[FDR]

(Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
That's an out and out lie.

We (yes, we) advocate a cap of 50,000 per year, which is more than fair. We certainly don't want to get rid of any immigrants, only deport those convicted of criminal offences.

50,000 is a very arbitrary figure. Why not 75,000? or 250,000? or even 50,001? Where is the research to show that 50,000 is the optimum figure? Or is it just a figure plucked out of thin air?

The problem with UKIP is that they are very vocal about their ideas, and yet many of their ideas are based upon nothing but what they deem to be right - for example on climate change; UKIP deny this, and yet there is an abundance of scientific evidence to prove that it is an issue.

It's all well and good for UKIP to shout that they are right and everyone else is wrong, yet if they can't convince anybody that they are right, then they will remain nothing more than a fringe party.

[A Mysterious Lord]

(Original post by Dennerers)
Where are you getting that number on the manifesto it doesn't specify it simply says, cap, anyone could take that to mean banning immigration into England, indeed, it then says jobs and housing will be priortrised to English people, making it hard for immigrates of any skill to be on the UK, effectively getting rid of them.

It's on the website:

(Original post by UKIP)
End mass, uncontrolled immigration. UKIP calls for an immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement. We aspire to ensure that any future immigration does not exceed 50,000 people p.a.

Also, why shouldn't jobs and housing be prioritised to British people? Sure, allow immigrants access to social housing, but British people get first pick.

(Original post by FDR)
50,000 is a very arbitrary figure. Why not 75,000? or 250,000? or even 50,001? Where is the research to show that 50,000 is the optimum figure? Or is it just a figure plucked out of thin air?

50,000 is generally accepted as the figure that immigration was at pre-EU, bearing in mind factors such as availability of housing, schools, access to healthcare etc. The controls would also be stricter as to prefer skilled workers so those coming in will be of benefit to the country, rather than claiming benefit for themselves. Also, the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees states that asylum seekers must seek asylum in the first safe country - now given 95% of countries in mainland Europe could be classed as 'safe countries', why are they all flocking here?

The problem with UKIP is that they are very vocal about their ideas, and yet many of their ideas are based upon nothing but what they deem to be right - for example on climate change; UKIP deny this, and yet there is an abundance of scientific evidence to prove that it is an issue.

There's also a lot of evidence that suggests it's a complete myth, or rather, a complete lie that is shading REAL environmental issues such as deforestation. The fact that the sun is burning more brightly now than in the past 5,000 years may have something to do with it, or when you hear on the weather forecast that it's the hottest say since X - well it must have been that hot before then surely? Climate Change is an easy way for governments to raise money through green taxes.

I notice that manufacturers of wind turbines agree with climate change, I wonder why

It's all well and good for UKIP to shout that they are right and everyone else is wrong, yet if they can't convince anybody that they are right, then they will remain nothing more than a fringe party.

Politics is about debate.

[Tahooper]

I do not fear the rise of UKIP, I relish it.

[JacobW]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
1.) Ok, so 71% support isn't overwhelming desire? It's more than 2/3rd's of those polled...

2.) So you believe society shouldn't change until anarchy reigns? Because for social change to occur in the current system, the state must ratify it.

1.)http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4984 When asked unbiased, non-leading questions, around 45% of voters favour gay marriage.

2.) When did I ever suggest such a thing? I don't oppose social change; I oppose artificial, state-sponsored social change. You're right, restricions can impede social change; repealing them will facilitate it. The state should therefore remove restrictions when the change caused thereby would have been outweighed by the change caused or artificially prevented by failing to do so. No doubt this point will be reached long before anarchy is even remotely possible.

[The Patriot]

(Original post by JacobW)
That's an entirely fallacious inference. Plenty of people who are not homophobes oppose same-sex marriage. I happen to be one of them.

True. I should have gone on to say why I felt they were homophobes in regards to stopping gay marriage. My bad.

[JacobW]

(Original post by T.Fleming)
To be honest I would not mind seeing the destruction of the institution that is the Church of England, it is hardly a beacon of a modern and equal society. It discriminates against gays and women, not to mention it continues to sit in a parliamentary chamber that is unelected and undemocratic. Furthermore, its 'Supreme Governor' is a Head of State that is simply a de jure unelected dictator; at least Hitler was elected by the German people.

The issue is rather beyond the scope of discussion here, but suffice it to say I don't give a damn about whether or not the Church promotes a "modern and equal society"; nor does the fact that the House of Lords and the monarch are unelected bother me in the slightest. Whatever your egalitarian principles, to suggest that the monarchy is any way less democratic than the Nazi regime is a vile slander and an insult to the Nazi's victims. Hitler was elected Chancellor, and then altered his position beyond recognition through becoming Furher without the people's consent. The monarch has little to no constitutional power; Hitler was an autocrat and a despot.

[Carter78]

(Original post by udot99)
Ukip are racist free masons!!!!

As in Masons who are free of racism? Kind of like sugar-free Gum?

[Carter78]

(Original post by Libertarian_Walrus)
It doesn't matter about the morals of it, it is their property so it is their rights. I am for gay marriage, but I'm not for forcing anyone to do anything. I am sure there are lots of other places that would allow gay marriage, and that absolutely fine.


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

But the concept of Church is to reach out to the community, you can hardly call the Church an insular organisation that lives by it's own rules and shuts itself off from society. - I do think the Church (and other religious bodies) should be challenged on their homophobic beliefs.

There wouldn't be a need to start a witch hunt, simply open up the debate whether these religious beliefs - that homosexuality is a sin and that gay marriage in un-Christian are still acceptable in the 21st Century. It is my view that Gay Christians should be able to get married in Church if they want to!

[T.Fleming]

(Original post by JacobW)
The issue is rather beyond the scope of discussion here, but suffice it to say I don't give a damn about whether or not the Church promotes a "modern and equal society"; nor does the fact that the House of Lords and the monarch are unelected bother me in the slightest. Whatever your egalitarian principles, to suggest that the monarchy is any way less democratic than the Nazi regime is a vile slander and an insult to the Nazi's victims. Hitler was elected Chancellor, and then altered his position beyond recognition through becoming Furher without the people's consent. The monarch has little to no constitutional power; Hitler was an autocrat and a despot.

I find it highly worrying that you "don't give a damn"; it would seem that you wished Britain would have stagnated in the 19th Century where the aristocracy and landed gentry ruled over an underclass, who lived in dire poverty. Not to mention ruled an Empire that promoted slavery and were quite happy to illegally occupy Ireland (along with 1/4 of the rest of the world), while watching 25% of its population starve to death. The British Empire was reasonably similar to the Holocaust, but just on a grander scale and with a bit more pomp and ceremony.

For a broad historical view of what the Queen is and how she “rules”, examine Gaddafi or Mubarak, and see if you can spot any difference.

[JacobW]

(Original post by T.Fleming)
I find it highly worrying that you "don't give a damn"; it would seem that you wished Britain would have stagnated in the 19th Century where the aristocracy and landed gentry ruled over an underclass, who lived in dire poverty. Not to mention ruled an Empire that promoted slavery and were quite happy to illegally occupy Ireland (along with 1/4 of the rest of the world), while watching 25% of its population starve to death. The British Empire was reasonably similar to the Holocaust, but just on a grander scale and with a bit more pomp and ceremony.

For a broad historical view of what the Queen is and how she “rules”, examine Gaddafi or Mubarak, and see if you can spot any difference.

I'm not a historian of the British Empire; neither, as far as I know, are you. Atrocities were committed; much good was also done. Neither of us are in a position to judge the merits or otherwise of the intuition as whole over the three centuries or so for which it existed. Grand historical conspiracy theories will get us nowhere.

I also find it both amusing and worrying that you cannot see the utterly groundless nature of the hidden premise in your argument: everyone who supports the monarchy and a mixed constitution must condone every action carried out by or with the support of those institutions in the past. I take the apparently inconceivable position that our existing institutions may be deeply flawed and may well have caused terrible things to happen in the past; but that nonetheless designing a better system to replace them is an impossible utopian dream.

Your assertion about Gadaffi and Mubarak is laughable. Britain is a Parliamentary democracy with a centuries-old tradition of liberty, an independent judiciary, and a deep respect for the rule of law. Mubarak and Gadaffi were autocratic despots. That our Head of State is not elected does not make our constitution any less democratic: you need only look at America to see that electing more institutions does not make the state as a whole more democratic. Rather than endure partisan deadlock with a different branches of the legislative and executive all believing themselves to have a mandate to hard-headedly pursue irreconcilable aims, our system employs several unelected institutions to act as a check on the actions of a supreme, elected House of Commons on whose will the existence of all other institutions is ultimately dependent.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by JacobW)
1.)http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4984 When asked unbiased, non-leading questions, around 45% of voters favour gay marriage.

2.) When did I ever suggest such a thing? I don't oppose social change; I oppose artificial, state-sponsored social change. You're right, restricions can impede social change; repealing them will facilitate it. The state should therefore remove restrictions when the change caused thereby would have been outweighed by the change caused or artificially prevented by failing to do so. No doubt this point will be reached long before anarchy is even remotely possible.

1.) Or, 65% (from the link you posted) - and in every one except that catholic voices one, more supported gay marriage than were opposed.

2.)

(Original post by JacobW)
Without launching into an enormous rant--because I believe the state should not promote social change, and that retaining the ban on gay marriages is likely to cause less change than removing. I will favour gay marriage when the opposite is true.

The role of the state is to propose changes, we elect parties based on the changes they wish to enact. So if they should never promote social change, or that "state-sponsored change" is wrong - then social change is wrong/shouldn't happen so long as a state exists.
Oh, and stop with this, "when the change is greater..." ****. The change caused by changing something will always be greater than caused by not changing something. You're saying you'll support gay marriage when... and finishing it off with an answer comparable to "when pigs fly".

[JacobW]

(Original post by Alofleicester)

The role of the state is to propose changes, we elect parties based on the changes they wish to enact. So if they should never promote social change, or that "state-sponsored change" is wrong - then social change is wrong/shouldn't happen so long as a state exists.

Not at all. Your conclusion only follows only if we grant that all social change is driven by the state. That all states wish to promote/are expected to promote social change (a dubious assertion itself) does not prove this.

(Original post by Alofleicester)
Oh, and stop with this, "when the change is greater..." ****. The change caused by changing something will always be greater than caused by not changing something. You're saying you'll support gay marriage when... and finishing it off with an answer comparable to "when pigs fly".

I'm sorry, but you're completely and utterly wrong. "Reform that you may preserve" was the maxim of the Whigs in 1832. History is littered with examples of changes undertaken with the express intention of forestalling more radical change in the future.

[Snagprophet]

(Original post by T.Fleming)
I have never considered UKIP to be a racist party, however, their policy banning the burqa does fringe on islamophobia.

The burqa is not a requirement for religion. Even if it was, religion =/= race.

[T.Fleming]

(Original post by JacobW)
I'm not a historian of the British Empire; neither, as far as I know, are you. Atrocities were committed; much good was also done. Neither of us are in a position to judge the merits or otherwise of the intuition as whole over the three centuries or so for which it existed. Grand historical conspiracy theories will get us nowhere.

I also find it both amusing and worrying that you cannot see the utterly groundless nature of the hidden premise in your argument: everyone who supports the monarchy and a mixed constitution must condone every action carried out by or with the support of those institutions in the past. I take the apparently inconceivable position that our existing institutions may be deeply flawed and may well have caused terrible things to happen in the past; but that nonetheless designing a better system to replace them is an impossible utopian dream.

Your assertion about Gadaffi and Mubarak is laughable. Britain is a Parliamentary democracy with a centuries-old tradition of liberty, an independent judiciary, and a deep respect for the rule of law. Mubarak and Gadaffi were autocratic despots. That our Head of State is not elected does not make our constitution any less democratic: you need only look at America to see that electing more institutions does not make the state as a whole more democratic. Rather than endure partisan deadlock with a different branches of the legislative and executive all believing themselves to have a mandate to hard-headedly pursue irreconcilable aims, our system employs several unelected institutions to act as a check on the actions of a supreme, elected House of Commons on whose will the existence of all other institutions is ultimately dependent.

Unfortunately I am not a historian on the British Empire; however, an empire that was built on the belief that the British culture/race and the Christian religion was superior to the races and religions in which the British Empire encompassed is disturbing. Moreover, the idea that the British should try to "civilise the natives" fringes on social fascism.

I find it hard to believe that it is a "impossible utopian dream" to find a better system; one just has to look across Europe to find better alternatives. For example, Switzerland's direct democracy system has embodied popular sovereignty within a multi-ethnic, multilingual and multi-confessional society.

I do agree that Britain is a nation in which certain parts of democracy have flourished; however, the point in which I was trying to make in reference to Gadaffi and Mubarak was that both are leaders who lived a life of luxury and are worth tens of millions of pound, whereas the vast majority of the citizens they ruled lived in dire poverty. Similarly, to the Queen who receives £40 million a year of tax payers money; 17.1% of her 'subjects' live in relative poverty. Some will roll there eyes when you talk about poverty in Britain, however, in factual terms a family of four who live in poverty earn less than £260 a week; a near impossible task.

I do not wish for the UK to have an elected Head of State, but rather use a federal council system similar to that of Switzerland. The US political system is far from perfect I agree, however, unlike the UK each branch has at least a democratic mandate to perform checks and balances on each other. Whereas, in the UK this is simply not the case. Tony Blair in his first-term was defeated not a single time on a bill in the Commons; and without reform of the Lords it will never have the mandate to perform checks and balances on the UK's "elected dictators".

[Libertarian_Walrus]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
This claim is getting really boring to see and has been debunked repeatedly. It is only trolls who continue to post it.

The BNP's economic policy is largely based on economic nationalism. Although these ''left'' and ''right'' labels are pretty stupid, for sake of simplicity - the BNP economically are right, at least so as appears in scholarship. They have a few left-wing tenets such as more state ownership control of key industry, but overall economically they are nationalist and right.

It really does get boring seeing trolls on the net *still* claiming the BNP are ''far left'' or even ''communist'' for a reaction. These claims were debunked years back when they first appeared on the net, mostly as smears might i add.

Nationalisation, higher taxes and protectionism are all BNP policies. What is right wing about that?

[SmileAway]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
The burqa is not a requirement for religion. Even if it was, religion =/= race.

However, religious people = humans. This means they should have the right to wear what they want

[Jack22031994]

(Original post by SmileAway)
However, religious people = humans. This means they should have the right to wear what they want

Ukip only want to ban it in areas such as petrol station, banks and airports don't they? Just like any other face covering

NOTE: I'm not a supporter or member of UKIP
(I'm a member of the conservative party)


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

[SmileAway]

(Original post by Jack22031994)
NOTE: I'm not a supporter or member of UKIP
(I'm a member of the conservative party)

Fellow tory supporter!

"UKIP is the first British party to call for a total ban" - 'party was seeking to ban "Covering of the face in public places and public buildings"' These are both quotes from this article on the bbc news website. From what I gather that means you basically wont be able to wear it, except in your home or private property.

[M4LLY]

(Original post by exe)
. I fear that if they become mainstream the racist views of some people that doubtless are among their ranks may, in turn become mainstream also.

You appear to have forgotton that those that are racist tend to go for the BNP

[johnaulich]

(Original post by Libertarian_Walrus)
Nationalisation, higher taxes and protectionism are all BNP policies. What is right wing about that?

The left go for nationalization as a means to an end, which is to give the means of production to the people. If it's a means to any other end, then it is not left wing. If you don't understand that, I suggest you do some reading.