Do you consider UKIP good or bad?
Scroll to see replies
Most of the people saying no are people who are just basing their opinions on the rhetoric of other parties and the media. Here are a few points I would like to make to clarify the point for others, though I think the damage from the front page of this thread is already done.
I could go on and on and on correcting misinformation spread by the media, but I'd be here all night. I can't even be bothered to correct my spelling mistakes.
•
UKIP's policies are not racist. While some of our members may hold some pretty bad views there are memebers of other parties that do too.. this isn't something limited to us. Personally I've never encountered someone within the party who holds racist views.
•
UKIP are the only party to block ex-members of far right groups from joining the party. This includes groups like the EDL and the BNP.
•
While UKIP's policy is to privatise parts of the NHS, it is only our policy because the evidence shows that privatised hospitals perform better than hosiptals run by the public sector. There is a specific example of this I can dig up if asked. In this particular case after the running of the NHS trust was handed over to a private organisation the hospital was named 'best in the country' by a group of independent experts.
•
UKIP's policy is not, nor has it ever been, to make people 'pay on delivery' of health care.
•
UKIP's policy and intention is to withdraw from the European Decleration of HR. This is because it interfears far too much with the legal process within the UK when applied to foreign nationals. It is our intention to implement a Bill of Rights or other similar document which protects the rights of our citizens. A point to make here - England was the nation that invented freedom in its modern form. The European Decleration of Human rights isn't the source of our freedom. We've been free for almost 400 years (some would argue 800, due to the signing of the magna carta) without the ECHR poking their nose in, so why not afterwards?
•
UKIP have an extensive collection of policies, they provided the largest manifesto in the last General Election. We are not a one issue party.
I could go on and on and on correcting misinformation spread by the media, but I'd be here all night. I can't even be bothered to correct my spelling mistakes.
Original post by Subat
However UKIP is essentially a racist/prejudice party who are using immigration and benefit issues to gain supporters. The fact is most of the people who are supporting UKIP know nothing about their policies other than 'they will stop immigration'.
I'd be inclined to give the British public more benefit of the doubt. Most people seem to be able to formulate a coherent argument on EU membership, climate change, and domestic policies.
On the other hand I've heard that UKIP want to privatise the NHS AND spend more money on the NHS in this very same thread. Clearly UKIP's detractors need to get their house in order.
If you are from an ethnic minority and a UK citizen it is probably more likely that UKIP would prefer to see less restrictions on immigrants coming from the countries that you/your ancestors came from. This isn't a direct policy in itself, it's just an indirect result of the policy that leads to controlling our own borders. If anything I would say that isn't the kind of thing a racist party would advocate now is it? Surely a racist party would be against immigration.
Original post by Subat
Which indicates how jaded the British public are about immigration. It's reached the point where they only care about stopping immigration. The fact that UKIP are immensely vocal on immigration overpowers every single other issue for its supporters. To me that's worrying.
I think it is more indicative of how people like yourself are either being mislead or being misleading. UKIP do not want to stop immigration, they simply want the UK government to be able to control our borders like it did in the past. We didn't stop immigration in the past, so why is it assumed the British people would want to stop it in the future?
Simple analogy, if I have a leaking tap, having it fixed doesn't mean I want to stop the tap from dispensing water does it?
Original post by geokinkladze
So are you saying we can be in the EU without implementing the ECHR?
There is a large body of opinion that we could - though UKIP are convinced that membership of the EU requires being party to the ECHR.
Original post by geokinkladze
How massive?
Depending on definition, UKIP have overestimated the amount by 25-60%.
The fact that the source they cite never actually said that the EU make 75% of our laws is also a massive lie.
Original post by geokinkladze
As an avid devourer of knowledge I'd love to read this source. Do you have the link?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/257235/analysis-of-the-impacts.pdf
This page has some more information on the topic https://fullfact.org/europe/ukip_eu_elections_posters-31629
Original post by billydisco
So why does the EU commissioner says she's not sure if its 75%or 80% but that "most" laws at a national level are decided in Europe....??
Can't look at the video at the moment, but is this the Reding comment? Or the German chap?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by geokinkladze
I think it is you that lacks understanding, if there was a statement in the treaty stating such, then it wouldn't need to be tested in the courts. The courts are used to test principles applied to specific situations. I'm no gambler, but I'd be willing to bet the courts will be used to test this exact situation.
Given an individual can't make a direct appeal to the ECJ apart from in JR actions of specific Union instruments I'm not sure how an appeal of the gay marriage law would be brought to the ECJ since its only role is to answer questions on validity and interpretation of EU law not national law. Though the ECJ does have a tendency to miraculously invent new procedures so who knows...
Original post by EllieC130
Basically I overheard a conversation some girls were having about how if UKIP get into power the country is doomed, jokingly saying they'd all be kicked out of the country (three Asian girls and a black girl; all born here) but then went on to say Farage wanted all the Asians out which is when I said "He couldn't do that. There'd be some massive rebellion" also adding that the Tories and Labour wouldn't be much better for the country. I bowed out soon afterwards realising I'd kind of spoken where I shouldn't have (because you know, not my conversation). This got me to thinking about how there are probably a lot of people that really think that.
My dad votes for UKIP and I got into a conversation with him about it the other day. He argued that UKIP aren't actually racist, they just want tighter immigration laws and for our country to stop giving benefits to everyone who comes in.
Now while his argument, though not really backed up by anything, actually sounds more like something that COULD be a possibility I'm still not sure partially because of the bad rep they've got. I want intending on voting next year but now im considering voting for UKIP mainly because we've seen both the conservatives and labour **** up so it'd be nice to see if UKI p is an improvement. If not, we can always get rid of them in 4 years right? But anyways I'm interested as to what you all think.
I know these threads are overdone however I wanted to make a thread asking rather than focussing on certain things, I just want to ask in general do people consider UKIP good or bad?
My dad votes for UKIP and I got into a conversation with him about it the other day. He argued that UKIP aren't actually racist, they just want tighter immigration laws and for our country to stop giving benefits to everyone who comes in.
Now while his argument, though not really backed up by anything, actually sounds more like something that COULD be a possibility I'm still not sure partially because of the bad rep they've got. I want intending on voting next year but now im considering voting for UKIP mainly because we've seen both the conservatives and labour **** up so it'd be nice to see if UKI p is an improvement. If not, we can always get rid of them in 4 years right? But anyways I'm interested as to what you all think.
I know these threads are overdone however I wanted to make a thread asking rather than focussing on certain things, I just want to ask in general do people consider UKIP good or bad?
UKIP is good or exceedingly good, depending on your political views. No way they're bad. My favourite Parliament would be a Conservative majority with UKIP as Official Opposition.
Original post by billydisco
So why does the EU commissioner says she's not sure if its 75%or 80% but that "most" laws at a national level are decided in Europe....??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHp6wCc-TSc
Skip to 42 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHp6wCc-TSc
Skip to 42 seconds.
file:///C:/Users/Jacob/Downloads/RP10-62.pdf
First page, 6.1% of primary legislation, and 14.4% of legislation.
Got to get back to explaining how climate change works to the guy who posted a temperature graph for Europe as evidence that the Earth is not cooling...
Original post by billydisco
Awwwwww- you sound like the EU when Ireland voted against the Lisbon Treaty....
"Give us an answer other than the-one-we don't-want-to-hear"
Oh dear- and THIS is why people vote UKIP because of people like you. Let me guess, Labour or Lib Dem?
"Give us an answer other than the-one-we don't-want-to-hear"
Oh dear- and THIS is why people vote UKIP because of people like you. Let me guess, Labour or Lib Dem?
You're just moaning rather than providing me with reasoning for your opinions.
Prisoners being able to vote or not isn't a vital issue in the UK atm. And no, Conservative.
Original post by billydisco
I found this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg
It shows the temperature plummeting and then increasing....... so how could man have caused the temperature to plummet?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg
It shows the temperature plummeting and then increasing....... so how could man have caused the temperature to plummet?
And I found this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
That is not a global temperature graph and is therefore irrelevant to global warming.
Original post by geokinkladze
Now here's the bit I struggle with, I can understand it is a greenhouse gas, to some extent, because it traps heat (much like clouds do). However when it is cloudy, the clouds also reflect heat back up into the atmosphere, whereas those who say CO2 traps heat, don't explain why it only traps one way.. only when the heat is rebounding up.
And it is simple law of thermodynamics that something which absorbs heat also absorbs cold (absence of heat). For example metal gets hot quickly, it also gets cold quickly. So if CO2 was absorbing heat, it would also release it pretty quickly at night.
.
Now here's the bit I struggle with, I can understand it is a greenhouse gas, to some extent, because it traps heat (much like clouds do). However when it is cloudy, the clouds also reflect heat back up into the atmosphere, whereas those who say CO2 traps heat, don't explain why it only traps one way.. only when the heat is rebounding up.
And it is simple law of thermodynamics that something which absorbs heat also absorbs cold (absence of heat). For example metal gets hot quickly, it also gets cold quickly. So if CO2 was absorbing heat, it would also release it pretty quickly at night.
.
Ok, I'm going to explain this to you, because you don't seem very clear on how this works. Light coming from this Sun is mainly short-wavelength light because of its high temperature. Various layers of gas in our atmosphere absorb the highest wavelengths and so a mixture of UV and visible comes in. CO2 absorbs some of the infra-red light on the way in, but there is not that much in the first place.
The light hits the Earth, which works in the same way as fluorescent objects in that it re-radiates the light at a lower frequency. This means visible turns into IF (broadly speaking) and this is then trapped by the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.
They let it in because it's too high energy to stop, then they trap it because it loses its energy- that's how it can work one way. You know that glass also works one-way in a greenhouse? That you can make one-way bullet resistant glass? Things can work in only one direction, its not prohibited by some law of symmetry.
Original post by geokinkladze
I've read the latest (5th) IPCC assessment report,
That bastard is 1.2 thousand pages long. Why am I sceptical? Besides, just to humour you I decided to check out the introduction. The reality of man-made climate change is re-affirmed in the first bloody paragraph.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by billydisco
No- I am asking how can you panick over temperature differences (if there are any) when the temperature has always been changing on Earth?
Just because it has happened before doesn't mean it isn't happening now nor that we don't have a hand in it.
Original post by billydisco
How do you know the changes (if there are any) are due to man and not the same forces which changed the Earth's temperature over the last few billion years?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by geokinkladze
To be more accurate he sees the cost of wind turbines as extortionate compared to their benefit and is in favour of nuclear power instead as a cheaper way of reducing CO2 emissions.
None of that is incompatible with "climate change" so again, I ask, where is the evidence that UKIP doesn't believe in climate change?
None of that is incompatible with "climate change" so again, I ask, where is the evidence that UKIP doesn't believe in climate change?
#WhyImVotingUkip Because of the tiny chance all the world's climate scientists are in cahoots to crash the economy. pic.twitter.com/R0HHUbyBYj
Original post by Cal97g
Most of the people saying no are people who are just basing their opinions on the rhetoric of other parties and the media .....
I could go on and on and on correcting misinformation spread by the media, but I'd be here all night. I can't even be bothered to correct my spelling mistakes.
I could go on and on and on correcting misinformation spread by the media, but I'd be here all night. I can't even be bothered to correct my spelling mistakes.
I've had a go here! http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2687819&p=47704982
Original post by lerjj
Ok, I'm going to explain this to you, because you don't seem very clear on how this works. Light coming from this Sun is mainly short-wavelength light because of its high temperature.
I'm going to stop you there.. short wavelength light emits more heat, therefore it is inaccurate to say the light is short wavelength because of it's high temperature. It is more the other way around, it emits high temperature because of it's short wavelength. That much at least I do know.
Original post by lerjj
The light hits the Earth, which works in the same way as fluorescent objects in that it re-radiates the light at a lower frequency. This means visible turns into IF (broadly speaking) and this is then trapped by the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.
This bit I agree with, in fact it is the reason I said I accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas to some extent. The extent should be verifiable in the medium to long term, simply measure IF light at low altitude levels over time, if the heat is being caused by CO2 trapping IF light we should be able to detect this.
Original post by Cal97g
[*]UKIP's policy and intention is to withdraw from the European Decleration of HR. This is because it interfears far too much with the legal process within the UK when applied to foreign nationals. It is our intention to implement a Bill of Rights or other similar document which protects the rights of our citizens. A point to make here - England was the nation that invented freedom in its modern form. The European Decleration of Human rights isn't the source of our freedom. We've been free for almost 400 years (some would argue 800, due to the signing of the magna carta) without the ECHR poking their nose in, so why not afterwards? .
I'd be careful holding views like that. The press wasn't free up until 1853 when the government lifted the excessive stamp and advertising taxes. The Chartists certainly weren't free when the government destroyed them in the 1840s for demanding political rights that we take for granted now. The suffragettes weren't free with constant government suppression. Freedom has come in drips and drabs and has been fought for every step of the way, Britain's not the exceptional democratic nation some like to paint it as, except for the upper classes of course.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Blueray2
#WhyImVotingUkip Because of the tiny chance all the world's climate scientists are in cahoots to crash the economy. pic.twitter.com/R0HHUbyBYj
You are making an assumption there.. I could easily state
#WhyIHateUKIP Because they ask me to back up my statements with evidence but I can't.
Please note the statement I'm asking to be backed up is that UKIP doesn't believe in climate change, which is what you claimed. All I've asked for is for you to back up that claim, you can't because you are wrong.
Clearly the evidence is that they do, why would they wish to cut carbon emissions if they didn't? Why would they talk about natural warming cycle if they didn't think it existed. They just don't think we should pay through the nose in order to reduce carbon emissions. You may wish to, I don't, neither do UKIP. Neither I nor UKIP believe that the climate isn't warming up over the long term.
Original post by InnerTemple
There is a large body of opinion that we could - though UKIP are convinced that membership of the EU requires being party to the ECHR.
I can understand why UKIP are convinced. No one has tried and I'm pretty sure I can understand why. There are EU treaties which uphold it for a start, any nation would have to accept breaking those treaties and still remaining a member. It would become the thin end of a wedge for some in the EU.
Original post by InnerTemple
Depending on definition, UKIP have overestimated the amount by 25-60%.
The argument over the amount is entirely dependent on definition, for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHp6wCc-TSc
Original post by InnerTemple
The fact that the source they cite never actually said that the EU make 75% of our laws is also a massive lie.
My guess is the link above is the source.
Original post by InnerTemple
Can't look at the video at the moment, but is this the Reding comment? Or the German chap?
Reding.
Original post by InnerTemple
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...he-impacts.pdf
This page has some more information on the topic https://fullfact.org/europe/ukip_eu_..._posters-31629
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...he-impacts.pdf
This page has some more information on the topic https://fullfact.org/europe/ukip_eu_..._posters-31629
Original post by geokinkladze
You are making an assumption there.. I could easily state
#WhyIHateUKIP Because they ask me to back up my statements with evidence but I can't.
Please note the statement I'm asking to be backed up is that UKIP doesn't believe in climate change, which is what you claimed. All I've asked for is for you to back up that claim, you can't because you are wrong.
Clearly the evidence is that they do, why would they wish to cut carbon emissions if they didn't? Why would they talk about natural warming cycle if they didn't think it existed. They just don't think we should pay through the nose in order to reduce carbon emissions. You may wish to, I don't, neither do UKIP. Neither I nor UKIP believe that the climate isn't warming up over the long term.
#WhyIHateUKIP Because they ask me to back up my statements with evidence but I can't.
Please note the statement I'm asking to be backed up is that UKIP doesn't believe in climate change, which is what you claimed. All I've asked for is for you to back up that claim, you can't because you are wrong.
Clearly the evidence is that they do, why would they wish to cut carbon emissions if they didn't? Why would they talk about natural warming cycle if they didn't think it existed. They just don't think we should pay through the nose in order to reduce carbon emissions. You may wish to, I don't, neither do UKIP. Neither I nor UKIP believe that the climate isn't warming up over the long term.
UKIP's most recent official document on climate change
UKIP MEP and education secretary Derek Clark speaking in January this year
We will still ban Al Gore’s video for use in schools if I’ve got anything to do with it. I will not have much opposition within the party. It is, of course, not just this video which needs banning; all teaching of global warming being caused in any way by carbon dioxide emissions must also be banned. It just is not happening.”
Original post by Captain Haddock
That bastard is 1.2 thousand pages long. Why am I sceptical? Besides, just to humour you I decided to check out the introduction. The reality of man-made climate change is re-affirmed in the first bloody paragraph.
I agree there is a lot of fluff..but you need to go beyond the main headline grabbing first paragraphs and get into the meat and bones.
A lot of the evidence is circumstantial, the example I gave goes like this:
"During a period surveyed global temperatures rose. During the same period incidents of water shortages rose. Therefore climate change caused the water shortages."
Now as a scientist you are meant to attempt to prove the data wrong before accepting it. None of their sources for this claim attempted to prove that water shortages were caused by the most obvious alternative: rising populations. This reduces the credibility of the claims in this report, now I'm not saying warmer temperatures don't increase water shortages, but if you read the report it claims they are the major cause. I'm pretty sure rising populations are the main cause of water shortage.
Original post by DaveSmith99
UKIP's most recent official document on climate change
UKIP MEP and education secretary Derek Clark speaking in January this year
UKIP MEP and education secretary Derek Clark speaking in January this year
You are confusing climate change (which UKIP do accept) with man-made global warming (which UKIP believes is overstated).
I would be happy for my children to be taught in school that Evolution caused by Natural selection is a fact.
I wouldn't be happy for them to be taught that our species is solely responsible for global warming unless there was also a counter view that climate change happens whether we like it or not.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- What would civilisation look like if the average IQ was 150?
- DMU
- Alevel options
- What makes a satisfactory academic reference?
- Electrical Engineering Degree if bad at practicals?
- Should I drop out?
- Clearing
- Economics and Business for ALevel
- Is London Met as bad as people say?
- Bad gcse
- I can't stop overthinking about a-levels
- ucas for maths
- Emotional abuse from family member
- bad gsce record
- Law or Philosophy + Ethics A-Level?
- What to do if u score low
- Is Queen Mary good for CS?
- Can I get into imperial/ucl/Cambridge/oxford MEDICINE with bad gcse grades
- Help- Should I include this experience in my vet school application?
- Gcse
Latest
Trending
Last reply 8 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 8 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
