The Student Room Group

Are you voting for Ukip?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by leinad2012
The issue with UKIP is that even if they aren't racist (which is pretty debatable) a vast number of their supporters are.


Racists exist in every party.

Where is your hard evidence to support the accusation that the "vast number" of UKIP supporters are racist? Your anecdotal experiences on 'Facebook' don't prove that at all.

I'm a UKIP supporter who abhors racism and I support Farage 100% in his efforts to keep racists out (hence the UKIP constitution on this specific matter). They are not welcome in UKIP, never have been and never will be.

The problem is that the media have tried so hard to make UKIP a racist party that gullible, ignorant people like you have actually ended up falling for it.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by americandragon
Their pledge is to scrap tuition fees in science, medicine, technology, engineering and maths. And that's on the condition that the graduate remains in the UK for 5 years following graduation, working and paying tax. They aren't scrapping ALL tuition fees.

That's a good thing. The government can't pay for all degrees. Why pay for stupid degrees like American studies or women's studies or w/e BS they have today.
Reply 182
Original post by Imrightyourleft
Immigration per se isn't a problem; unlimited, uncontrolled and unmanaged immigration is. This is effectively UKIP's argument.

Immigration always the solution never the problem. Unlimited immigration would not create a disaster in fact it would provide greater prosperity an increased workforce of increased diversity is massively beneficial both for out looking onto the world and developing in our own country. Also may I remind you we have both an ageing population and a declining birthrate. We need immigration desperately to help care for the elderly and keep our economy moving. Not only that but a lot of the migrants that travel to the UK arrive at working age and often leave before growing old. They are any sensible economist dream and to argue the opposite is pure stupidity based of a lack of education on the matters and indoctrination by the deceitful scum-bags in the corporate mainstream media.

Original post by CrapDunGoofed
That's a good thing. The government can't pay for all degrees. Why pay for stupid degrees like American studies or women's studies or w/e BS they have today.


I'm a big supporter of STEM a lot more than most but this is the most pitiful argument I've ever seen. We need diversity of people in the workforce and people studying wider ranges of degrees can be massively beneficial both to governments and companies. For example these degrees would be very useful in the foreign/home office and in companies trying to make deals or as civil servants.
Original post by samon53
Immigration always the solution never the problem. Unlimited immigration would not create a disaster in fact it would provide greater prosperity an increased workforce of increased diversity is massively beneficial both for out looking onto the world and developing in our own country. Also may I remind you we have both an ageing population and a declining birthrate. We need immigration desperately to help care for the elderly and keep our economy moving. Not only that but a lot of the migrants that travel to the UK arrive at working age and often leave before growing old. They are any sensible economist dream and to argue the opposite is pure stupidity based of a lack of education on the matters and indoctrination by the deceitful scum-bags in the corporate mainstream media.


I cannot take anyone seriously who believes unlimited immigration is a sensible or responsible idea, more so when taking in to account that the British Isles do not have the the land mass, nor the resources which would be required to accommodate an unlimited flow of immigrants. Your view is nothing less than sheer insanity, let alone 'stupidity'. Anybody could understand this, it really isn't rocket science.


"Not only that but a lot of the migrants that travel to the UK arrive at working age and often leave before growing old"

Perhaps 'some' do. But many others do not.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 184
Original post by Imrightyourleft
I cannot take anyone seriously who believes unlimited immigration is a sensible or responsible idea, more so when taking in to account that the British Isles do not have the the land mass, nor the resources which would be required to accommodate an unlimited flow of immigrants. Your view is nothing less than sheer insanity, let alone 'stupidity'. Anybody could understand this, it really isn't rocket science.


"Not only that but a lot of the migrants that travel to the UK arrive at working age and often leave before growing old"

Perhaps 'some' do. But many others do not.


The UK is under 7% urbanised your first point shot down.
Second having an unlimited number of immigrants allowed would not mean unlimited number turning up. You'd have to be insanely Nationalistic to believe that we'd end up with truly large numbers turning up. Even if we had an unprecedented and massive influx it still would not be beyond our means to accommodate them.
Thirdly you are forgetting the fact that people are a resource not a burden. We could have a much higher productivity and GDP with a higher population.
OK lastly yes I'm sure most people could understand your argument it doesn't make it any more right though. I'm sure Intelligent design is very easy for religious zealots to understand especially when compared to a complex concept such as evolution but something being easy to understand rarely has any bearing on it's validity.
When we consider things like this, It's hardly surprising that scientific studies have actually shown a link between more left wing views and intelligence and right ones with stupidity.
I will be voting for UKIP. I really like their views on immigration, I fully support their stance regarding access to healthcare and education in immigrant families. It would be a refreshing change.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Imrightyourleft
Surely this highlights a complete ignorance towards politics? I'll be voting UKIP too because I believe in what they stand for, but to not even bother to study the party of which you intend to vote for merely to spite another (as in your case) seems to me to be futile gesture.


It is a protest vote, I almost definitely will never vote for UKIP again, so I hardly need to know much about them. If the Conservatives ditched Cameron and moved back to the centre-right of politics we would have a conservative government for ever as it would force the leftists in the labour party to stop pretending to be "new".
Which face of UKIP will that be? Seeing as they seem to have many.

Face number one; 'The Party shall conduct itself and its affairs in such a way that it does not discriminate against or in favour of any person on the grounds of their race, religion, ethnic origin, education, beliefs, sexual orientation, class, social status, sectarianism or any other basis prescribed by law.'

Face number two; 'Businesses should be able to discriminate in favour of young British workers.'

I'm all for keeping an open mind but this seems difficult when the party itself is full of contradiction. On the whole when a person doesn't get a job it is usually because they don't have the required qualifications or are lacking this skills needed. People can only take YOUR job if they're better at it that you. Why doesn't UKIP invest it's time into making people more employable, rather than constantly blaming migrant workers?
Original post by samon53
The UK is under 7% urbanised your first point shot down.


Do you have no consideration for the environment of this country? More urbanisation (incidentally cities the size of Liverpool and Glasgow at current immigration levels) would be at the expense of wildlife, agriculture and the greenbelt. My point still stands.

Original post by samon53
Second having an unlimited number of immigrants allowed would not mean unlimited number turning up.


Your lack of insight here is startling and apparent by the above quote.

You speak in hypothetical terms, as if it were the case that your vision of unlimited immigration is merely a proposal. What we presently have under the obligation of EU freedom of movement is precisely the sort of unlimited immigration you refer to. As you are likely aware, there are no restrictions layed upon any EU citizen from entering any other member state - totalling half a billion people - to work and settle here (unlimited immigration). Does that mean that every last EU citizen in another EU member state is going to migrate to the UK? Of course not. But what it does mean is that those citizens residing in poorer EU countries of whose economies are significantly worse than ours, of whose minimum wage is significantly lower than ours, and of whose standard of living is still recovering from communism and is hence drastically lower than ours, will not hesitate to come here under the current freedom of movement system.

Freedom of movement isn't such a bad idea between countries which have similar performing economies within relatively short distances (hence the feasibility of our own union - England, Wales, NI and Scotland) since there's no economic incentive from a potential migrant's perspective. But the starker the contrast of the economic state between two countries (particularly attached within a union), the greater the probability of migration is - effectively a no brainer. Which leads me to your next point...

Original post by samon53
You'd have to be insanely Nationalistic to believe that we'd end up with truly large numbers turning up.


Again, you prove yourself wrong within the hypothetical nature of your own words; if only you could see it yourself. Do you not seriously believe that the very recent migration figure of 300,000 (net) this past year alone is not a 'truly large number'? Do you not believe that the increase in immigrants by at least 5 million over the last 10 years - a level unprecedented in this country's history - is not a 'truly large number'? (Check census date if you doubt my figures). It is not a case of whether, hypothetically, this could or could not happen - these 'truly large numbers' you speak of are already here and continue to come, and the evidence within the figures proves my point. So much for 'nationalism'. Nice try. It would've been more accurate for you to have said "you'd have to be insanely realistic..."

Original post by samon53
Even if we had an unprecedented and massive influx it still would not be beyond our means to accommodate them.


Really? Why do we have a housing crisis? Why is there extreme strain on the NHS? Why are there fewer primary school places? I could go on. Within the current state of affairs, we can't accommodate our own UK born nationals, let alone the current flow of immigrants. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to, but I'm confronting a harsh reality of which your eyes are wilfully closed to.

Let me guess, you're now about to say "don't blame the immigrants for all those problems". Well I agree - I certainly do not blame the immigrants for those problems (if I were in their shoes I would do the same). Rather I blame the politicians who have allowed immigration on this insane scale.

Original post by samon53
Thirdly you are forgetting the fact that people are a resource not a burden. We could have a much higher productivity and GDP with a higher population.


You are failing to take in to account proportion. To a certain extent, your statement that 'people are a resource' is true, but only within the proportion of a particular country's land mass and natural resources. Sure, you could make the argument that natural resources can be imported, but at what cost when accounting for such a high population? If the proportion of people is greater than the proportion of such entities, then the oversupply of people themselves causes them to become no longer a resource but a drain.



Original post by samon53
OK lastly yes I'm sure most people could understand your argument it doesn't make it any more right though. I'm sure Intelligent design is very easy for religious zealots to understand especially when compared to a complex concept such as evolution but something being easy to understand rarely has any bearing on it's validity.
When we consider things like this, It's hardly surprising that scientific studies have actually shown a link between more left wing views and intelligence and right ones with stupidity.


I'm providing a logical case for my argument, so don't give me all that 'left-wing intelligence, right-wing stupidity based on scientific studies' drivel merely because you yourself believe your stance to be the valid one. Give me a break, you unrealistic crackpot.
Original post by dozyrosie
It is a protest vote, I almost definitely will never vote for UKIP again, so I hardly need to know much about them. If the Conservatives ditched Cameron and moved back to the centre-right of politics we would have a conservative government for ever as it would force the leftists in the labour party to stop pretending to be "new".


The irony is amazing. You see, if you did indeed bother to do your homework, you'd discover that UKIP are the new centre-right party which you so seemingly long for (hence the reason so many traditional Tory voters have turned to them in droves) and that there isn't a hope in hell of the Conservative Party returning to the centre-right because of its absolute clear dedication to remaining within the EU.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Gott
What makes you think people will risk the worst prime minister we'll ever have had and vote UKIP. People don't vote for them at General elections and when they do its in marginal conservative seats


What makes me think that, is that the penny may finally have dropped that it doesn't make any difference whether Cameron or Miliband are in number 10 - a vote for either, in reality, is a vote for Jean-Claude Junker because both parties are avidly pro-EU.
Guys what is the point in claiming people who don't share your views are stupid? The poor thread starter just wants to know your views.
I'm curious too - I don't happen to be a UKIP supporter so I'm curious about your views and why you are planning to vote for UKIP? What do you think they could bring to parliament if they get into power?
You bet I am :h:
Nope, on another note I found reviews of Nigel's new book very funny- check out the one star reviews.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Purple-Revolution-Changed-Everything/dp/1849548633/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top


That's his personal opinion but just because he supports an insurance based system it doesn't mean the party do

He proposed that to become policy but an overwhelming majority of the party chose to keep the policy on a free NHS. Party policy doesn't always have to be representative of just the leader wants, there's more than just him in UKIP
Original post by leinad2012
Farage and UKIP are the main party wanting to privatise the NHS (said today that if you can afford private healthcare then you shouldn't use the NHS).

Looks like you only support UKIP because of their immigration policy then, like 99% of their voters.


UKIP is more than just Nigel Farage. He may want that but the majority of the party don't, maybe check their policies if you don't believe me.

And I happen to support the party due to many other policies, not just for the immigration policy
Original post by Gott
You think that their economic policy is identical? :colonhash:


'Identical' is not a word I introduced in to this discussion.

However, both parties are committed to handing away £50 million per day to the EU; both are committed to spending £60-80 billion on HS2; both are committed to retaining the foreign aid budget at least £12 billion per year; both are committed to spending billions on green subsidiaries each year... and so on, so on.

It seems on major issues, including economic ones I've just mentioned, Labour and the Tories are near indistinguishable. You can argue about their differences on minor issues, fair enough, but I think the major issues obviously mean more to people.

Once upon a time, when the 'Conservative' Party used to actually do what it said on the tin and were more distinguishable from Labour (particularly on major issues), I would've voted for them too.
Original post by Gott
Incidentally, do you realise that the leave from the EU would not only be disasterous but pointless, as most of UKIPs propaganda is complaining about the European Court of Human Rights which is an entirely separate body to the fiscal Union?


You really don't know that much about UKIP, do you? Far from 'most of UKIP's propaganda' concerning human rights issues, UKIP's motives for leaving the EU stretch much further than that alone. Do I really need to go through it all?
Reply 198
I am not British but I were one I would defintly vote UKIP.
Original post by Sam280297
UKIP is more than just Nigel Farage. He may want that but the majority of the party don't, maybe check their policies if you don't believe me.

And I happen to support the party due to many other policies, not just for the immigration policy


I actually have looked at their policies, every single one (because whilst I don't like them I want my opinion to be informed) and there are clear faults long term and short term faults in their plans, a ridiculous number of "popularity policies" which are irrelevant or will cost us money for little return and some very poorly thought out policies.

They do have a one or two policies that I like, such as creating a new tax bracket of 35% but other than that a large number are poorly thought.

Unfortunately I've got a lot of uni work ATM so won't be able to post what I think in wrong with their policies until the weekend, which is why I haven't replied to he previous poster yet.

Out of interest what other policies do they have (not just popularity ones like giving all soldiers "national service medals", actual important ones that conflict with the main parties) that you agree with?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending