Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    A lot of people think that the entire culture of their country is somewhat important. It's sort of a bizarre argument - why did India bother waging a brutal struggle for independence when that isn't really a very important issue compared to economic development or the environment? Most people don't need to ask.
    What power would a government actually have to restore "British values" and "British culture" (whatever those are)? Especially a "libertarian" government like UKIP which should, according to its base ideology, be striving to minimise government involvement as much as possible. The government can only really influence the behaviour of its citizens by passing and enforcing laws, so this idea of "restoring British culture" sounds pretty coercive and paternalistic to me. What if me and all the other people who don't vote for them don't want to act according to their conception of "British values", I wonder, will they just give up on us or will they try to push us?


    Also, the "it's only 1% of GDP" argument doesn't really cut it. 1% of GDP is a huge amount, more than our international aid budget. We can't spare that, and even if we could, there's simply no case to be made for spending it on expanding the (supposedly non-interventionist) military when we're still struggling to overcome our national debt.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    I'm not talking about HS2 itself, but how they claim to be the only party against it, as if that should make them special.
    i guess that is a technicality

    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Even if we wanted to do this, where would the money come from? How will this help to boost our economy, to lower our debts...?
    I guess it would count as employment and could be partially offset by less people on the dole!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    It'd be cheaper for the train companies, but the customer won't see any corresponding drop in their ticket prices. The companies will simply gobble up the profit. What motivation have they to reduce prices, when they control an entire rail line?
    Virgin etc. don't actually own the lines or any other physical infrastructure; it's owned by a nationalised industry-but-called-something-else, Networth Rail. But for what it's worth the franchises don't make large profits on revenue.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    I understand opportunity cost and the need for things to justify their expense. You are however participating in infinite regression here. You need to take into account the positives, too.
    Granted there are benefits but how do we know if they're worth more than the costs? The political system is a bad mechanism for identifying profitable investments and I'd think in a time of extreme pressure on the public finances things like HS2 would be the first to go.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    What power would a government actually have to restore "British values" and "British culture" (whatever those are)? Especially a "libertarian" government like UKIP which should, according to its base ideology, be striving to minimise government involvement as much as possible. The government can only really influence the behaviour of its citizens by passing and enforcing laws, so this idea of "restoring British culture" sounds pretty coercive and paternalistic to me. What if me and all the other people who don't vote for them don't want to act according to their conception of "British values", I wonder, will they just give up on us or will they try to push us?
    Who knows? But you said it was unimportant and clearly it isn't - even if you oppose the government interfering with culture.

    One thing UKIP could do that wouldnt interfere with its claimed libertarian principles would be to stop government promotion of things they dont consider to fit with British culture. Alternatively they might not actually be libertarians. I suspect a bit of both.


    Also, the "it's only 1% of GDP" argument doesn't really cut it. 1% of GDP is a huge amount, more than our international aid budget. We can't spare that, and even if we could, there's simply no case to be made for spending it on expanding the (supposedly non-interventionist) military when we're still struggling to overcome our national debt.
    Foreign aid budget is not very large either, and UKIP probably wants to get rid of it which is an easy answer to the question of where they will find the money. The cancellation of HS2 which you mentioned in your own OP is another.

    I agree there's a strong argument these savings should go to reducing the deficit rather than increasing military spending; but the planned expansion in military spending is hardly implausible even given the deficit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    restoring british culture and values is a pretty hard thing to implement because its always in flux. however they could make it possible for BRITISH people themselves to take control of their own destiny and not have their cultural future decided by alien peoples, religions and cultures who are literally colonising britain in such large numbers.

    nothing wrong with a bit of immigration. however, what is happening is not immigration. its more like invasion. ( not blaming immigrants either, just the system which allows the evil the dispossession of the british people to take place)
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Who knows? But you said it was unimportant and clearly it isn't - even if you oppose the government interfering with culture.

    One thing UKIP could do that wouldnt interfere with its claimed libertarian principles would be to stop government promotion of things they dont consider to fit with British culture. Alternatively they might not actually be libertarians. I suspect a bit of both.




    Foreign aid budget is not very large either, and UKIP probably wants to get rid of it which is an easy answer to the question of where they will find the money. The cancellation of HS2 which you mentioned in your own OP is another.

    I agree there's a strong argument these savings should go to reducing the deficit rather than increasing military spending; but the planned expansion in military spending is hardly implausible even given the deficit.
    I'm not the person you were initially responding to, I just took the opportunity to express my scepticism

    But yes I do consider UKIP's claim to be "libertarians" highly dubious.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Greens have negligible national support despite a few isolated pockets so UKIP is likely ignoring them. Of course you can always find some small party that believes in any given policy but it's not in their interest to increase the standing of their rivals.
    So they have the interest to act as if they are somewhat special/unique? I've seen a lot of that from UKIP.


    (Original post by Observatory)
    It's like 1% of GDP; while one could argue any increase in spending today is difficult or ill-advised, this particular spending increase is not that large. People have a very warped view of how much money is spent on the military, I guess as a left-over from the Cold War or WWII.
    1% is a significant amount of money, which could go elsewhere.


    (Original post by Observatory)
    A lot of people think that the entire culture of their country is somewhat important. It's sort of a bizarre argument - why did India bother waging a brutal struggle for independence when that isn't really a very important issue compared to economic development or the environment? Most people don't need to ask.
    Independance is a much greater issue than developing a ''unified'' culture.


    (Original post by Observatory)
    I don't think they're suggesting anything of the sort. This seems specifically aimed at British citizens who intentionally fly to places like Afghanistan where British soldiers are fighting Islamist extremists in order to join with the Islamists. This is why there were a number of British citizens in Guantanimo Bay, for instance.
    If this is the case, then why introduce a treason act?

    (Original post by Checkpoint)
    Yes because the big three are no better. Its comments like this, why the british economy is the way it is. No one is ballsy enough for some change and any party other than the big three is a joke?


    One thing people are forgetting, how many parties actually stick to their manifesto in power?
    Two (or three) wrongs don't make a right. Saying ''no other party sticks to their manifesto'', does not justify why UKIP should not. If they SAY they are going to do certain things, then end up not doing said things (which, according to you, every other party does), then that makes them, along with the others, liars.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    1. I'm not aware of the Green Party coming second in a national election across the UK.

    I'm not aware of the Green Party having 11 MEPs in the European Parliament.

    I'm not aware of the Green Party coming fourth in a UK General Election.

    I'm not aware of the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democats, BNP or Respect having a single member in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

    2. The point about where the money is coming from is something that's always a nonsense. Since Labour entered office in 1997, they created more than a million quangos, of which most are unnecessary regulators placing yet more burdens on the British taxpayer. We would end these quangos, which cost £60bn a year, saving the UK taxpayer hundreds of billions of pounds.

    We would also withdraw from the European Union, saving a net of £10-15bn a year, and an indirect cost to business of £120bn.

    And the argument that foreign aid is not very large is absolute nonsense. The foreign aid budget in this country costs us £25 million every single day. We're effectively sending endless cheques to corrupt regimes abroad, benefiting career politicians, and not the people it is meant to.

    Unlike the other parties, UKIP have a working strategy for growth. Manufacturing is being driven off our shores because of European carbon targets; only to re-open in India. So even if it was for environmental reasons, the net benefit is diddly squat, and jobs are lost unnecessarily. There is also far too much regulatory burden on employers making them apprehensive to take anyone on, especially the small and medium-sized businesses which after all equate for 60% of the jobs in Britain. They are worried about taking people on, particularly school leavers, because they can finish up with a costly industrial tribunal thanks to the avalanche of employment and workers' rights legislation coming from Brussels. These are things the Westminster Parliament can debate, it's not for Strasbourg.

    Also uncontrolled immigration is very beneficial - to unscrupulous employers looking to exploit vulnerable people. It's been a gift to them as they are able to make these people work all the hours god sends for very little at all, sometimes in appalling conditions, doing menial work that the 2.5million unemployed can do in this country. Take this for size: 8 jobs in Costa and 1,700 applicants; 22 jobs in DFS, 2,500 applicants; we do not need anymore unskilled labour. Immigration is very much beneficial on a controlled basis, it is not yet when you have large numbers of unskilled people competing with the unskilled all ready here.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    If anything, its merely the fact that UKIP's policies will cause an actual change.

    Tbh, the reason why their getting support now is because the main 2 parties are just back and forth arguing frantically over a little percent of change, like a 1p beer duty or something, and theyre going nowhere but down the spiral. The fact that the Tories propose things such as a referendum in 2017 instead of, you know what, scratch that, lets just have one right now.

    When times are rough in economies, people look for change, whether it be further left or further right, that is what history tells us.

    Boris for PM!!:rolleyes:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackJack)
    1. I'm not aware of the Green Party coming second in a national election across the UK.



    I'm not aware of the Green Party coming fourth in a UK General Election.
    Had to stop you there. You may want to check the last election results.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    They would be perfect if it wasn't for their military build policy..

    Oh well, they still get my vote.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Forgive me if this is in the wrong section of the forum, or if this is against forum rules, but I wanted to see your opinion on this.

    Anyway, here are a few of my issues that I have with UKIP. Information regarding their political beliefs come from both their website and manifesto:


    1. UKIP has stated that they are the only party against HS2, on more than one occasion: (http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-n...says-no-to-hs2) (http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-n...y-opposing-hs2).

    However, the ''Green Party of England and Wales'' is also against HS2:http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/26...-decision.html)
    and (http://eastmidlands.greenparty.org.u...-hs2-proposal/).

    Does UKIP not recognise the Green Party as an official party? Or are they not big enough to be considered so? They have at least 1 person in the House of Commons, and 2 in the London Assembly. I'm not aware if UKIP has anyone in either. With regards to membership, both are said to have had around 12,000 members in 2011: (http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05125).

    If this was a genuine mistake, then why have they not realised this? It's been three years and they are still claiming this.



    2. They wish to:

    - ''Spend an extra 40% on defence annually'' - Using figures from the Guardian and Wikipedia, this is an extra £15.6 billion a year. Where is the money going to come from to pay for this? There are many other policies regarding increased defence spending, which means even more money will be required.

    - ''Expand the army by 25%, to 125000 personel'' - Why? If we are in a time whereas our economy needs to prosper, to develop and to evolve, what use is a bigger army? I don't feel threatened by other countries, and, according to Nigel himself, UKIP are against ''Interventionist Wars'': (www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BmwrvypU_U).

    - ''Introduce better pay, medical care and conditions for the British Armed Forces personnel and their families'' - Again, where is the money going to come to do this? Why is this important? It costs more than you may think to provide better medical and social care.

    It could be argued that we need a bigger military to ''participate more in world affairs''. However, why do we need a bigger military to do this? Is the current size not big enough? Last time I checked, we were important in world affairs, and already play a large role.



    3. They plan on restoring the ''British Culture'' and ''British Values'', for what reason? Why spend time, money and effort on something which isn't at all important. We have bigger things to worry about. Spending time ''creating a unified British Culture'' (something which is very difficult to do anyway) is not going to benefit our economy, the environment, ect ect..

    They wish to ''reintroduce a proper Treason Act to prosecute British Citizen found guilty of attacks on the British people or armed forces.'' By that wording, I could go out tomorrow, shout out that the armed forces are a waste of money, and get punished for it. ''Attacks'' is not specified as physical violence against someone else. If it is ment to mean this, why use the word ''attack''. Physical violence against a military, or people, is often known as a form of terrorism, which we have laws against.

    I hate to bring this in, but by both introducing a unified ''culture'', and by making it punishable to speak out against the country, UKIP are making themselves look like, dare I say it, fascists. But i'll end that there.



    I have several other disagreements with UKIP, such as their policies/beliefs about the environment, science, the EU, immigration, tax cuts and increased spending. There are a few things I do agree, but I have not seen clear and precise methods of how to carry forth their ideas. It is very much ''we will do this, we need to encourage this''. Of course, most parties are like this, which is a damn shame.


    So you may have realised i'm not the biggest fan of UKIP. I wanted to share my feelings with you, what do you think? I don't know a huge amount about politics, and my views are based on what i've seen.
    Presumably UKIP plan (rightly or wrongly) to expand the army and to increase military spending by sacrificing the HS2 - which would leave rail services in England stuck in the 1800s and by exiting the EU which would isolate the country from being part of a large trading block, with the benefits of free movement etc.

    All for the military and a manufactured "British" culture...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackJack)
    1. I'm not aware of the Green Party coming second in a national election across the UK.

    I'm not aware of the Green Party having 11 MEPs in the European Parliament.
    Ironic - the only thing UKIP can get elected to is a body they themselves admit is impotent.

    Oh, and btw, the Greens' best performance at a national election is about the same as UKIP's in terms of the vote: UKIP's best was the last European elections, where they got 16.5%; the Greens' best was the 1989 European elections, where they got 15% (on a slightly higher turnout than in 2009).

    I'm not aware of the Green Party coming fourth in a UK General Election.
    But since the point of general elections is to win seats, nor technically have UKIP.

    I'm not aware of the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democats, BNP or Respect having a single member in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    Well in the last Assembly elections, the UUP were still affliated to the Tories, so you could say the Tories have 16 seats. But with the exception of the BNP, none of those parties contest seats in NI.

    Also uncontrolled immigration is very beneficial - to unscrupulous employers looking to exploit vulnerable people. It's been a gift to them as they are able to make these people work all the hours god sends for very little at all, sometimes in appalling conditions, doing menial work that the 2.5million unemployed can do in this country. Take this for size: 8 jobs in Costa and 1,700 applicants; 22 jobs in DFS, 2,500 applicants; we do not need anymore unskilled labour. Immigration is very much beneficial on a controlled basis, it is not yet when you have large numbers of unskilled people competing with the unskilled all ready here.
    Businesses can already do this due to free movement of capital. Restrictions on immigration within a context of free capital movement are simply beggar--thy-neighbour, race to the bottom policies.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan-James)
    If anything, its merely the fact that UKIP's policies will cause an actual change.

    Tbh, the reason why their getting support now is because the main 2 parties are just back and forth arguing frantically over a little percent of change, like a 1p beer duty or something, and theyre going nowhere but down the spiral. The fact that the Tories propose things such as a referendum in 2017 instead of, you know what, scratch that, lets just have one right now.

    When times are rough in economies, people look for change, whether it be further left or further right, that is what history tells us.

    Boris for PM!!:rolleyes:
    I'm curious as to why you think that the Tories should have called one now given that they would not have a parliamentary majority (therefore lose embarrassingly) and it would only seek to expedite a Scottish exit.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Do UKIP are basically a uk Tea Party? I'm finding a lot of pissed off Torys are joining


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I generally agree with most of UKIPs policies but i don't agree with their increase in defence or increase in army numbers and other related stuff. :eyeball:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Ironic - the only thing UKIP can get elected to is a body they themselves admit is impotent.

    Oh, and btw, the Greens' best performance at a national election is about the same as UKIP's in terms of the vote: UKIP's best was the last European elections, where they got 16.5%; the Greens' best was the 1989 European elections, where they got 15% (on a slightly higher turnout than in 2009).



    But since the point of general elections is to win seats, nor technically have UKIP.



    Well in the last Assembly elections, the UUP were still affliated to the Tories, so you could say the Tories have 16 seats. But with the exception of the BNP, none of those parties contest seats in NI.



    Businesses can already do this due to free movement of capital. Restrictions on immigration within a context of free capital movement are simply beggar--thy-neighbour, race to the bottom policies.
    I'm still unaware of the Green Party coming second in a national election?

    And you really do talk some nonsense. There are unscrupulous employers who will only hire foreign migrants because they can make them work all the hours god sends for very little money. Butlins is just one example. The EU's free movement of people promotes this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Izzyeviel)
    Had to stop you there. You may want to check the last election results.
    I have. They came 7th in 2010.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by datpiff)
    Do UKIP are basically a uk Tea Party? I'm finding a lot of pissed off Torys are joining

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Not as bad (there not religious) but pretty similar.

    Even heard Farage calling Obama a man of the left.

    (Original post by JackJack)
    I'm still unaware of the Green Party coming second in a national election?

    And you really do talk some nonsense. There are unscrupulous employers who will only hire foreign migrants because they can make them work all the hours god sends for very little money. Butlins is just one example. The EU's free movement of people promotes this.
    Irrelevant, our political system means that you could come second on 49% of the vote and still not get a single seat (this assumes one other party).

    The Greens have have an MP and stand a chance of taking a second, they also have more councilors.

    Ukip have come second in the European elections but that is only 1 of 3 elections that matter in this country.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.