The Student Room Group

TSR, convince me not to vote UKIP.

So I've followed up on the election campaign almost every day so far, watched every debate and analysis on TV, and watched most interviews with the leaders on youtube. I've read manifestos, and (most importantly), read threads on TSR.

I know a lot of you HATE UKIP, but don't just tell me you hate them. Logically explain why I'm wrong. I really would like to understand the opposing views here, so if you can change my mind on these things, go for it.

Here's my take on things:

- Immigration control

'Racist' is normally the first response I get. No. It is not racist whatsoever to want to control the borders of a country. It has nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity. It's simply to do with numbers, and the principle. It's a policy adopted by most countries in the world. If I want to go and live in the US, I have to apply for a work permit, and a green card etc - I can't just turn up? Are the US racist? Is every other country on the planet that has controlled borders racist?

It's true, that ideally, we would have expanded the education and healthcare sectors, built more houses, to ensure we could accommodate more people, but the reality is we don't have the resources or the money at the moment. What's wrong with admitting that? I feel that no-one wants to admit this because they're just scared of being branded a racist.

And let me highlight something. Many people are opposed to this because, for instance, so many NHS staff were born in another country. The policy is control of immigration, NOT prevention of immigration. Under an 'Australian-Style' system, skilled workers, such as doctors and nurses WOULD be allowed in. I would want students to be allowed in for sure. People in their thousands should still be allowed in - I would hate for immigration to be stopped completely - Immigration has been massively beneficial to the country, and always will, but it is only logical that it's controlled, surely? What's to stop immigration from continuing to rise? If a million people moved here next year would that be fine?


- EU Bureacracy

Not sure how many people realise this, but the EU gets to decide an absurd number of laws for us. Jean-Claude Juncker a familiar face? A lot of people who haven't been elected by the British public are powerful enough to decide legislations which get enforced on us. I think Farage is absolutely correct in saying this is undemocratic, and unnecessary. The vast amount of red tape affecting small businesses comes from the EU, and we don't need most it.
Look at the countries which used to be under British reign; the commonwealth nations. It's funny how all those countries strived to become independent, yet why do we not? Why are we not capable of running ourselves? I'd want us to continue to trade with the EU as we do now, but without all the other strings attached.


- Grammar schools

Think these need re-introducing - would prevent those who can't afford to go to private schools being at a disadvantage.

There's plenty of other policies I like, but I'm getting bored of typing. I think it's worth finally mentioning that there are things I disagree with, such as their attitude towards climate change, but, honestly, on the whole, I agree with the majority of their policies.

So what did I say wrong? :tongue:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
You go against the establishment status quo. Many young people reject that because of their conditioning through the leftist education system that has taught them that UKIP is some how racist say why are they racist to them they give you an article about what some UKIP candidate said on twitter... honestly ridiculous. Just because the Labour MP for Cannock Chase dressed up as a nazi does that make the Labour party the new nazi party? No and no body ever suggests that because they are establishment.
Who would you vote for if you couldn't vote UKIP?
Reply 3
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Who would you vote for if you couldn't vote UKIP?

Turn around and walk out of the polling station.
Reply 4
My main issues with UKIP do stem from wanting to leave the EU, however this is not why I'd necessarily discourage others from voting that way.
My primary issue is that they do not believe in global warming being impacted by humans. They have said that they will scrap the agreement on reducing emissions (can't remember the name!)- and I think this is a very dangerous move. It goes against the vast majority of scientific evidence, and could have detrimental consequences.
But, here is also my opinion on the EU and international policies-
Investment would decrease in the UK if companies could not easily conduct trades with Europe. Farage has promised trade agreements, but to get these we would need to satisfy the same conditions as the EU membership. Further to this, the UK is an influential country, but we are no longer as prominent as we once were (compared to Germany and Japan etc) so we cannot afford to place risks on our economy, which even the suggestion of a referendum would do.
Also, a smaller point- I think we are morally obliged to contribute money in foreign aid. Sure, others disagree, but I would hate to see less developed countries suffering due to... well, us being a little more self-centred (perhaps not the best word, but you get my sentiment) :smile:
Reply 5
I find it dangerous that people don't know this is the biggest polluter on the earth... but hey the billionaires that push global warming don't teach you that.
Original post by Ezme39
My main issues with UKIP do stem from wanting to leave the EU, however this is not why I'd necessarily discourage others from voting that way.
My primary issue is that they do not believe in global warming being impacted by humans.


There have been warmer and colder periods before in history. They just want to stop investing money into the climate change research department because it isn't worth it.

Original post by Ezme39
Investment would decrease in the UK if companies could not easily conduct trades with Europe. Farage has promised trade agreements, but to get these we would need to satisfy the same conditions as the EU membership.


Why do you think that companies would stop trading with the UK if we were to pull out? There's nothing to suggest this. Switzerland are one of the largest traders and richest countries in Europe, but aren't in the EU.

Original post by Ezme39
Also, a smaller point- I think we are morally obliged to contribute money in foreign aid. Sure, others disagree, but I would hate to see less developed countries suffering due to... well, us being a little more self-centred (perhaps not the best word, but you get my sentiment) :smile:


Interesting that you value foreigners half way around the world more highly than Britons.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 7
Original post by SeaPony
I find it dangerous that people don't know this is the biggest polluter on the earth... but hey the billionaires that push global warming don't teach you that.


Global warming is influenced by humans though, regardless of the "biggest polluter"- consider graphs of global temperature and CO2 emissions, which have not been steadily rising, but have risen hugely since the industrial revolution. I don't think we can ignore that, and therefore I could not vote for any party which does
Reply 8
The fixed and fiddled graphs yes believe them my friend:wink: Ignore the medieval warming period (if you have heard of that since they tried to exclude it from their results to prove the fraud)
Immigration

There is a compelling body of evidence that suggests that immigration doesn't have a noticeably detrimental effect on overall wages levels or any other hugely destabilizing effects on the labour market.

Blanchflower, who used to be very high up on Bank of England, finds that effects of immigration on wage levels are statistically insignificant.
The Cato Institute (admittedly in relation to the US rather than UK) finds that any studies that do find causality between immigration and suppressed wages overwhelmingly rely on the idea that the economy is static - obviously it isn't.
LSE finds that immigrants have a small but significant impact on wages- but only in low income areas.

I feel it worth mentioning here that EU migrants, and this isn't up for discussion, have made a net contribution to the UK economy.

If we then keep with the position that immigration's effects on the labour market, if any, disproportionately 'hurt' native workers in low income jobs by way of wage suppression then I would argue the best tactic is to tackle wage suppression, not immigration itself. Why? Because I do believe immigration is a positive thing. An immigrant in this country consumes services and goods. On a macro scale, their mere presence leads to job creation as the overwhelming majority of immigrants are either in work or students. (The % of benefit claiming immigrants is essentially the same as natives). We are potentially facing a social security/pension crisis because our replacement rate isn't good enough, so why would we want to turn workers away?

UKIP claim to want: high-skilled immigrants who contribute to the economy, are not a drain on resources and do not disadvantage the native worker.

This can be achieved with policy measures to tackle the endemic culture of low pay and policy measures to limit the possibility of exploitation through artificially low wages - both measures are being proposed by Labour.
This can be achieved with policy measure to limit the amount of benefit available to immigrants who are 'fresh off the boat' - this is a measure being adopted by Labour, Conservatives and I believe the lib dems too.

If your stance on immigration is bassd on 'Britain for the British and damn the consequences' then, I'm sorry, but that is a xenophobic, racist outlook and is likely to result in knee-jerk politics and populism which inevitably end up spelling bad news for the most vulnerable people in society - native and non-native alike.

If your stance on immigration is based on genuine concern that immigration is a bad thing for our country because we don't have the institutions, infrastructure or policies to deal with the negative side-effects and potential ramifications associated with immigration then I honestly believe you are being taken for a ride by UKIP, their rhetoric and their half truths regarding immigration.

Immigration is not an absolutist 'thing'. It is not, by definition, a bad thing for the hard working people are Britain. It's negative-effects can be mitigated if not completely addressed by sensible policy which doesn't not require a completely absolutist stance. Britain leaving the EU would be disastrous, but even Britain adopting a 'points based system' and cutting off the flow of unskilled or even semi-skilled migrant labour would have negative effects on the British economy and therefore the British worker; unskilled migrant labour is poorer than British. In comparative and relative terms they are bigger consumers and that indirect affect on the economy and the labour market should not be underestimated or ignored.

I'm from a poor area of Manchester, I've since lived in an area in Wales where there is chronic and severe unemployment and I now study in central London. I'm hella concerned about the dangers immigration poses (from an economic standpoint) but I do not for one single second believe that the short-term, myopic outlook from UKIP is going to solve any problems.

I'll say something about bureaucracy and grammar schools later.
Original post by SeaPony
I find it dangerous that people don't know this is the biggest polluter on the earth... but hey the billionaires that push global warming don't teach you that.


If that's a volcano, volcanic emissions are a small % of emissions. Not the biggest source of emissions at all. I vaguely recall a climate skeptic writing a book a few years back that was torn apart by scientists, and one of the inaccuracies was about the contribution of volcanoes to overall emissions being wildly exaggerated in the book.

What about the billionaires and oil companies that bankroll the climate change denial movement? Conflicts of interest are a much bigger problem for climate change deniers than for the supporters of the man made global warming theory.
Reply 11
How about the billionaires that bankroll the climate change movement that also head oil companies? *cough cough* Al Gore.
UKIP will trash the country.

They are a vile party. Steer clear.
Reply 13
Any proof of that claim?
Original post by Nice.Guy
So I've followed up on the election campaign almost every day so far, watched every debate and analysis on TV, and watched most interviews with the leaders on youtube. I've read manifestos, and (most importantly), read threads on TSR.

I know a lot of you HATE UKIP, but don't just tell me you hate them. Logically explain why I'm wrong. I really would like to understand the opposing views here, so if you can change my mind on these things, go for it.

Here's my take on things:

- Immigration control

'Racist' is normally the first response I get. No. It is not racist whatsoever to want to control the borders of a country. It has nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity. It's simply to do with numbers, and the principle. It's a policy adopted by most countries in the world. If I want to go and live in the US, I have to apply for a work permit, and a green card etc - I can't just turn up? Are the US racist? Is every other country on the planet that has controlled borders racist?

It's true, that ideally, we would have expanded the education and healthcare sectors, built more houses, to ensure we could accommodate more people, but the reality is we don't have the resources or the money at the moment. What's wrong with admitting that? I feel that no-one wants to admit this because they're just scared of being branded a racist.

And let me highlight something. Many people are opposed to this because, for instance, so many NHS staff were born in another country. The policy is control of immigration, NOT prevention of immigration. Under an 'Australian-Style' system, skilled workers, such as doctors and nurses WOULD be allowed in. I would want students to be allowed in for sure. People in their thousands should still be allowed in - I would hate for immigration to be stopped completely - Immigration has been massively beneficial to the country, and always will, but it is only logical that it's controlled, surely? What's to stop immigration from continuing to rise? If a million people moved here next year would that be fine?


- EU Bureacracy

Not sure how many people realise this, but the EU gets to decide an absurd number of laws for us. Jean-Claude Juncker a familiar face? A lot of people who haven't been elected by the British public are powerful enough to decide legislations which get enforced on us. I think Farage is absolutely correct in saying this is undemocratic, and unnecessary. The vast amount of red tape affecting small businesses comes from the EU, and we don't need most it.
Look at the countries which used to be under British reign; the commonwealth nations. It's funny how all those countries strived to become independent, yet why do we not? Why are we not capable of running ourselves? I'd want us to continue to trade with the EU as we do now, but without all the other strings attached.


- Grammar schools

Think these need re-introducing - would prevent those who can't afford to go to private schools being at a disadvantage.

There's plenty of other policies I like, but I'm getting bored of typing. I think it's worth finally mentioning that there are things I disagree with, such as their attitude towards climate change, but, honestly, on the whole, I agree with the majority of their policies.

So what did I say wrong? :tongue:

There are a number of reasons in your statement that are what are convincing me to vote Labour. You may say I'm too biased, but here goes.

Both UKIP and Labour want to control our borders, but UKIP's policies are out of hand. A key difference is that UKIP expect those who are coming into Britain to have a high-qualification job beforehand, and whether or not this is the case, foreign workers have to wait five years before they have the same legal rights as us. Labour, on the other hand, control the numbers more ethically, making a reasonable compromise between the benefits and costs of high immigration, and they also plan to outlaw undercuts as of racial discrimination in the workplace. Their health policies are also less taxing for immigrants, not having to apply for insurance overseas. UKIP say they plan to spend an extra £0.5 billion on the NHS, but since they already give the NHS a low priority, planning to spend much more money elsewhere, I would say that this is an empty promise. I can't see them making a balance.

Fact is, UKIP being called racist does not tie directly to their immigration policies. The attitude of many UKIP MPs towards foreigners is generally appalling, and often actively racist. Farage isn't a racist himself, but he's had to apologise on the behalf of many of his followers for crap like this:
https://twitter.com/RonNorthcott/status/238310776148996096
There's a shocking amount of this, and there's no excuse that they have for it at the moment, but if they were in power, they would exploit their discriminating attitude wherever they went. Any foreign workers who can get into Britain would be alienated, regardless of the rights that they have, and if I were in their shoes, I wouldn't bother. So yes, UKIP are racist, and they will impose it upon our culture, with harmful consequences.

As for the EU, Labour want to introduce a "lock" which allows us to vote towards whether a policy's power should be handed to the EU. This gives us a chance to combat the restrictions that the EU has given us, without having to leave it, and lose the many benefits of EU membership which have made Britain such a large trade market. I side with you on calling these restrictions undemocratic, but I think this is a fair way around that.

And there's lots more to say, but I'll end there. Life is busy.
Original post by InnerTemple
UKIP will trash the country.


So like Labour did last time they were in power?
Reply 16
How many times does Labour have to screw the country over to lose its support? 2,3,4 10!!!?
Original post by Smug Life
So like Labour did last time they were in power?


Oh yeah... creating a global financial crisis in the USA and all... yeah...


:rolleyes:
Original post by InnerTemple
UKIP will trash the country.

They are a vile party. Steer clear.


Remind me, what did Labour do with their 13 years of power?
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 19
Launching wars on countries that had no weapons of mass destruction known lie? Good success that was look at how great Iraq is today!

Quick Reply

Latest