Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
x

Unlock these great extras with your FREE membership

  • One-on-one advice about results day and Clearing
  • Free access to our personal statement wizard
  • Customise TSR to suit how you want to use it

Why isn't UKIP more popular?

Announcements Posted on
Find your uni forum to get talking to other applicants, existing students and your future course-mates 27-07-2015
Win top prizes in our mega results day giveaway... 24-07-2015
  1. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cyanohydrin)
    NO2EU is, of course, Arthur Scargill's party
    Nope, this is:- http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/

    NO2EU is a faction within the Socialist Party, the folk expelled from Labour for radical trotskyist beliefs during the 80s and early 90s. Yeah, I'm pretty nerdy when it comes to knowledge of the British left.
  2. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brandmon)
    Ignoring you hilarious proposition that we have anything to do with North Korea, you still didn't justify why we need more than £40 billion a year to sustain our military. But the MoD is clearly begging for more funding. Of course, that is what they are paid to do. As is any department of the British government. Does that mean we listen to all their pleas? No, or else we will end up in a situation worse than that of Greece. I am certain our potential enemies know that war against us is best fought after we ruined our economy with paranoia. Argentina is not avoiding taking military action against the Falklands because it is friendly but because it knows that our military is far more than adequate. Our paranoia of thinking it is not enough will just pile up debt, ruin our economy further, force us to cut our military expenditure further to seriously low levels and end up at a weaker state than we ever imagine, giving the Argentines the best opportunity to take over.
    I didn't quite understand your first sentence about North Korea :confused:

    Have you read any of UKIP's policys? The economic cost is sorted under them, we would be a much stronger nation under UKIP and the debt argument irrelevant.
  3. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    Have you read any of UKIP's policys? The economic cost is sorted under them, we would be a much stronger nation under UKIP and the debt argument irrelevant.
    Are you seriously taking politicians for their word? The UKIP might not be mainstream (yet), but that does not alleviate the fact that they are politicians. Just because they say they can doesn't mean that they actually can. When were you born for god's sake, last Tuesday? It happens all the time in the world of politics.
    Ironically past Greek political parties and governments sang similar tunes - of course we can provide a military with modern equipment to match that of Turkey, to make us a stronger nation. And ignore the debt problem: it is irrelevant It all sounded brilliant to the ears of the Greeks.

    Look at where they are now.
  4. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brandmon)
    Are you seriously taking politicians for their word? The UKIP might not be mainstream (yet), but that does not alleviate the fact that they are politicians. Just because they say they can doesn't mean that they actually can. When were you born for god's sake, last Tuesday? It happens all the time in the world of politics.
    Ironically past Greek political parties and governments sang similar tunes - of course we can provide a military with modern equipment to match that of Turkey, to make us a stronger nation. And ignore the debt problem: it is irrelevant It all sounded brilliant to the ears of the Greeks.

    Look at where they are now.
    Parties that start off small tend to be more trustworthy and actually stand for something rather than stand to get the most votes to gain power. UKIP does not have the most popular views but that does not mean they change them to capture a bigger voting audience, they stand for a particular reason and I believe that if they did come to power or formed a coalition then they would try as hard as they could to get there views across and policies passed. That is why I support them and believe them to be more trustworthy than the 'big 3', Nigel is a guy who is focused and has his head screwed on.

    And yeah, but we are not Greece, we may have debt but our economy is in no way comparable to the Greeks.
  5. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maddog Jones)
    http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/ass...about-ukip.pdf

    Knock yourself out, racist.
    I would appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of racism since you don't know me.
  6. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaliack)
    That's why I'll never vote for them, they have a complete lack of understanding of what the EU does. The commissions propose laws, yes. However, that law has to go through the ordinary legislative procedure, meaning it needs a majority of the Parliament (who we do vote for) and a qualified majority of the council (Who are our ministers, who we did vote for).

    They also seem to know all about Primacy, yet very little about subsidiarity, proportionality and Parliamentary Sovereignty. UKIP should learn more about the EU before spouting such nonsense.
    With all due respect, the idea that the European Union is in any way democratic because national ministers are involved is absurd. The European Union is ran by civil servants at every stage; although formally decisions are made by Ministers and elected governments, informally all decisions are taken by civil servants, mostly in the guise of COREPER.

    Although the Lisbon Treaty has greatly expanded the role of the European Parliament, it still hasn't a significant role to play. I would also argue that given how far the parliament is from the public, it is hardly democratic. All UK MEPs could vote against something in the parliament, our national MPs could vote on a motion against it, our government could vote against it at the Council of Ministers and yet we could still be forced to accept it - hardly democratic
  7. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by antimilitarist)
    Nope, this is:- http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/

    NO2EU is a faction within the Socialist Party, the folk expelled from Labour for radical trotskyist beliefs during the 80s and early 90s. Yeah, I'm pretty nerdy when it comes to knowledge of the British left.
    Scargill is an utter scumbag, just ring up my G'pa and mention his name.
  8. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    UKIP are a single issue party, which is why they will always fail. Only in the last few years has Farage started to promote the idea UKIP actually has a ''manifesto'' for other political issues, this is despite the fact the party has been around for quite a while. The image of UKIP being a single issue party is now too engrained with the public.

    A party that wishes to withdraw from EU but at the same time is not a single issue party on this topic, is the British National Party. This is why if you are a real Eurosceptic but interested at least in other policies, you should vote BNP.
  9. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    With all due respect, the idea that the European Union is in any way democratic because national ministers are involved is absurd. The European Union is ran by civil servants at every stage; although formally decisions are made by Ministers and elected governments, informally all decisions are taken by civil servants, mostly in the guise of COREPER.

    Although the Lisbon Treaty has greatly expanded the role of the European Parliament, it still hasn't a significant role to play. I would also argue that given how far the parliament is from the public, it is hardly democratic. All UK MEPs could vote against something in the parliament, our national MPs could vote on a motion against it, our government could vote against it at the Council of Ministers and yet we could still be forced to accept it - hardly democratic
    That is the same here though, and we don't say we're not democratic because we don't elect civil servants.

    Most voting in the council, although hypothetically is qualified majority, is usually done by unanimity, to try and accommodate every country's wish. The EU doesn't like to just 'force' laws upon countries because that would be completely against the rationale for the creation of the EU, primarily that of cooperation.

    Anyway, if we're forced to accept an EU law, then Parliament can just legislate against that law and we wouldn't have to accept it (Although we would get fined by the ECJ)
  10. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    With all due respect, the idea that the European Union is in any way democratic because national ministers are involved is absurd. The European Union is ran by civil servants at every stage; although formally decisions are made by Ministers and elected governments, informally all decisions are taken by civil servants, mostly in the guise of COREPER.

    Although the Lisbon Treaty has greatly expanded the role of the European Parliament, it still hasn't a significant role to play. I would also argue that given how far the parliament is from the public, it is hardly democratic. All UK MEPs could vote against something in the parliament, our national MPs could vote on a motion against it, our government could vote against it at the Council of Ministers and yet we could still be forced to accept it - hardly democratic
    Yet must the European Union be democratic? The misjudgement in this regard is that fixing the democratic deficit would somehow make it function better, which I doubt. I see two problems: first of all such a democratic mandate would just empower the EU to overrule national politics more directly - this is problematic as I firmly believe that decisions should be optimally taken at national level. Although the EU has been given some powers that should only be given to democratically mandated entities and should be taken away. Secondly, how would such European elections create an entity that would function and govern effectively considering that every nightmare of parliament politics would be made manifest and then multiplied some? At such a level of democratic governance, it would have to be conducted in a radically different manner, possibly redefine our concept of democracy. Yet considering that we have so much trouble sorting out our own democracy at national level, I am rather pessimistic that a fully democratic EU would work.

    Yet.
  11. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Scargill is an utter scumbag, just ring up my G'pa and mention his name.
    Not as scummy as Thatcher.
  12. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    There's a difference between lying, cheating, underhanded, hypocritical scum, and people who are honest (though made unpopular/bad decisions) and aren't the adjectives I am using for scargill.
  13. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    There's a difference between lying, cheating, underhanded, hypocritical scum, and people who are honest (though made unpopular/bad decisions) and aren't the adjectives I am using for scargill.
    Oh come on now, thatcher was hardly an honest woman and I don't know who scargill has lied to. I can understand how some can say everything he did was wrong but everything he predicted has become true.
  14. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The conduct of the usual defenders of UKIP is exactly the reason why I won't vote or support the UKIP, seems like vast majority of them don't behave that differently from how they behave on this forum than they do in real life.

    Either way the main reason why vast majority of people won't vote for it is quite simple, the British public as a whole is smart enough to see that their numbers just don't add up and if the deficit under 13 years of Liebour was bad, all you got to do is give UKIP 3 years and UK would be having an even worst deficit and debts than those Liebour raked up.
  15. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pyramidologist)
    UKIP are a single issue party, which is why they will always fail. Only in the last few years has Farage started to promote the idea UKIP actually has a ''manifesto'' for other political issues, this is despite the fact the party has been around for quite a while. The image of UKIP being a single issue party is now too engrained with the public.

    A party that wishes to withdraw from EU but at the same time is not a single issue party on this topic, is the British National Party. This is why if you are a real Eurosceptic but interested at least in other policies, you should vote BNP.
    I do not think UKIP are a single issue party as such, rather a party dominated by a single issue in terms of membership. If you look at the voters, recent polling has shown that the issues of crime and immigration rank higher for voters of UKIP than withdrawal, thus meaning the party has an affiliation to tough approaches to crime and immigration in the public eye.

    Now that is quite a good base to start from, however, I would love to see UKIP do much much more to try and establish a more Libertarian perception in many areas as well - that would certainly help them amongst the younger demographics.

    (Original post by antimilitarist)
    Oh come on now, thatcher was hardly an honest woman and I don't know who scargill has lied to. I can understand how some can say everything he did was wrong but everything he predicted has become true.
    I am curious - can you provide examples of Thatcher's apparent lack of honesty?

    (Original post by zaliack)
    That is the same here though, and we don't say we're not democratic because we don't elect civil servants.
    Here, however, the final say actually rests with Ministers and the Executive because they have a hold on their department. National Ministers do not have a hold on European issues, they turn up, rubber stamp and leave.

    Most voting in the council, although hypothetically is qualified majority, is usually done by unanimity, to try and accommodate every country's wish. The EU doesn't like to just 'force' laws upon countries because that would be completely against the rationale for the creation of the EU, primarily that of cooperation.
    The majority of laws passed by the European Union are dealt with by qualified majority. Unanimity is the reserve of more controversial issues, in other words, issues where the European Union has not yet achieved competence.

    (Original post by Brandmon)
    Yet must the European Union be democratic? The misjudgement in this regard is that fixing the democratic deficit would somehow make it function better, which I doubt. I see two problems: first of all such a democratic mandate would just empower the EU to overrule national politics more directly - this is problematic as I firmly believe that decisions should be optimally taken at national level. Although the EU has been given some powers that should only be given to democratically mandated entities and should be taken away. Secondly, how would such European elections create an entity that would function and govern effectively considering that every nightmare of parliament politics would be made manifest and then multiplied some? At such a level of democratic governance, it would have to be conducted in a radically different manner, possibly redefine our concept of democracy. Yet considering that we have so much trouble sorting out our own democracy at national level, I am rather pessimistic that a fully democratic EU would work.

    Yet.
    I do not remember calling for a more democratic European Union. Interestingly enough, in a recent seminar I disregarded the concepts of democratic reform of the European Union in favour of more effective governance. My lecturer responded with "oh democracy is not all that important then?" My retort: "not when it gets in the way of effective governance it is not". We had a brilliant discussion about democracy actually, rather interesting.

    But that aside, I entirely with your assertion that a more democratic European Union would weak national democracy in the sense that Parliaments would become impotent.

    The principle of subsidiarity is very very important and it is one the European Union must emphasis at all costs. The European Union does not have to be democratic if one can ensure that the organisation appears to be operating in the interests of the member states.
  16. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pyramidologist)
    UKIP are a single issue party, which is why they will always fail. Only in the last few years has Farage started to promote the idea UKIP actually has a ''manifesto'' for other political issues, this is despite the fact the party has been around for quite a while. The image of UKIP being a single issue party is now too engrained with the public.

    A party that wishes to withdraw from EU but at the same time is not a single issue party on this topic, is the British National Party. This is why if you are a real Eurosceptic but interested at least in other policies, you should vote BNP.
    UKIP are not a single issue party. It has a detailed manifesto.

    The BNP are a waste of space and have been remembered for being a single issue anti-immigrant party. No-one should vote BNP unless they are a racist.
  17. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cyanohydrin)
    UKIP were right, as were people on the left like Tony Benn. the Euro, and by extension the recent EU direction, has always been a right-wing, "free" market, Chicago School experiment in deregulation (the central banks effectively lost their regulatory powers with no central equivalent being set up), tax slashing and privatisation of the public sphere of the economy. It is no suprise that the man know as the "father of the Euro", Robert Mundell is known as one of the High Priests of the Religion of Friedman (where you have to believe stuff despite it being untrue), the originator of the current international system of **** the poor to further enrichen the wealthy.
    Chicago school experiment? Only where it wanted to be. The EU is built upon vested corporate and politically lobbied interests, the internal market is anything but free (the CAP alone destroys any pretence that there is a free market in operation) and a central banking system is completely irrelevant without central fiscal policy.

    I'm far removed from being a sympathiser of chicago school economic thought but to use the EU as a criticism of it is simply ridiculous.
  18. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChapelTom)
    UKIP are not a single issue party. It has a detailed manifesto.
    Senior UKIP party officials have on record announced that if UK leaves the European Union, that UKIP would dissolve as a party. Its a single issue party, and as i said only in the last year or so has Farage started to claim UKIP has a wider scope of policies. This isn't though being accepted by the public, and never will be - as the image of UKIP being single issue will never change.

    The BNP are a waste of space and have been remembered for being a single issue anti-immigrant party. No-one should vote BNP unless they are a racist.
    Epic fail. The BNP has a broad scope of policies. I would also point out they were Eurosceptic, long before UKIP arrived on the scene. However unlike UKIP, BNP don't fixate upon the European Union, it's not a single issue for them.
  19. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I am curious - can you provide examples of Thatcher's apparent lack of honesty?
    Off the top of my head, she was elected on the basis that she would provide Britain more jobs - she did rather the opposite and she said she would protect Britain from the growing dominance of the Soviet Union. I don't really see how allowing America to plant their nukes here does that.
  20. Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by antimilitarist)
    Off the top of my head, she was elected on the basis that she would provide Britain more jobs - she did rather the opposite and she said she would protect Britain from the growing dominance of the Soviet Union. I don't really see how allowing America to plant their nukes here does that.
    With all due respect, that hardly makes her a liar does it? A politician can genuinely believe their policies and views will allow for greater prosperity and job creation without such a thing coming to fruition. That hardly makes them a liar.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 27, 2012
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll do better or worse than your predicted grades?
New on TSR

Results are coming...

No sweat. Here's all you need to make sure you're ready

Useful resources
x

Think you'll be in clearing or adjustment?

Hear direct from unis that want to talk to you

Get email alerts for university course places that match your subjects and grades. Just let us know what you're studying.

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.