The Student Room Group

Do you consider UKIP good or bad?

Scroll to see replies

Bad.

A lot has been already written by earlier posters about the bad things. Two I would mention is their view on overseas aid (have almost none) and the abolition of the DCMS (so little or no funding for the arts, a major draw for tourism).
Original post by Misovlogos
You said:

"If every person from country X moved to country Y, then country Y will begin to resemble country X and I don't fancy England resembling Slovakia!"

To which my statement applied.

Ohhhhhhhhh so because I casually said "countries", this now means I am wrong and that I cannot imply regions change due to immigration?

Areas do change due to immigration- go look at Bradford and Tower Hamlets. Im right, you're wrong.



Original post by Misovlogos
No, I'm saying your claims have an epistemic burden, which emotional declarations of nationalism don't satisfy. If you cannot even attempt to justify your views, why do you think others should observe them?

Which claims?

Are you suggesting more people doesn't equal more demand on infrastructure?
Are you suggesting low-earners don't consume more than contribute?

MORE PEOPLE = MORE CONGESTION
Original post by geokinkladze

I'd say if UKIP changed the law then no it wouldn't. But it WOULD be possible for public services to hire based on nationality. Which is the vision that they are pushig for,


So Tim Aker was wrong when, on last week's Sunday Politics, he said that he would get rid of race discrimination laws?
Original post by billydisco
I think you're failing to see the real cop-out:

They negotiate, get something pathetic in return and then tell us we dont need a referendum because we got "something" from the negotiations....


No, you didn't understand what the tories promised. I merely told you, by quoting their words.

If a conservative government (not a coalition) were to negotiate, get an agreement and refuse to take it to the country as was in their manifesto it would bring the government down. Anyone with any sense of our parliamentary democracy could tell you that.

What you are proposing is extremely unlikely...as I've said Cameron wouldn't agree to something IF he didn't think he could win a referendum. By not agreeing to something he can say he didn't get a negotiation and therefore there is no referendum. That is his get out.
Original post by InnerTemple
Well there are only certain circumstances when positive action can come into play. It was not, as some would have you believe, a case of someone who was disabled or from a minority background having an automatic advantage.

In any event, this is about getting rid of anti discrimination laws altogether. Even if you disagree with positive action, you do not need to eradicate discrimination laws altogether.

I believe in whatever increases our employment rate- which is British people getting jobs over immigrants.

Immigrants coming here and getting low-skilled jobs, when our own natives could have been forced to do these jobs would be better for the whole country:

-No population increase, therefore no infrastructure spending increase, no extra demand on housing, schools, NHS, roads etc
-Less social welfare expenditure
Original post by billydisco
I believe in whatever increases our employment rate- which is British people getting jobs over immigrants.

Immigrants coming here and getting low-skilled jobs, when our own natives could have been forced to do these jobs would be better for the whole country:

-No population increase, therefore no infrastructure spending increase, no extra demand on housing, schools, NHS, roads etc
-Less social welfare expenditure


So that would be allowing discrimination based on nationality, which is different to racial discrimination.
Original post by InnerTemple
So Tim Aker was wrong when, on last week's Sunday Politics, he said that he would get rid of race discrimination laws?



Do you want to look at that again? I don't see where you get that interpretation from.
Original post by geokinkladze
The move from direct to indirect has been steady for a few decades now. The real advantage (to politicians) is it is less visible. People see their payslips, they don't often see the vat on their receipts.

It does also give choice.. if you want to spend more money then you pay more tax.


Not saying it doesn't give 'choice' as such, just that it's regressive. In my opinion, some things should come before 'choice'. E.g. public healthcare or sensible taxation policy.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Pro Crastination
LOL. Because white, middle aged, middle class men are just so underrepresented in our Parliament, in our professions... I could go on.

What the **** is a 'white' interest anyway?


I'd guess if you had a "National White Police Association" then that would form part of it.
Original post by geokinkladze
Do you want to look at that again? I don't see where you get that interpretation from.


Probably this bit:

Tim Donovan: "You would not get rid of any race discrimination laws?"
Tim Aker: "The Equality Act needs to go other laws which have gone beyond their use."
Tim Donovan: "So you would get rid of race equality laws?"
Tim Aker: "I don't think we need them anymore."
Original post by billydisco
Ohhhhhhhhh so because I casually said "countries", this now means I am wrong and that I cannot imply regions change due to immigration?

Areas do change due to immigration- go look at Bradford and Tower Hamlets. Im right, you're wrong.


Well, I responded to a particular claim, to which you responded by changing your initial claim. That obviously is not good argumentative practice; that the second claim might be defensible is no defence of the initial claim, and indeed, not rebut to my response. In fact, the exact force of my response was that you made a wildly exaggerated suggestion, one that would never actually occur, which is vindicated by the fact you have back-pedalled to a far milder one.


Original post by billydisco
Which claims?

Are you suggesting more people doesn't equal more demand on infrastructure?
Are you suggesting low-earners don't consume more than contribute?

MORE PEOPLE = MORE CONGESTION


That a pre-given 'us' has a normatively prior claim to residence in the UK. If one simply assumes that a body of people has an absolute claim to residence in a state, then you skip over the entire argument to be had. Why do they have a greater claim than anyone else? I'm not saying they don't, I'm only saying you need to produce an argument.
Original post by InnerTemple
So Tim Aker was wrong when, on last week's Sunday Politics, he said that he would get rid of race discrimination laws?


Farage wants a return to a Golden Age that cannot be achieved by legislation.

Like most populist politicians he has a problem with the rule of law; that how society operates is determined by rules that are set out in advance.

Farage wants an employer to be able to say "British applicants only" but not to be able to say "Polish applicants only" and would be mortified if that allowed an employer to say "white applicants only" or some nationality-based euphemism for that.

He doesn't want to lay down a rule. That, not racism, is why he doesn't want anti-discrimination laws. He, like the Daily Mail, wants to be able to judge his response case by case in hindsight and taking into account matters that are irrelevant to the question at hand.

At the bottom, it matters to him whether the guy throwing the punch at the junior employee is a good bloke or not.
Original post by Pro Crastination
Not saying it doesn't give 'choice' as such, just that it's regressive.


I agree with you, I wasn't arguing that it wasn't progressive, just explaining the reasons why certain parties push the agenda. Just be aware direct/indirect isn't always necessarily progressive/regressive. Corporation tax is direct but I would argue that in practice it is rather regressive.


Original post by Pro Crastination
In my opinion, some things should come before 'choice'. E.g. public healthcare or sensible taxation policy.


I don't see how choice necessarily comes before a sensible taxation policy. Sensible taxation policy is a subjective argument and could be predicated on having a degree of choice. What is sensible to you (being progressive as opposed to having a choice) might not be a priority to someone else. Personally I'm a big believer in choice.
Reply 933
Avatar for kumon
kumon
16
Original post by EllieC130
Well guess I'm not gonna be voting then. This country is officially ****ed no matter what direction we go in. I don't blame people for being scared.

Vote for the green party.
Original post by InnerTemple
I'll ask you a question: Under UKIP would discrimination on the grounds of RACE be illegal?


Original post by geokinkladze
I'd say if UKIP changed the law then no it wouldn't.


Original post by InnerTemple
So Tim Aker was wrong when, on last week's Sunday Politics, he said that he would get rid of race discrimination laws?


Original post by geokinkladze
Do you want to look at that again? I don't see where you get that interpretation from.


Please note the interpretation I'm referring to is your assertion that what I said about UKIP is at odds with Tim Aker.


Original post by InnerTemple
Probably this bit:

Tim Donovan: "You would not get rid of any race discrimination laws?"
Tim Aker: "The Equality Act needs to go other laws which have gone beyond their use."
Tim Donovan: "So you would get rid of race equality laws?"
Tim Aker: "I don't think we need them anymore."


I summarised the UKIP position, I don't see where I got them wrong.

Are you slipping?

:smile:
Original post by geokinkladze

I summarised the UKIP position, I don't see where I got them wrong.

:smile:


I am asking if Tim Aker is wrong.

You are saying discrimination laws concerning race would not be abolished. Tim Aker said that he would abolish them and felt that they were unnecessary.

Did Tim go off script?
Original post by EllieC130
Well guess I'm not gonna be voting then. This country is officially ****ed no matter what direction we go in. I don't blame people for being scared.


Why? You're welcome to be completely and utterly despondent about our future, but please tell us why.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by InnerTemple
I am asking if Tim Aker is wrong.

You are saying discrimination laws concerning race would not be abolished. Tim Aker said that he would abolish them and felt that they were unnecessary.

Did Tim go off script?


FFS can you read the message where I painstakingly copy pasted quotations. It's my most recent reply to you before this.

Read your first question in that message.

Read my response.

Paraphrased roughly:

Q. Under UKIP would discrimination be illegal
A. No

What bit of that do you not get?
Original post by geokinkladze
FFS can you read the message where I painstakingly copy pasted quotations. It's my most recent reply to you before this.

Read your first question in that message.

Read my response.

Paraphrased roughly:

Q. Under UKIP would discrimination be illegal
A. No

What bit of that do you not get?


Seems to me that, as far as you know, UKIP would not get rid of laws concerning racial discrimination.

Which would mean that Tim Aker was wrong in what he said.
Original post by geokinkladze
What you are proposing is extremely unlikely...as I've said Cameron wouldn't agree to something IF he didn't think he could win a referendum. By not agreeing to something he can say he didn't get a negotiation and therefore there is no referendum. That is his get out.

So you're proposing Cameron will come back, say negotiations have failed but not offer a referendum because he said initially he'd only hold one if negotiations succeeded (which doesn't even make logical sense itself)? :confused:
(edited 9 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you