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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farage is a hero)
    Well unlike the Conservatives who proposed an arbitrary number to appease the newspapers, (and have never even remotely hit that target might I add) UKIP proposes looking at the skills shortages we have and granting work permits to the people with those skills.
    So UKIP might ultimately admit more people than the Conservatives propose to admit and more people than are being admitted now?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ridwan12)
    They hinted they'll joint tories in a coalition if they promise a vote, so yh.
    If UKIP won the election they'd still want a coalition with the Tories?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frappé)
    Can you explain why there's the 'misconception' that Ukip is racist? Where has it stemmed from if it is untrue and how has it blown so out of proportion?

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Well I could probably write a thesis on the subject of race in the UK over the last 20 years.
    In my opinion, the most concise answer would be that under Mr Blair the political establishment realized that the best way to carry out character assassinations against rivals was to label them one of the may -isms. With racism being the most effective.
    UKIP is a young party and certainly not part of the political establishment, yet it is threatening those established politicians. We are fast gaining ground and are instilling fear within the main parties that the years of them being able to do whatever they wanted while maintaining their core voting base are over.
    Consequently they feel the need to put us down and fall back on their trusted technique of branding us racists and fruitcakes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    If UKIP won the election they'd still want a coalition with the Tories?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farage is a hero)
    UKIP is a young party and certainly not part of the political establishment, yet it is threatening those established politicians.
    But rapidly becoming one. UKIP used to advocate radical (albeit arguably incoherent) policies. Today they're all gone except for leaving the EU, and that has not only pretty much dropped off the agenda, it's in principle an establishment policy as UKIP proposes to hold a referendum just like the Conservatives do.

    UKIP has never been racist, but it's much more an anti-immigration single issue party today than it ever was an anti-EU single issue party. On most other points (and increasingly on this one too) it has made its peace with the establishment and adopted language that they don't object to.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Farage was a barrow boy of sorts, entering banking without a degree and climbing the ranks by selling effectively. This is a well paid job for sure but much closer to what a lot of ordinary people do (e.g. estate agent, used car salesman, insurance salesman, call centre employee, accountant) than typical low paid MP-track jobs being a parliamentary researcher or working for a think tank. Ultimately people perceive this in how he acts and talks and the opinions that he holds, rather than by reviewing his CV; he has indeed never hidden that he is rich, going around in tweed jackets and smoking cigars. The only mainstream figures I can think of like him are Ken Clarke and Tony Benn, both also super rich men who are perceived as honest because they don't try to hide what they are and seem to be passionate about what they say.
    Your not wrong and its not a bad thing that he made a success of himself but I'd say he waters his true image down although that may be a reflection of the electorate. His claim not be part of the political establishment is in particular spurious albeit he's not been mainstream.

    I'd say that Boris is much more open although I actually think he makes himself look stupider than he is.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farage is a hero)
    Well I could probably write a thesis on the subject of race in the UK over the last 20 years.

    UKIP is a young party and certainly not part of the political establishment,
    UKIP is over 20 years old, has MPs, hundreds of councellors, a third of UK MEPs and even some Lords.

    How is it either a young party, or outside the establishment? OK its three years younger than the Green Party of England and Wales but over a decade older than the Respect Party, and much more ingrained in the establishment than either of them...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    UKIP is over 20 years old, has MPs, hundreds of councellors, a third of UK MEPs and even some Lords.

    How is it either a young party, or outside the establishment?
    The establishment is roughly defined as the people who rule the country. Neither councillors, Lords, nor MEPs rule the country. Nor do two MPs.

    What's more it's not even enough just to rule it in the sense of holding sovereignty in legal principle, which UKIP doesn't or even close. You have to have done so for long enough that the institutions have been shaped to your liking. A more pertinent question is how many Oxford dons votes UKIP? How many senior civil servants? How many writers for broadsheet newspapers?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frappé)
    Can you explain why there's the 'misconception' that Ukip is racist? Where has it stemmed from if it is untrue and how has it blown so out of proportion?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    UKIP is actually the opposite of racist. The current immigration system in the EU is racist and discriminatory against non-EU citizens (we give priority to EU citizens which means we have to turn down lots of Indians, Australians, Americans etc.)

    If we are taken outside the EU by UKIP, we will be able to have controlled immigration and we will be able to take more non-EU citizens. Instead of basing who we take in by what country they live in (which is arguable racist) we will base it on what they can offer to our country.

    The other Parties and the media call UKIP racist because they dared to mention the issue of uncontrolled immigration. They are scared of UKIP's recent rise in votes and have resorted to using lies and slander in an attempt to destroy the Party's reputation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    So UKIP might ultimately admit more people than the Conservatives propose to admit and more people than are being admitted now?
    The Conservatives cannot realistically propose any number as being a member of the EU makes any cap irrelevant.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    But rapidly becoming one. UKIP used to advocate radical (albeit arguably incoherent) policies. Today they're all gone except for leaving the EU, and that has not only pretty much dropped off the agenda, it's in principle an establishment policy as UKIP proposes to hold a referendum just like the Conservatives do.

    UKIP has never been racist, but it's much more an anti-immigration single issue party today than it ever was an anti-EU single issue party. On most other points (and increasingly on this one too) it has made its peace with the establishment and adopted language that they don't object to.
    I'd say that's largely thanks to FPTP being a political system which forces moderation since the British people are not especially extreme and a significant percentage if the vote is needed for power. A good thing for those happy with the current consensus like myself (with a few trimmings needed round the edges) but a bad thing for those who want radical politics.

    There are of course exceptions where circumstances have allowed a radical alternative.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farage is a hero)
    The Conservatives cannot realistically propose any number as being a member of the EU makes any cap irrelevant.
    De-facto the Conservatives' position is that there is a skills shortage in any position where any company is willing to offer a job to anyone in the EU for any reason.

    While I've phrased it in such a way that it might sound extreme, that actually isn't an unreasonable definition.

    So if UKIP plans to expand the area from the EU to the world, how much are they going to tighten that definition? The top 1% of the rest of the world in terms of skills is still 70m people - more than the population of the UK!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The establishment is roughly defined as the people who rule the country. Neither councillors, Lords, nor MEPs rule the country. Nor do two MPs.

    What's more it's not even enough just to rule it in the sense of holding sovereignty in legal principle, which UKIP doesn't or even close. You have to have done so for long enough that the institutions have been shaped to your liking. A more pertinent question is how many Oxford dons votes UKIP? How many senior civil servants? How many writers for broadsheet newspapers?
    Ah ok.

    So Labour isn't part of the establishment either then.

    Oxford dons, broadsheet newspaper writers and the SCS don't rule the country. Ministers and the judiciary do.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonwinner)
    UKIP is actually the opposite of racist. The current immigration system in the EU is racist and discriminatory against non-EU citizens (we give priority to EU citizens which means we have to turn down lots of Indians, Australians, Americans etc.)
    So racist that non EU migration accounts for two thirds of all migration?

    Hmm... ok...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'd say that's largely thanks to FPTP being a political system which forces moderation since the British people are not especially extreme and a significant percentage if the vote is needed for power. A good thing for those happy with the current consensus like myself (with a few trimmings needed round the edges) but a bad thing for those who want radical politics.

    There are of course exceptions where circumstances have allowed a radical alternative.
    You are right if UKIP want to win a general election.

    The question is whether that should ever had been a goal.

    Winning a general election means displacing if not destroying the Conservative party. To the extent that is even possible, it means 2-3 terms of Labour government regardless of whether the popular vote splits left or right; perhaps more.

    To place pressure on the Conservatives to adopt certain policies UKIP did not need to win an election. Even a few percent is important where such margins determine elections. But to do this they would need clear and divergent policies which they no longer have.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by the bear)
    I am 80% convinced to vote for UKIP in May. The horrible events in France are going to bring a rich harvest of votes for Nigel and Marine.
    That's a textbook example of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Ah ok.

    So Labour isn't part of the establishment either then.

    Oxford dons, broadsheet newspaper writers and the SCS don't rule the country. Ministers and the judiciary do.
    Are you saying that Labour don't meet my definition or are you saying my definition is wrong? Labour do meet my definition.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farage is a hero)
    The Conservatives cannot realistically propose any number as being a member of the EU makes any cap irrelevant.
    Not strictly true. If they wanted a cap of 150,000 and reduced non-EU net immigration to zero then they would achieve it despite being in the EU.

    That's not to say it would be a good idea though.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    So racist that non EU migration accounts for two thirds of all migration?

    Hmm... ok...
    The EU is less than 10% of the world's population, and it's some of the richest. In an equal-opportunities system EU immigration would be expected to be <1-3%. On the other hand total immigration would be much higher and more of it would be low skilled.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Are you saying that Labour don't meet my definition or are you saying my definition is wrong? Labour do meet my definition.
    I'm saying Labour don't meet your definition, they don't rule the country.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 21, 2015
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.