[ChapelTom]

(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.

[Keckers]

(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.

[Pyramidologist]

(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.

[antimilitarist]

(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.

[Teaddict]

(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.

[antimilitarist]

(Original post by Teaddict)
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.

How is telling the British public that you're going to create more jobs only to get rid of them unnecessarily in the pursuit of monetarism not lying? As soon as she was elected she changed her stance (Something a lot of other lying politicians do) but she was elected by the people not to crack down on inflation but to provide more employment.

[Teaddict]

(Original post by antimilitarist)
How is telling the British public that you're going to create more jobs only to get rid of them unnecessarily in the pursuit of monetarism not lying? As soon as she was elected she changed her stance (Something a lot of other lying politicians do) but she was elected by the people not to crack down on inflation but to provide more employment.

If you believe that your policies will, in the long run, produce a net gain in jobs it is not a lie. But that aside, Thatcher gave the country medicine that it needed. She made mistakes, granted, however, she was very much a force for good.

[antimilitarist]

(Original post by Teaddict)
If you believe that your policies will, in the long run, produce a net gain in jobs it is not a lie. But that aside, Thatcher gave the country medicine that it needed. She made mistakes, granted, however, she was very much a force for good.

I don't see how she has had any positive impact upon north Wales and north England. Manufacturing and mining is gone all thanks to her and ex mining communities are still deprived to this day simply because they were "The enemy within" and now we have followed her consensus which brings us to this recession with widespread unemployment, hardly a long term net gain. I think she wanted to create jobs in some parts of the country while not in others as she was determined to destroy industrial culture so I stand by my statement that she was a liar.

[Elenchus]

(Original post by patrickinator)
it is getting late, I really can't be bothered...

Please can someone respond to this?


Also the reason I believe UKIP isn't that popular is because most sensible and ordinary people like their governments a bit more centrist.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[jkneen95]

(Original post by antimilitarist)
I don't see how she has had any positive impact upon north Wales and north England. Manufacturing and mining is gone all thanks to her and ex mining communities are still deprived to this day simply because they were "The enemy within" and now we have followed her consensus which brings us to this recession with widespread unemployment, hardly a long term net gain. I think she wanted to create jobs in some parts of the country while not in others as she was determined to destroy industrial culture so I stand by my statement that she was a liar.

the word "politics" coems from two words: "poly", meaning many, and "tics" meaning parasites...In my opinion, Thatcher is proof of it, and now that I have entered the conversation with a slurr towards Thatcher, I will be happy to be challenged on my stance.

(Original post by Elenchus)
Please can someone respond to this?


Also the reason I believe UKIP isn't that popular is because most sensible and ordinary people like their governments a bit more centrist.

In my opinion, there are several reasons as to why UKIP are not as successful.

Voter apathy - over the years, governments have been faced with low turnouts at elections and referendums. The main contributory factor is a loss of faith in the political system. This is one of the reasons that the Coalition has been pushing for constitutional reform.

Thatcher's rule also saw centralisation in policy from the big Three. there was little change in the Lib Dems, who were always a centralist party, but Labour went through large scale change due to an extended period of being out of power, and there was a decrease in popularity for the Iron Lady, both from within the Conservative Party and the general public, prompting a change in political stance from the Tories.

The unpopularity in the coalition has mean that many people, many staunch Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have voted for other parties because the feel stabbed in the back, as many members of the public do. However, many also remember the Blair and Brown Administrations, and do not want Labour back in power. While at the local elections, they made considerable gains, especially when compared to the Tories and Lib Dems, partially because some acknowledge that Gordon Brown was given a "poisoned chalice" (much like Obama taking over Presidency after George Bush Jr.) However there has been an increase in popularity for the smaller parties such as Green, UKIP, BNP etc because of human nature. As the situation seems to worsen, people look towards more and more extreme measures to improve the situation (for instance the Wall Street Crash and deterioration of the Weimar Government that led to the Nazi Party coming to power) A lack of faith in democracy often has a large effect on aiding this political shift towards the minor parties, yet at the same time, people know what happened in Germany, and we have the 2 party system here. that very lack of faith in democracy that has led to such a drastic loss in votes for the Coalition makes people either employ "strategic voting" or not vote at all, being resigned to not voting at all, feeling that no matter which box they tick on the ballot paper, there will be no improvement. Don't forget that for many, the increase in voting that brought the Lib Dems into the Coalition was many people trying something new. Now that the coalition has made so many unpopular decisions, some more resilient voters will shift towards the smaller parties such as UKIP, however this increase in popularity will be hampered by a further decrease in voting which brings into question the legitimacy of elected governments, when roughly 40% of the country is not voting.


I apologise for the essay, now thank you, and good night.

[maverick123]

All I know is I'm joining the party as soon as I turn 18, we need to leave the EU asap and anyone who says this is a racist policy is not only incredibly ignorant but stupid as they don't realise how much it will affect them if we don't. The country's grossly overcrowded and you only have to look at the Qatada case to see how soft we are as a country in terms of immigration. Our aging politicians don't give a toss about the younger generation hence we have lost so much EMA, rising tuition fees and if we carry on in the EU we are going to be deprived even a place to live. The main counter-argument is that we would lose alot of trade, let me tell you now that wouldn't be affected in the slightest if we left the EU. The UK is a major world-force in terms of what we consume, why on Earth would countries want to stop trading with us? Just cos we're not part of a pointless committee, we've spent lots of money to re-generate other countries like Spain getting very little in return ourselves...I mean look at some areas in the north and in Scotland that desperately need improvement.

Sign the e-petition
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/356