of the ordinary working man* yet has Neil Hamilton as its Deputy Chairman. A man so far removed from representing ordinary people he's faced several enquiries and numerous litigation around his willingness to put his own financial interests before even his loyalty to his party (let alone his constituency).
I find it hard to believe anyone prepared to vote UKIP is happy to have Neil Hamilton involved in their party of choice, but his profile appears to be being kept deliberately low.
*I use this term deliberately as polling shows there's a large difference in the male/female UKIP vote demographic IIRC.
For those interested this is a selection of the UKIP manifesto for 2015. This is a manifesto of pure common sense, something severely lacking in the Con/Lib/Lab triplets mindset. I urge anyone to find just 1 racist or xenophobic policy in here and then explain in detail why you think it is racist. I have voted UKIP, I do vote UKIP and I will vote UKIP and with policies like these is it any wonder that a hell of a lot of other people will be voting UKIP too.
"Cut foreign aid budget by £9bn" - clearly an indication that the brilliant work done by UK overseas aid funding is abolished. After all, they're only foreigners, aren't they? If not "racist", then this is at the very least blinkered xenophobia.
"UKIP will ensure the NHS is free at the point of delivery and time of need for all UK residents" - so "foreigners" are not allowed to use the NHS. Again, anti-foreigner. Incidentally, has anyone considered how this is supposed to work in practice? Do patients have to prove their residency before being treated? If so, I strongly suggest that anyone leaving home, should travel with at least two forms of ID and a recent utility bill, in case you're ever involved in an accident.
"We will ensure that visitors to the UK, and migrants until they have paid NI for five years, have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK" - so, if you're "foreign", you have to pay NI for five years. But if you're British, there's no need. Utterly and totally xenophobic.
"We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession" - why is this limited to foreigners?
"UKIP will reinstate the primary purpose rule for bringing foreign spouses and children to the UK" - if you know what the Primary Purpose rule is (and I suspect that most people don't), you'll know that its abolishment was widely welcomed. It has been described as "cruel and malicious", which might be what attracted UKIP to it in the first place.
"Food must be labelled to include the country of origin, method of production, method of slaughter, hormones and any genetic additives" - OK, I think we can guess which bit they're getting at here. Are they really saying we need to be warned whether a chicken has been properly stunned in a bath of electrolyte before being slaughtered; or whether a partridge has been estate shot? Or are we just looking at an anti-halal piece of discriminatory legislation. Ask yourself this: did you know, or need to know, how the last piece of meat you had was slaughtered?
"UKIP will require foreign vehicles to purchase a Britdisc, before entry to the UK, in order to contribute to the upkeep of UK roads and any lost fuel duty" - OK, this is getting silly now. Do these guys even proofread their own manifesto? Do they really expect CARS to PURCHASE a Britdisc? Really? Not the owners? Or drivers? But the vehicles themselves? Despite this being preposterously silly, we can include it in the "mildly racist" bucket with the others.
"UKIP recognises and values an overarching, unifying British culture, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values, regardless of their ethnic or religious background". What? I mean... just... what?
That was fun. A total of eight, highly-questionable, xenophobic, borderline racist items in a short manifesto. Well done UKIP!
Incidentally, I couldn't let this one pass without comment: "Conduct a skills review to better inform our education system and qualifications" Brilliant. One sentence about skills reviews in education and they still managed to make themselves look foolish by including a split infinitive.
I believe Britain spends more in overseas aid than most other countries. This isn't spare money we have. This is money we borrow, in order to give away. Yes of course we should contribute, but not to the likes of India who are funding space travel projects. We need to be more selective, with the aid given. We have millions of people in this country, who could do with extra aid. Once again, it's about opinion. Is it xenophobic to want to look after your own people first ?
Chizz, do you priortise your own family before others, or do you make sure others come before your family ? By your way of thinking, it seems to me, that anyone who looks after there own family first is discriminating.
Foreigners can use the NHS, as long as they have medical insurance. I can't see what's wrong with this. Why should we allow anyone in the world, the opportunity to use a very expensive service for free ?
To query whether it is good practice for foreign doctors to be able to speak English and arevproperly qualified is just crass. Yes, of course British doctors should be able to speak English as well and be qualified. That goes without saying. Let's continue a mature debate please, without being silly.
How would you feel this afternoon, if you are rushed to hospital with severe pains and are greeted by no one that can speak English and aren't actually qualified doctors at all ?
Regarding food, there was a discussion on here recently and many people thought it very important, that they needed to know, how their food was slaughtered (many didn't as well). Some people even need to know whether Charlton serve vegetarian cheese !
"UKIP recognises and values an overarching, unifying British culture, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values, regardless of their ethnic or religious background"
Once again it's opinion isn't it ? You feel it is wrong for a British government to want a British culture, which is open and inclusive to anyone, who wishes to identify with Britain and British values.
Personally, I do not understand why anyone wants to live in Britain if they do not wish to identify with Britain and British values. Yes, identify with another culture as well, but please do identify with Britain and Britih cultures if you want to live in Britain.
Your best ever post CE .. and one with which I, for one, totally, wholeheartedly and emphatically agree
For those interested this is a selection of the UKIP manifesto for 2015. This is a manifesto of pure common sense, something severely lacking in the Con/Lib/Lab triplets mindset. I urge anyone to find just 1 racist or xenophobic policy in here and then explain in detail why you think it is racist. I have voted UKIP, I do vote UKIP and I will vote UKIP and with policies like these is it any wonder that a hell of a lot of other people will be voting UKIP too.
"Cut foreign aid budget by £9bn" - clearly an indication that the brilliant work done by UK overseas aid funding is abolished. After all, they're only foreigners, aren't they? If not "racist", then this is at the very least blinkered xenophobia.
"UKIP will ensure the NHS is free at the point of delivery and time of need for all UK residents" - so "foreigners" are not allowed to use the NHS. Again, anti-foreigner. Incidentally, has anyone considered how this is supposed to work in practice? Do patients have to prove their residency before being treated? If so, I strongly suggest that anyone leaving home, should travel with at least two forms of ID and a recent utility bill, in case you're ever involved in an accident.
"We will ensure that visitors to the UK, and migrants until they have paid NI for five years, have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK" - so, if you're "foreign", you have to pay NI for five years. But if you're British, there's no need. Utterly and totally xenophobic.
"We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession" - why is this limited to foreigners?
"UKIP will reinstate the primary purpose rule for bringing foreign spouses and children to the UK" - if you know what the Primary Purpose rule is (and I suspect that most people don't), you'll know that its abolishment was widely welcomed. It has been described as "cruel and malicious", which might be what attracted UKIP to it in the first place.
"Food must be labelled to include the country of origin, method of production, method of slaughter, hormones and any genetic additives" - OK, I think we can guess which bit they're getting at here. Are they really saying we need to be warned whether a chicken has been properly stunned in a bath of electrolyte before being slaughtered; or whether a partridge has been estate shot? Or are we just looking at an anti-halal piece of discriminatory legislation. Ask yourself this: did you know, or need to know, how the last piece of meat you had was slaughtered?
"UKIP will require foreign vehicles to purchase a Britdisc, before entry to the UK, in order to contribute to the upkeep of UK roads and any lost fuel duty" - OK, this is getting silly now. Do these guys even proofread their own manifesto? Do they really expect CARS to PURCHASE a Britdisc? Really? Not the owners? Or drivers? But the vehicles themselves? Despite this being preposterously silly, we can include it in the "mildly racist" bucket with the others.
"UKIP recognises and values an overarching, unifying British culture, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values, regardless of their ethnic or religious background". What? I mean... just... what?
That was fun. A total of eight, highly-questionable, xenophobic, borderline racist items in a short manifesto. Well done UKIP!
Incidentally, I couldn't let this one pass without comment: "Conduct a skills review to better inform our education system and qualifications" Brilliant. One sentence about skills reviews in education and they still managed to make themselves look foolish by including a split infinitive.
I believe Britain spends more in overseas aid than most other countries. This isn't spare money we have. This is money we borrow, in order to give away. Yes of course we should contribute, but not to the likes of India who are funding space travel projects. We need to be more selective, with the aid given. We have millions of people in this country, who could do with extra aid. Once again, it's about opinion. Is it xenophobic to want to look after your own people first ?
It's such a small number that goes on foreign aid, 0.7% of GNI or about £180 per person. Additionally, foreign aid is rarely "aid" these days. It's more like investment, the government receives a fair bit in return for some of the money it hands out.
Again another example where a monetary amount is quoted just to frighten everyone.
Kinnock tried the man of the people approach and was not a bad orator, and did well in opinion polls etc, but when push came to shove people couldnt bring themselves to vote for the crackpot policies they had in place.
I think the same will happen with UKIP - leader riding high in popularity polls but wont get the votes at the actual General Election.
Quick straw poll for all sides in this debate. What figure of population do you consider constitutes "full" in relation to the 50,000 odd square miles available in England?
"Never full" is ok if that's what you think. (You are entitled to take account of all the infrastructure needed to support growing population including free education, health care, roads and railways, state benefits and retirement pensions, state funded civil service pensions and so on as well as quality of life for future generations. )
This is a question that rarely gets asked and hardly ever gets answered.
For those interested this is a selection of the UKIP manifesto for 2015. This is a manifesto of pure common sense, something severely lacking in the Con/Lib/Lab triplets mindset. I urge anyone to find just 1 racist or xenophobic policy in here and then explain in detail why you think it is racist. I have voted UKIP, I do vote UKIP and I will vote UKIP and with policies like these is it any wonder that a hell of a lot of other people will be voting UKIP too.
"Cut foreign aid budget by £9bn" - clearly an indication that the brilliant work done by UK overseas aid funding is abolished. After all, they're only foreigners, aren't they? If not "racist", then this is at the very least blinkered xenophobia.
"UKIP will ensure the NHS is free at the point of delivery and time of need for all UK residents" - so "foreigners" are not allowed to use the NHS. Again, anti-foreigner. Incidentally, has anyone considered how this is supposed to work in practice? Do patients have to prove their residency before being treated? If so, I strongly suggest that anyone leaving home, should travel with at least two forms of ID and a recent utility bill, in case you're ever involved in an accident.
"We will ensure that visitors to the UK, and migrants until they have paid NI for five years, have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK" - so, if you're "foreign", you have to pay NI for five years. But if you're British, there's no need. Utterly and totally xenophobic.
"We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession" - why is this limited to foreigners?
"UKIP will reinstate the primary purpose rule for bringing foreign spouses and children to the UK" - if you know what the Primary Purpose rule is (and I suspect that most people don't), you'll know that its abolishment was widely welcomed. It has been described as "cruel and malicious", which might be what attracted UKIP to it in the first place.
"Food must be labelled to include the country of origin, method of production, method of slaughter, hormones and any genetic additives" - OK, I think we can guess which bit they're getting at here. Are they really saying we need to be warned whether a chicken has been properly stunned in a bath of electrolyte before being slaughtered; or whether a partridge has been estate shot? Or are we just looking at an anti-halal piece of discriminatory legislation. Ask yourself this: did you know, or need to know, how the last piece of meat you had was slaughtered?
"UKIP will require foreign vehicles to purchase a Britdisc, before entry to the UK, in order to contribute to the upkeep of UK roads and any lost fuel duty" - OK, this is getting silly now. Do these guys even proofread their own manifesto? Do they really expect CARS to PURCHASE a Britdisc? Really? Not the owners? Or drivers? But the vehicles themselves? Despite this being preposterously silly, we can include it in the "mildly racist" bucket with the others.
"UKIP recognises and values an overarching, unifying British culture, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values, regardless of their ethnic or religious background". What? I mean... just... what?
That was fun. A total of eight, highly-questionable, xenophobic, borderline racist items in a short manifesto. Well done UKIP!
Incidentally, I couldn't let this one pass without comment: "Conduct a skills review to better inform our education system and qualifications" Brilliant. One sentence about skills reviews in education and they still managed to make themselves look foolish by including a split infinitive.
I believe Britain spends more in overseas aid than most other countries. This isn't spare money we have. This is money we borrow, in order to give away. Yes of course we should contribute, but not to the likes of India who are funding space travel projects. We need to be more selective, with the aid given. We have millions of people in this country, who could do with extra aid. Once again, it's about opinion. Is it xenophobic to want to look after your own people first ?
It's such a small number that goes on foreign aid, 0.7% of GNI or about £180 per person. Additionally, foreign aid is rarely "aid" these days. It's more like investment, the government receives a fair bit in return for some of the money it hands out.
Again another example where a monetary amount is quoted just to frighten everyone.
If foreign aid isn't foreign aid, then stop calling it foreign aid !
I disagree, that stating the actual sum of money given in aid is stated to frighten people. In fact I think the opposite. By quoting the % of GNI and not stating the figure it is you, that is trying to hide the amount.
Exactly the same as when companies try and sell you something on the basis that it's only 50p a day. It's nothing, pay up. Well actually that's £182.50pa and that's not nothing.
We are giving something like £11.4 (corrected) BILLION per year in foreign aid. Money that we have borrowed and are paying interest on in order to give away ? Yes, we need to give, but not be so generous, with money that we have had to borrow in the first place. The government are planning to freeze UK benefits for 2 years, but are happy to continue with the foreign aid budget.
Don't fancy actually responding to the points Chizz made then E?
If I could be bothered I would reply to the points Chizz makes. But can't see much point as clearly he just wants to paint UKIP rascist whatever they say.
For example:-
"We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession" - why is this limited to foreigners?
It's limited to foreigners because as far as I am aware British people, of all colour and creed, going into the medical profession can already speak English to a high standard!
Foreign health service professionals coming to this country and not speaking English properly is a real problem. There have been a whole series of cases in which patients have died or suffered poor care as a result of doctors speaking sub-standard English.
I want to be safe when I visit my doctor and if that means a foreign doctor has to take an English proficiency test, so be it.
And as for charging foreign drivers coming here, what do you think other countries have been doing to UK drivers for years (particularly freight ones). If there are any HGV drivers who drive abroad on here they will astound you with stories about how much they have to pay. The fact is foreign HGV companies who use this country roads are at huge advantage over our own drivers and this has contributed to the UK freight industry being brought to its knees.
Your points seem perfectly reasonable. Why do we have to leave the EU, in order to fix the problems you speak of?
It's typical of the wider problem with this debate. Problems blamed on the EU which have nothing to do with the EU. Let's hold our politicians to account for their own incompetence first.
Quick straw poll for all sides in this debate. What figure of population do you consider constitutes "full" in relation to the 50,000 odd square miles available in England?
"Never full" is ok if that's what you think. (You are entitled to take account of all the infrastructure needed to support growing population including free education, health care, roads and railways, state benefits and retirement pensions, state funded civil service pensions and so on as well as quality of life for future generations. )
This is a question that rarely gets asked and hardly ever gets answered.
Precisely and I have been making this point since yesterday and no one has an answer except for Prague, who has conceded, that I have made a valid point. (thanks Prague).
If it's racist, to want to limit immigration, to skilled workers, that we need.
At what point does it cease to be racist ?
Does it cease to be racist when the population reaches 70M, 75M, 80M.....100M ... 110M ?
Presumably, the people who think we should continue with free movement, believe it racist to ever try to control the free movement of people and so there is no limit and we will carry on, until we have to stand on each others heads :-)
On the plus side, Charlton's "gates" might improve :-)
This is just one question of many but one that I really care about. Why did this appear on Paul Nuttall's website and why has he since taken it down? It's the White Man and forked tongue bit that deeply troubles me.
Any responses to this please?
Here's one. Yesterday on Andrew Marr, Carswell, a skilful politician, tried to equate UKIP's vision to that of the London Olympic opening ceremony.
Clearly he'll need to have a word with this bloke.
For those interested this is a selection of the UKIP manifesto for 2015. This is a manifesto of pure common sense, something severely lacking in the Con/Lib/Lab triplets mindset. I urge anyone to find just 1 racist or xenophobic policy in here and then explain in detail why you think it is racist. I have voted UKIP, I do vote UKIP and I will vote UKIP and with policies like these is it any wonder that a hell of a lot of other people will be voting UKIP too.
"Cut foreign aid budget by £9bn" - clearly an indication that the brilliant work done by UK overseas aid funding is abolished. After all, they're only foreigners, aren't they? If not "racist", then this is at the very least blinkered xenophobia.
"UKIP will ensure the NHS is free at the point of delivery and time of need for all UK residents" - so "foreigners" are not allowed to use the NHS. Again, anti-foreigner. Incidentally, has anyone considered how this is supposed to work in practice? Do patients have to prove their residency before being treated? If so, I strongly suggest that anyone leaving home, should travel with at least two forms of ID and a recent utility bill, in case you're ever involved in an accident.
"We will ensure that visitors to the UK, and migrants until they have paid NI for five years, have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK" - so, if you're "foreign", you have to pay NI for five years. But if you're British, there's no need. Utterly and totally xenophobic.
"We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession" - why is this limited to foreigners?
"UKIP will reinstate the primary purpose rule for bringing foreign spouses and children to the UK" - if you know what the Primary Purpose rule is (and I suspect that most people don't), you'll know that its abolishment was widely welcomed. It has been described as "cruel and malicious", which might be what attracted UKIP to it in the first place.
"Food must be labelled to include the country of origin, method of production, method of slaughter, hormones and any genetic additives" - OK, I think we can guess which bit they're getting at here. Are they really saying we need to be warned whether a chicken has been properly stunned in a bath of electrolyte before being slaughtered; or whether a partridge has been estate shot? Or are we just looking at an anti-halal piece of discriminatory legislation. Ask yourself this: did you know, or need to know, how the last piece of meat you had was slaughtered?
"UKIP will require foreign vehicles to purchase a Britdisc, before entry to the UK, in order to contribute to the upkeep of UK roads and any lost fuel duty" - OK, this is getting silly now. Do these guys even proofread their own manifesto? Do they really expect CARS to PURCHASE a Britdisc? Really? Not the owners? Or drivers? But the vehicles themselves? Despite this being preposterously silly, we can include it in the "mildly racist" bucket with the others.
"UKIP recognises and values an overarching, unifying British culture, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values, regardless of their ethnic or religious background". What? I mean... just... what?
That was fun. A total of eight, highly-questionable, xenophobic, borderline racist items in a short manifesto. Well done UKIP!
Incidentally, I couldn't let this one pass without comment: "Conduct a skills review to better inform our education system and qualifications" Brilliant. One sentence about skills reviews in education and they still managed to make themselves look foolish by including a split infinitive.
I believe Britain spends more in overseas aid than most other countries. This isn't spare money we have. This is money we borrow, in order to give away. Yes of course we should contribute, but not to the likes of India who are funding space travel projects. We need to be more selective, with the aid given. We have millions of people in this country, who could do with extra aid. Once again, it's about opinion. Is it xenophobic to want to look after your own people first ?
It's such a small number that goes on foreign aid, 0.7% of GNI or about £180 per person. Additionally, foreign aid is rarely "aid" these days. It's more like investment, the government receives a fair bit in return for some of the money it hands out.
Again another example where a monetary amount is quoted just to frighten everyone.
If foreign aid isn't foreign aid, then stop calling it foreign aid !
I disagree, that stating the actual sum of money given in aid is stated to frighten people. In fact I think the opposite. By quoting the % of GNI and not stating the figure it is you, that is trying to hide the amount.
Exactly the same as when companies try and sell you something on the basis that it's only 50p a day. It's nothing, pay up. Well actually that's £182.50pa and that's not nothing.
Are we not giving something like £20 BILLION per year in foreign aid ? Money that we have borrowed and are paying interest on in order to give away ? Yes, we need to give, but not be so generous, with money that we have had to borrow in the first place.
£11.4bn.
Sorry but it isn't hiding the figures at all. When you use a figure that is in the billions the press will use it as a sensational headline "Look how much money we are giving away etc." But it's all relative. Apply that 0.7% figure to an individual giving money to charity. Someone earning say £30k a year it would be £210. I'd be willing to bet a lot of people give more than that to charity each year.
The "cut foreign aid" crap is pretty much a staple of the far-right because they know the ill informed will lap it up without thinking about it properly.
First, you'd think an anti-immigration party would want to INCREASE foreign aid since a stabilised and prosperous Somalia, for example, would mean fewer Somalian migrants in the UK and a fair chance that some migrants would go home - as many Poles did.
Second, foreign aid is not just humanitarian it is also an investment in not just creating new markets for British goods but also in developing commercial and governmental relationships with these countries.
The best example of this is the huge aid investments China has been making in Africa and Latin America, helping to raise millions of people out of poverty and become - you guessed it - avid consumers of Chinese goods.
Once more the "Cut Foreign Aid" bullshit is a classic case of a simplistic claim resonating with people who are too poorly informed to know any better.
Don't fancy actually responding to the points Chizz made then E?
If I could be bothered I would reply to the points Chizz makes. But can't see much point as clearly he just wants to paint UKIP rascist whatever they say.
For example:-
"We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession" - why is this limited to foreigners?
It's limited to foreigners because as far as I am aware British people, of all colour and creed, going into the medical profession can already speak English to a high standard!
Foreign health service professionals coming to this country and not speaking English properly is a real problem. There have been a whole series of cases in which patients have died or suffered poor care as a result of doctors speaking sub-standard English.
I want to be safe when I visit my doctor and if that means a foreign doctor has to take an English proficiency test, so be it.
And as for charging foreign drivers coming here, what do you think other countries have been doing to UK drivers for years (particularly freight ones). If there are any HGV drivers who drive abroad on here they will astound you with stories about how much they have to pay. The fact is foreign HGV companies who use this country roads are at huge advantage over our own drivers and this has contributed to the UK freight industry being brought to its knees.
Your points seem perfectly reasonable. Why do we have to leave the EU, in order to fix the problems you speak of?
It's typical of the wider problem with this debate. Problems blamed on the EU which have nothing to do with the EU. Let's hold our politicians to account for their own incompetence first.
Fortune 82nd Minute is not saying we have to leave the EU because of these points. He is responding to a discussion about the UKIP manifesto.
The point is, if any of the existing parties, had attempted to address these issues in the last 20 years, UKIP would not even exist. UKIP exists, because Labour have accused people of being racists and bigots for wanting to discuss the matter and the Tories have been too afraid to speak up in the past for these reasons.
Cameron says he wants to renegotiate our terms with the EU, but I don't see how that's possible and although he has said a Tory government will hold a referendum, he clearly doesn't want to and will campaign to stay in, unless he can save his neck by campaigning to leave !
For those interested this is a selection of the UKIP manifesto for 2015. This is a manifesto of pure common sense, something severely lacking in the Con/Lib/Lab triplets mindset. I urge anyone to find just 1 racist or xenophobic policy in here and then explain in detail why you think it is racist. I have voted UKIP, I do vote UKIP and I will vote UKIP and with policies like these is it any wonder that a hell of a lot of other people will be voting UKIP too.
"Cut foreign aid budget by £9bn" - clearly an indication that the brilliant work done by UK overseas aid funding is abolished. After all, they're only foreigners, aren't they? If not "racist", then this is at the very least blinkered xenophobia.
"UKIP will ensure the NHS is free at the point of delivery and time of need for all UK residents" - so "foreigners" are not allowed to use the NHS. Again, anti-foreigner. Incidentally, has anyone considered how this is supposed to work in practice? Do patients have to prove their residency before being treated? If so, I strongly suggest that anyone leaving home, should travel with at least two forms of ID and a recent utility bill, in case you're ever involved in an accident.
"We will ensure that visitors to the UK, and migrants until they have paid NI for five years, have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK" - so, if you're "foreign", you have to pay NI for five years. But if you're British, there's no need. Utterly and totally xenophobic.
"We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession" - why is this limited to foreigners?
"UKIP will reinstate the primary purpose rule for bringing foreign spouses and children to the UK" - if you know what the Primary Purpose rule is (and I suspect that most people don't), you'll know that its abolishment was widely welcomed. It has been described as "cruel and malicious", which might be what attracted UKIP to it in the first place.
"Food must be labelled to include the country of origin, method of production, method of slaughter, hormones and any genetic additives" - OK, I think we can guess which bit they're getting at here. Are they really saying we need to be warned whether a chicken has been properly stunned in a bath of electrolyte before being slaughtered; or whether a partridge has been estate shot? Or are we just looking at an anti-halal piece of discriminatory legislation. Ask yourself this: did you know, or need to know, how the last piece of meat you had was slaughtered?
"UKIP will require foreign vehicles to purchase a Britdisc, before entry to the UK, in order to contribute to the upkeep of UK roads and any lost fuel duty" - OK, this is getting silly now. Do these guys even proofread their own manifesto? Do they really expect CARS to PURCHASE a Britdisc? Really? Not the owners? Or drivers? But the vehicles themselves? Despite this being preposterously silly, we can include it in the "mildly racist" bucket with the others.
"UKIP recognises and values an overarching, unifying British culture, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values, regardless of their ethnic or religious background". What? I mean... just... what?
That was fun. A total of eight, highly-questionable, xenophobic, borderline racist items in a short manifesto. Well done UKIP!
Incidentally, I couldn't let this one pass without comment: "Conduct a skills review to better inform our education system and qualifications" Brilliant. One sentence about skills reviews in education and they still managed to make themselves look foolish by including a split infinitive.
I believe Britain spends more in overseas aid than most other countries. This isn't spare money we have. This is money we borrow, in order to give away. Yes of course we should contribute, but not to the likes of India who are funding space travel projects. We need to be more selective, with the aid given. We have millions of people in this country, who could do with extra aid. Once again, it's about opinion. Is it xenophobic to want to look after your own people first ?
It's such a small number that goes on foreign aid, 0.7% of GNI or about £180 per person. Additionally, foreign aid is rarely "aid" these days. It's more like investment, the government receives a fair bit in return for some of the money it hands out.
Again another example where a monetary amount is quoted just to frighten everyone.
If foreign aid isn't foreign aid, then stop calling it foreign aid !
I disagree, that stating the actual sum of money given in aid is stated to frighten people. In fact I think the opposite. By quoting the % of GNI and not stating the figure it is you, that is trying to hide the amount.
Exactly the same as when companies try and sell you something on the basis that it's only 50p a day. It's nothing, pay up. Well actually that's £182.50pa and that's not nothing.
Are we not giving something like £20 BILLION per year in foreign aid ? Money that we have borrowed and are paying interest on in order to give away ? Yes, we need to give, but not be so generous, with money that we have had to borrow in the first place.
£11.4bn.
Sorry but it isn't hiding the figures at all. When you use a figure that is in the billions the press will use it as a sensational headline "Look how much money we are giving away etc." But it's all relative. Apply that 0.7% figure to an individual giving money to charity. Someone earning say £30k a year it would be £210. I'd be willing to bet a lot of people give more than that to charity each year.
Once again, it's about opinions isn't it. I disagree that many people who earn £30K pa, will give £210 per annum in charitable donations. I think the amount of people giving that sort of money, who earn £30K pa, would be very low.
Comments
It was Thatcher that started the privatisation processes and Tony Blair accelerated it. I have never sought to defend that and I left the Labour Party over the Iraq issue. Currently unattached but the NHS is very very precious to me and maybe, just maybe, I know a little bit about it and I remain deeply sceptical of UKIP on this issue. Sheep and wolves.
Another nail in the coffin of the tourist industry. I can just see a German tourist, "Have I got my NHS-approved health insurance and my britdisc? Sod it, it's too difficult, I'm going to France instead". As for trucks. Well on the intra-UK Belfast route, often only the trailers get on the ferries and are picked up by another lorry at the other end. That's what would happen at Dover too. So no money brought in. Meanwhile the Eurotunnel could not cope with that system on its freight trains and would quickly go bust.
The Germans are proposing something simular from 2016 although it the EU states it is against its rules. but the Germans are saying there are ways around it,
http://www.thelocal.de/20140410/germany-to-charge-foreign-drivers-with-toll-from-2106
For example:-
"We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession" - why is this limited to foreigners?
It's limited to foreigners because as far as I am aware British people, of all colour and creed, going into the medical profession can already speak English to a high standard!
Foreign health service professionals coming to this country and not speaking English properly is a real problem. There have been a whole series of cases in which patients have died or suffered poor care as a result of doctors speaking sub-standard English.
I want to be safe when I visit my doctor and if that means a foreign doctor has to take an English proficiency test, so be it.
And as for charging foreign drivers coming here, what do you think other countries have been doing to UK drivers for years (particularly freight ones). If there are any HGV drivers who drive abroad on here they will astound you with stories about how much they have to pay. The fact is foreign HGV companies who use this country roads are at huge advantage over our own drivers and this has contributed to the UK freight industry being brought to its knees.
Why the distinction between foreigners and British people?
You can twist almost anything to interpret what you think it means.
Ridiculous arguement as they are all fucking liars (political parties), you know it, I know it , we all know it
A quick google search - without spending any time on it - throws up:
http://news.sky.com/story/1056101/doctors-from-abroad-must-take-english-test
http://news.sky.com/story/1056101/doctors-from-abroad-must-take-english-testwww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2590477/Foreign-doctors-nurses-cleaners-speak-English-sent-taxpayer-funded-language-courses-costing-thousands-pounds.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21547513
Just do a google search and it throws up a lot on this .
I'm not disagreeing that health workers shouldn't at the very least have basic English and it seems the government are already putting this in place from the articles you have posted.
Perfectly simple change to make. Totally reasonable to expect everyone working in the NHS to speak one (or more) of the British languages (eg English, Gaelic, Welsh, etc). But the manifesto refers directly and exclusively to "foreign" people. No need for it; unpleasant, xenophobic and, yes, if you like: deliberately racist.
Right, must do some work!
To use another one: if all economists in the world were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion.
But many economists (most, all?) will tell you that protectionism is a very bad thing indeed and that's just what many UKIP policies are about. UKIP would learn, quickly I suspect, that other countries will not say "oh well, never mind": there would be "retaliation". Their proposals would not benefit the UK economy and might lead to catastrophe, who knows?
According to wiki (with my emphasis): In 2013 the UK was the 4th-largest exporter in the world and the 4th-largest importer, and had the 2nd-largest stock of inward foreign direct investment and the 2nd-largest stock of outward foreign direct investment. The UK is one of the world's most globalised economies.
The service sector dominates the UK economy, contributing around 78% of GDP; the financial services industry is particularly important and London is the world's largest financial centre. The British aerospace industry is the second or third-largest national aerospace industry depending on the method of measurement. The pharmaceutical industry plays an important role in the economy and the UK has the third-highest share of global pharmaceutical R&D. The automotive industry is also a major employer and exporter......
I don't know what impact UKIP policies, in particular, leaving the EU, would have on those statistics and neither does UKIP.
Personally, I would rather not take the risk.
I am also involved in pension trustee work and give just one example, the effect of European Court judgements on the UK pension system in terms of the cost of compliance with sex equality. The UK enacted rules to comply as best we could to equalise pensions for men and women, but interaction with the permitted unequal state system unique to the UK, meant some features could not be addressed. The European Court deemed the UK had not complied, so our government made some more laws that tried to address the defect. Problem is that it is now impossible to comply because lawyers cannot interpret the law so as to allow a correct benefit adjustment to be made. It has been fudged and DWP cannot confirm if any scheme complies or not, even though it is their responsibility to ensure compliance. It is like working in an asylum run by the inmates.
Regarding the hope of JonnyK and Cameron that the "acquis" can be re-negotiated, it is like saying that we all play to the FA rules of association football but Man U have negotiated different rules so that handling a ball by one of their players is not handball unless the manager agrees. We in the UK simply don't understand the way the EU works and offering our own ideas of fair play and logic to change the EU is pointless.
And this from the Govt. Estimates from the Labour Force Survey show there were 299,000 HGV drivers in 2010, a 5 per cent increase on the 2009 figure of 285,000.
So, more drivers, yet more still needed (no doubt in part because of the boom in on-line shopping).
Meanwhile the Eddie Stobart fleet travels the equivalent of 24 laps of the earth, every day, has 38,000 tyres in use at any one time and makes a delivery in Europe every 20 seconds.
That indicates that all is not doom and gloom in the road freight industry.
Chizz, do you priortise your own family before others, or do you make sure others come before your family ?
By your way of thinking, it seems to me, that anyone who looks after there own family first is discriminating.
Foreigners can use the NHS, as long as they have medical insurance. I can't see what's wrong with this.
Why should we allow anyone in the world, the opportunity to use a very expensive service for free ?
To query whether it is good practice for foreign doctors to be able to speak English and are properly qualified is just crass. Yes, of course British doctors should be able to speak English as well and be qualified. That goes without saying. Let's continue a mature debate please, without being silly.
How would you feel this afternoon, if you are rushed to hospital with severe pains and are greeted by no one that can speak English and aren't actually qualified doctors at all ?
Regarding food, there was a discussion on here recently and many people thought it very important, that they needed to know, how their food was slaughtered (many didn't as well). Some people even need to know whether Charlton serve vegetarian cheese !
"UKIP recognises and values an overarching, unifying British culture, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values, regardless of their ethnic or religious background"
Once again it's opinion isn't it ? You feel it is wrong for a British government to want a British culture, which is open and inclusive to anyone, who wishes to identify with Britain and British values.
Personally, I do not understand why anyone wants to live in Britain if they do not wish to identify with Britain and British values. Yes, identify with another culture as well, but please do identify with Britain and British cultures if you want to live in Britain.
The suggested schedule is for debates on 2, 16 and 30 April, ahead of the election on 7 May.
There would be:
One head-to-head debate between the "two leaders who could become prime minister", Mr Cameron and Labour's Ed Miliband, on Sky and Channel 4 and chaired by Jeremy Paxman
Another, also to include the Liberal Democrat leader, to be hosted by David Dimbleby, on BBC TV, radio and online
Another debate, on ITV and chaired by Julie Etchingham, featuring the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and UK Independence Party
Farage, rightly or wrongly resonates with a lot of voters but I can't believe we've got this far without discussing the quality of the rest of the leading party members.
This is a party that is portrayed as representative of the ordinary working man* yet has Neil Hamilton as its Deputy Chairman. A man so far removed from representing ordinary people he's faced several enquiries and numerous litigation around his willingness to put his own financial interests before even his loyalty to his party (let alone his constituency).
I find it hard to believe anyone prepared to vote UKIP is happy to have Neil Hamilton involved in their party of choice, but his profile appears to be being kept deliberately low.
*I use this term deliberately as polling shows there's a large difference in the male/female UKIP vote demographic IIRC.
Your best ever post CE .. and one with which I, for one, totally, wholeheartedly and emphatically agree
Again another example where a monetary amount is quoted just to frighten everyone.
I think the same will happen with UKIP - leader riding high in popularity polls but wont get the votes at the actual General Election.
"Never full" is ok if that's what you think. (You are entitled to take account of all the infrastructure needed to support growing population including free education, health care, roads and railways, state benefits and retirement pensions, state funded civil service pensions and so on as well as quality of life for future generations. )
This is a question that rarely gets asked and hardly ever gets answered.
I disagree, that stating the actual sum of money given in aid is stated to frighten people. In fact I think the opposite.
By quoting the % of GNI and not stating the figure it is you, that is trying to hide the amount.
Exactly the same as when companies try and sell you something on the basis that it's only 50p a day. It's nothing, pay up. Well actually that's £182.50pa and that's not nothing.
We are giving something like £11.4 (corrected) BILLION per year in foreign aid. Money that we have borrowed and are paying interest on in order to give away ? Yes, we need to give, but not be so generous, with money that we have had to borrow in the first place. The government are planning to freeze UK benefits for 2 years, but are happy to continue with the foreign aid budget.
It's typical of the wider problem with this debate. Problems blamed on the EU which have nothing to do with the EU. Let's hold our politicians to account for their own incompetence first.
If it's racist, to want to limit immigration, to skilled workers, that we need.
At what point does it cease to be racist ?
Does it cease to be racist when the population reaches 70M, 75M, 80M.....100M ... 110M ?
Presumably, the people who think we should continue with free movement, believe it racist to ever try to control the free movement of people and so there is no limit and we will carry on, until we have to stand on each others heads :-)
On the plus side, Charlton's "gates" might improve :-)
Clearly he'll need to have a word with this bloke.
Sorry but it isn't hiding the figures at all. When you use a figure that is in the billions the press will use it as a sensational headline "Look how much money we are giving away etc." But it's all relative. Apply that 0.7% figure to an individual giving money to charity. Someone earning say £30k a year it would be £210. I'd be willing to bet a lot of people give more than that to charity each year.
First, you'd think an anti-immigration party would want to INCREASE foreign aid since a stabilised and prosperous Somalia, for example, would mean fewer Somalian migrants in the UK and a fair chance that some migrants would go home - as many Poles did.
Second, foreign aid is not just humanitarian it is also an investment in not just creating new markets for British goods but also in developing commercial and governmental relationships with these countries.
The best example of this is the huge aid investments China has been making in Africa and Latin America, helping to raise millions of people out of poverty and become - you guessed it - avid consumers of Chinese goods.
Once more the "Cut Foreign Aid" bullshit is a classic case of a simplistic claim resonating with people who are too poorly informed to know any better.
The point is, if any of the existing parties, had attempted to address these issues in the last 20 years, UKIP would not even exist. UKIP exists, because Labour have accused people of being racists and bigots for wanting to discuss the matter and the Tories have been too afraid to speak up in the past for these reasons.
Cameron says he wants to renegotiate our terms with the EU, but I don't see how that's possible and although he has said a Tory government will hold a referendum, he clearly doesn't want to and will campaign to stay in, unless he can save his neck by campaigning to leave !