Thursday, 21 January 2010

"UKIP launches Welfare Policy"

*drumroll*

HERE

My latest blogpost: "UKIP launches Welfare Policy"Tweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 15:42

Labels: , , ,

17 comments:

13th Spitfire said...

he he he

I am really looking forward to the election, because everyone is so shit there will just be a Nash equilibrium and hopefully the monarchy steps in smacks them all.

21 January 2010 at 19:58
James Higham said...

The cornerstone of the policy is a Workfare scheme administered by local councils to put those claiming benefits to work on local projects that help the whole community.

Local projects - instead of looking for work, I presume.

21 January 2010 at 22:40
Mark Wadsworth said...

13S, so you like it or hate it?

JH, I didn't say it was perfect! You have to go past the blurb and skim read the whole pdf.

21 January 2010 at 22:46
bayard said...

"Local projects - instead of looking for work, I presume."

Looking for work is not a full time activity, or at least, it ought not to be. Having been unemployed myself in the days before the personal computer when such things took longer, I would say that there is no real benefit in spending more than an hour a day applying for jobs. Plenty of time left over for voluntary work, which is how I filled the rest of my days.

22 January 2010 at 09:21
woman on a raft said...

Quite a lot to like.

It is by no mean the most important question, but it is one the journalists will ask, so can you explain, please, how flat taxes will affect whether people will opt for having a baby or not? It's counter-intuitive as taxation is not normally on the top of peoples' minds at that point. (If it was, I suspect it would be an effective contraceptive.)

22 January 2010 at 12:37
Anonymous said...

I have to say I agree with every single word in the policy document. Well done! :))

I might even vote UKIP on the basis of it - and if my wife sees it I can tell you she DEFINITELY will.

The only trouble is that if we vote UKIP and deprive the Tories of our votes, we might end up with 5 more years of Gordon. OMG.

22 January 2010 at 12:45
Mark Wadsworth said...

B, thanks for back-up.

WOAR, thanks. That particular sentence is a bit opaque, I must admit, but the general rule is single mums get no special treatment; by merging and simplifying everything there is neither a couple penalty nor big incentives to go into 'baby farming'.

AC, also thanks. I'd be interested to know what Mrs C thinks.

22 January 2010 at 13:28
Anonymous said...

Mrs C thinks there are lots of scroungers who are happy to sit back and live on benefits, and asks why Britain gives them money and housing when they don't want to work.

She also asks about Eastern European citizens, and what impact they have on the economy in terms of benefits they claim, or money they earn and then remit back home.

22 January 2010 at 13:41
Mark Wadsworth said...

AC, ta.

22 January 2010 at 13:45
woman on a raft said...

the general rule is: "single parents get no special treatment; by merging and simplifying everything there is neither a couple penalty nor big incentives to go into 'baby farming'.

OK - that's the line which you need to put in front of everything. I can understand it and am in general sympathy with it. It feels morally supportable; I don't like to think of myself as penalizing someone in a difficult position, but I also don't like to be taken for a sucker.

22 January 2010 at 15:20
bayard said...

Am I right in thinking that the amount gained from the BCB is exactly equal to the amount lost in tax through the lack of a personal allowance? If so, why not scrap the personal allowance and have everyone entitled to the BCB? This would raise more money as there would always be rich people who wouldn't bother to claim the BCB.

22 January 2010 at 19:27
Mark Wadsworth said...

B, correct on all counts. But it's a presentational thing. "CBI" sounds a bit anarcho-left wing-libertarian but "higher personal allowance and less income tax" appeals to the mainstream, and UKIP is a mainstream party.

22 January 2010 at 20:44
bayard said...

I thought it would be something like that.

Mind you, I still think that UKIP ought to call themselves the Tory Party, because that's what they appear to be - old style Tories, as opposed to Ding's crowd.

22 January 2010 at 21:45
Anonymous said...

Splendid stuff Mark: much more cogent solutions than I've seen elsewhere (and I speak as someone so workshy he has never done a honest day's work in the UK). If UKIP find a candidate for Argyll and Bute.......

23 January 2010 at 00:43
13th Spitfire said...

The fact that they are branching out to become more than a single issue party is good. However I know not how one should vote this coming election to get the best possible force to pull this country back together again.

Voting UKIP might split the Tory vote, ergo might keep Labour in place.

Voting Tory is voting for a party without principles on anything but yet have a vague semblance of loyalty to Britain and its people. Far better than can be said for Labour.

23 January 2010 at 17:53
Mark Wadsworth said...

The23, if there isn't a candidate then get in touch with them and put your own name forward.

13S, who's to say that UKIP won't split the Labour vote or the Lib Dem vote as well?

23 January 2010 at 18:14
Anonymous said...

There are presumably problems with that: I'm not a member of the party; I don't own a suit; I'd be open about those policies I disagree with (I am in favour of the main thrust); I wouldn't want to stump up a deposit.

24 January 2010 at 15:35

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)