Would you vote for my party?

Scroll to see replies

We don't have to commit 2% of our GDP towards it so it can be spent on other things like NHS. It also means we can spend less on the army as whole because we would not be required to intervene if another member state was attacked. We have too heavy a reliance on the US, instead perhaps we should forge military ties with Russia. It makes sense. Its much closer than the US and also would be more likely to commit to something rather than the US - hell, right now Trump is considering pulling the plug on NATO if nations cant spend 2%.

We still need a decent army, even in peacetime.

There is extremely little reason to forge military ties with Russia after all of the **** they caused.

Reply 61

Rakas21

You lost me at ‘hold a referendum on NI staying in the UK’.

Reply 62

Andrew97

Entertainment Forum Helper, Debate & Current Affairs Helper

Original post by Rakas21

You lost me at ‘hold a referendum on NI staying in the UK’.

So you read last Workers union party and left wing then..... we need to have words Rakas. (Right after I’ve cleaned up my vomit after reading that OP)

Reply 63

chazwomaq

Original post by ap.ferro

The rich in the UK currently pay 28% income tax. So I'm not reducing their tax rate.

These are income tax bands (exc Scotland):

Band Taxable income Tax rate
Personal Allowance Up to £11,850 = 0%
Basic rate £11,851 to £46,350 = 20%
Higher rate £46,351 to £150,000 = 40%
Additional rate over £150,000 = 45%

https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates

Reply 64

ecofriendlyduck

yeah everything else but i don't get scrapping trident. we need nuclear arms

Reply 65

moggis

How attractive will the female candidates be do you think ?

Reply 66

Drewski

Original post by ap.ferro

- Have a programme to enroll students over 16 who fail to get grades to enlist them into the army

I would raise money for these changes by: ...Spending less on the army...

How do you spend less on the Army while simultaneously taking on tens of thousands of new recruits?

Do you have any understanding of what the Army is and how it works - that doesn't come from watching Full Metal Jacket and playing CoD?

Reply 67

Bigkeithstanton

Aright fella, its big K here,

So I have MANY issues with your party (the only left wingers I like are on he football pitch)

One being the fact you are a ruddy leftie grrrr

Two I don't want my army being full of plebs, I only have 3 GCE's and they're in Politics, Law and Art & Design

Three, there isn't enough money for brexit when you spend it on the bloody NHS and them ****** goff things

Four, why cant we have flippin gulags, I don't want those avon selling nonces touching my stone island polo n bacon

Im soddin fumin R kid, more brexit and **** isis

As you were, Big K

Reply 68

(づ￣ ³￣)づ

Original post by ap.ferro

I don't see how it would be unfeasible. I can't remember tbh i think it got taken down.

It is very feasible. It wouldn't be done overnight, but it has the potential to save money and reform the prison system so we can take in an addition 6,000-8,000 prisoners, make prisons tough, boost the economy, and sell of old prisons and use them for homeless housing and social housing.

A similar thing was done in Arizona, its called tent city and it eventually shut down, and I don't support that specific example because it was extreme (it was outside in the middle of the desert and there were chain gangs etc). Britain's weather system is not that extreme, it never gets too hot or too cold. But one of the best money saving things about tent city is they used old army tents and other army surplus equipment. could be used here to save a ton.

You want to turn our prisons into labour camps, of course it would save money, but it's something I doubt the majority would want see a return of.

Tent city is not something to take inspiration from, it was closed in 2017 but it should've been shut down way before then.

Reply 69

ap.ferro

Original post by ecofriendlyduck

yeah everything else but i don't get scrapping trident. we need nuclear arms

It would save a fortune. We don't need nuclear arms. The UK is not going to be attacked any time soon. Most countries don't have nuclear weapons and are fine. we can rely on allies (hence why I suggest forming a military alliance with Russia seeing as they have such a large nuclear arsenal and are much closer than the US)

Reply 70

ap.ferro

Original post by Drewski

Uh....yes, I am currently in a CCF (I know its not like the full army but I am more familiar than the average person on how the army works)..

The manifesto I'm proposing doesn't go into detail of how this would work.

- The money previously used to train reserves would be spent on this new uplift. It wouldn't cost more as most of these "youth recruits" would spend at least one month undertaking training and military discipline.

- It would first be trialled in areas with high levels of youth unemployment, with the aim of the rogramme giving qualifications so they can help get a job after and help discipline them.

- If successful it would be rolled out on a larger scale.

Basically I would cut the number of reserves by half, (35,000), so 17,500 youth soldiers

Reply 71

Moose-er

Original post by chazwomaq

Ah, the old gulag system. Wonderful.

The mother country.

So reduce their tax rate?

To drive up house prices. Good.

You're going to flood the army with 16 year olds but cut funding. Will they be foraging off the land?

So from UK -> USSK (Soviet anthem plays in background)

Reply 72

ap.ferro

IMPORTANT - READ

I have mentioned how I would propose a reduced tax rate on British businesses and some foreign companies willing to invest in the UK. It is based on a scheme called Low Tax Economic Zones (LTEZs). Read below.

A LTEZ is a “zone” located in various strategic locations in cities and towns where economic growth is forecasted. The concept of an LTEZ would be to encourage British companies and potentially foreign investors to invest in the UK, and pay much less tax than a normal company would providing they guaranteed “X” number of jobs and X % of growth to the UK economy. It would also be expected they invested in the local area, providing facilities such as affordable housing, and investing in transport, healthcare and education.

The aim of an LTEZ would be to promote the UK as an attractive place for investors whilst maintaining the WUP’s position of prioritising social welfare. LTEZs would contribute to the economy whilst also allowing investment in local infrastructure to benefit the local population.

LTEZs would be designed for removing the current London centred economy and helping other cities develop. London is currently a primate city - and it is highly likely it will remain so due to it's massive population. But LTEZs would diversify industry and business so that other cities can grow and provide thousands of jobs. For those companies that would want to invest in the UK but would like a London HQ for example, this would be possible, but a LTEZ in London may be centred on the outskirts of London where there is slow growth and investment.

The identified potential zones for LTEZs are the following. They have been identified as they all are currently large cities already so already have the necessary infrastructure to support enlargement and also contain industry and many large companies already.
Birmingham
Manchester
Norwich
Cambridge
Northwest London
Southwest London
Brighton
Portsmouth
Leeds
Doncaster
Glasgow
Aberdeen
Edinburgh
Colchester
Ipswich
Reading
Bristol
Leciester
Liverpool

The largest LTEZs would most likely be in

Manchester
Birmingham
Bristol
Cambridge
Brighton

These would mean that these five cities would be some of the most economically developed in the UK and wold compete for London in terms of job opportunity and economic investment. The success of countries such as Germany is they do not have for example a “Berlin” centred economy. Their major financial centre is actually Frankfurt - perhaps this change can be replicated in Britain.

Reply 73

ap.ferro

Original post by Moose-er

So from UK -> USSK (Soviet anthem plays in background)

That's funny, my nan and grandad are hard labour supporters and every morning they would play the USSR anthem from their windows of their Essex house they bought of the council. Until it ended, that was.

Good idea for a new name. Although if i had it my way we would abolish the monarchy so maybe it would be the United Republic....which would then mean USSK is now USSR....;-)

And they are not "gulags", I would like to call them Criminal Detention and Rehabilitation Centres (CDRCs)

Reply 74

Moose-er

Original post by ap.ferro

Good luck being a populist party and opposing the monarchy. Sure the royal family can be deemed as the biggest benefits scroungers in the country, but most ordinary people support them and you've seen the backlash Corbyn got for being a republican

Reply 75

ap.ferro

Original post by Moose-er

Personally I would want to get rid of it but I know it is off the cards....for now. I would however sieze some possessions of the Royal Family. I would also make the Royals pay for their security, weddings etc.

Reply 76

ap.ferro

Thank you.

Here you are.

INCOME TAX (England, Wales, NI)

Less than £11,000 - 0% tax
£11,000 - £11,900 - 0.15% tax

£11,900 to £46,350 - 20.6% tax

£46,351 - £99,999 - 45.3% tax

£99,999 - £120,000 - 49.3% tax

£120,000 - 51.5% tax

INCOME TAX (SCOTLAND)

Less than £11,000 - 0% tax

£11,000 - £11,900 - 0.2% tax

£11,900 to £46,350 - 21.8% tax

£46,351 - £99,999 - 47.3% tax

£99,999 - £120,000 - 49.7% tax

£120,000 - 53.5% tax

Original post by chazwomaq

Reply 77

Drewski

Original post by ap.ferro

You're a cadet, wind your neck in. You play soldiers once a week but in the grand scheme of things know **** all.

Any recruits being trained require accommodation. Accommodation that currently does not exist, on barsb that are not big enough to hold the thousands you're talking about.

The armed forces is not a crèche for thick kids. It doesn't hand out qualifications like confetti. There's no reason whatsoever to get a bunch of kids trained in being soldiers if they're going to leave 10 minutes later.

A phenomenal waste of money.

Reply 78

ap.ferro

Original post by Drewski

Hence why I said I don't know much.

The army can only recruit "thick" kids because no one right now thinks their country is worth fighting for, I mean why else would you honestly join the army as a British soldier in 2019. Rubbish pay, getting dropped off in the ar** crack of the world to supposedly "defend freedom". When we have a socialist country, that will be worth fighting for.

And as said.......it will be implemented in small stages. I am saving money for this by removing British soldiers from all foreign interventions. In my vision, the British Army will become the British Defense Forces and exist to defend our country, not attack others.

Reply 79

Drewski

Original post by ap.ferro

Hence why I said I don't know much.

And that's where you should stop.

If you don't know much, you go and educate yourself. You don't then try and invent policy. Because you'll always - always - **** it up.