Turn on thread page Beta

Young Independence (UKIP Youth) site launched watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tamora)
    UKIP isn't a watered down version of the BNP. The BNP is a lot more left wing, calling itself the "Labour party your grandfather would have voted for" at the last election.

    But this link will give you some idea of the party's proposals &y=5].

    It is also party policy to abolish student top up fees.
    There seems to be some confusion in the UKIP manifesto (from the outline):

    Cutting NHS targets while having elected police authorities.
    Strengthen power of local authorities while halving council tax.
    Ban GM but leave CAP and CFP.
    Scrap the Human Rights Act while condemning ID cards.
    Private management for NHS trusts but increase their hourse.

    I'm sure there are more.

    And this is a killer:

    Government obliged to hold a referendum and be bound by its result on any issue if 5% of national electorate sign a petition demanding it within a six-month period.
    Seems incredibly bizarre to me.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Tamora)
    You'd be welcome to post comments here http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ which is the unofficial site set up by UKIP members. You don't need to be a member of UKIP to do that.

    Failing that, I'm a UKIP supporter and I'd be happy to be "berated" if you like, but be prepared for a reply!

    Every other post on that forum seems to be about immigration - and you've the gall to claim UKIP isn't like the BNP?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    UKIP, as much as I dislike them, do not fit into the BNP mould.

    Plaid Cymru are more fascist than them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    There seems to be some confusion in the UKIP manifesto (from the outline):

    Cutting NHS targets while having elected police authorities.
    Strengthen power of local authorities while halving council tax.
    Ban GM but leave CAP and CFP.
    Scrap the Human Rights Act while condemning ID cards.
    Private management for NHS trusts but increase their hourse.

    I'm sure there are more.

    And this is a killer:



    Seems incredibly bizarre to me.
    You're going to have to spell out for me how the policies you point out are 'confused', I just don't see it myself.

    As for the policy of allowing binding referendums, when you say 'bizarre', if you mean unusual, then you're absolutely right. If you mean 'bizarre' to mean undesirable or weird, I cannot agree. I think this is an excellent policy in which the people decide for themselves what issues are too important to be decided by daily government business and need a national referendum. I think this is an excellent policy that UKIP should talk about a LOT more. I think the reason for it being UKIP policy stems from a feeling that our government have done so many things that a majority of people simply don't want, ESPECIALLY regarding the EU, but don't hold me to that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alasdair_R)
    Every other post on that forum seems to be about immigration - and you've the gall to claim UKIP isn't like the BNP?
    Be fair, immigration is the number 1 issue for many millions of people. I bet deep down it's number 1 among Conservative party members, and if you go to your nearest working mens/ Labour club on a weekend, I bet you'll hear plenty of talk about immigrants.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greyhound02)
    You're going to have to spell out for me how the policies you point out are 'confused', I just don't see it myself.

    As for the policy of allowing binding referendums, when you say 'bizarre', if you mean unusual, then you're absolutely right. If you mean 'bizarre' to mean undesirable or weird, I cannot agree. I think this is an excellent policy in which the people decide for themselves what issues are too important to be decided by daily government business and need a national referendum. I think this is an excellent policy that UKIP should talk about a LOT more. I think the reason for it being UKIP policy stems from a feeling that our government have done so many things that a majority of people simply don't want, ESPECIALLY regarding the EU, but don't hold me to that.
    OK:

    1)Cutting NHS targets while having elected police authorities.

    Cutting targets implies a desire to disengage politics from the NHS so that the NHS can do its job without needing to meet political targets. Elected PAs is the opposite - enforcing politics onto the police.

    2)Strengthen power of local authorities while halving council tax.

    Well, if you give local authorities more responsibility how can you then halve their funding? That's fairly straightforward.

    3)Ban GM but leave CAP and CFP.

    Leaving the CAP and CFP is being proposed to allow British farmers greater flexibility to farm as they wish. Banning GM is the opposite of that.

    4)Scrap the Human Rights Act while condemning ID cards.

    ID cards were denounced as a breach of civil liberties. Scrapping the HRA runs counter to a policy of being worried about civil liberty.

    5)Private management for NHS trusts but increase their hours.

    Private management to allow the NHS trusts to do what is best for them to allow them to make their own decisions. Then contradict that by enforcing longer hours.

    And the referendum idead: A few problems
    1) It undermines the whole system of representational democracy. We elect people to make decisions for us not to make them ourselves. We do this for good reason.
    2) Who will ensure that this survey or whatever is done properly? If it becomes official we end up having effectively endless referenda all the time. If it is done badly we allow the system of government to be ruined.
    3) The cost and time involved in a referedum would make the country grind to a halt when we start having them too often.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OMG that website is cheesy as hell, the white guy on the "join the party" tab looks as if he has just cummed in his pants!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happybob)
    OMG that website is cheesy as hell, the white guy on the "join the party" tab looks as if he has just cummed in his pants!!!
    I'm sure I could find a few dodgy grimmaces on the BNP website if I wanted. Being a BNP supporter, I'd have thought you'd be against judging parties based on appearances.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    OK:

    1)Cutting NHS targets while having elected police authorities.

    Cutting targets implies a desire to disengage politics from the NHS so that the NHS can do its job without needing to meet political targets. Elected PAs is the opposite - enforcing politics onto the police.

    2)Strengthen power of local authorities while halving council tax.

    Well, if you give local authorities more responsibility how can you then halve their funding? That's fairly straightforward.

    3)Ban GM but leave CAP and CFP.

    Leaving the CAP and CFP is being proposed to allow British farmers greater flexibility to farm as they wish. Banning GM is the opposite of that.

    4)Scrap the Human Rights Act while condemning ID cards.

    ID cards were denounced as a breach of civil liberties. Scrapping the HRA runs counter to a policy of being worried about civil liberty.

    5)Private management for NHS trusts but increase their hours.

    Private management to allow the NHS trusts to do what is best for them to allow them to make their own decisions. Then contradict that by enforcing longer hours.

    And the referendum idead: A few problems
    1) It undermines the whole system of representational democracy. We elect people to make decisions for us not to make them ourselves. We do this for good reason.
    2) Who will ensure that this survey or whatever is done properly? If it becomes official we end up having effectively endless referenda all the time. If it is done badly we allow the system of government to be ruined.
    3) The cost and time involved in a referedum would make the country grind to a halt when we start having them too often.
    Ok,

    1) Cutting NHS targets doesn't mean scrapping them all. I'm sure that those targets that are meaningful and actually help the treatment of patients and improve health will be kept, and vice versa. There have been way too many targets that have generated very undesirable results, and I don't see the controversy in removing/ modifying them. This to me is removing 'bad' politics from public services (to put it VERY simply).

    2) If my memory is correct, councils get roughly 25% of their funding from the council tax and 75% from central government grants, so surely you could halve council tax, and make up for it through a small increase in central government funding. Anyway, the total tax haul could come down if we didn't have to fund the EU.

    3) There are of course many excellent reasons for scrapping the CAP that I won't go into, and farmers freedom is just one of these. If GM food is banned, farmers will not be 'free' in this respect, but surely one of the roles of government is precisely to determine where the distinction between freedom and public health/ interest lies. Farmers aren't free in many respects: there are rules about how meat must be killed in order to protect public health, and I assume we both see that as a reasonable infringement on farmers freedom. Banning GM food can be justified in much the same way (I don't want to start a massive debate about whether GM food is in fact safe or not, I'm just saying that many people believe it isn't, and therefore would justify banning it on these grounds).

    4) Many, many people are opposed to ID cards because of the gross infringement of civil liberties they represent, yet recognise that the HRA has been used too frequently to defy common sense and decency for the advantage of criminals. Look, before the HRA was passed Britain didn't have a huge civil liberties deficit, and I don't see why one would appear if the HRA was scrapped.

    5) Just because the general policy is to increase NHS trust autonomy, this shouldn't mean that UKIP should say "we will never interfere with NHS trusts in ANY respect", and again I don't see the problem with saying that, in general, NHS trusts will be freer, but the party believes in longer hours.


    As for the referendum idea:
    1) I really strongly disagree that it undermines the system of representative democracy. Switzerland is a famous exponent of citizen referendums, would you say that Switzerland is not a representative democracy? Also, we've had numerous referendums in the UK particularly since New Labour came to power, have we not been a representative democracy since then?
    2) Well, every time we have an election and referendum in this country, we run the risk that it 'won't be done properly', but we rely on officials and rules to make them work properly, and the same procedures will work for future referendums. There are no 'new' risks from having more referendums: quite the opposite perhaps! Perhaps with more referendums, the officials will get better at making them work!
    3) I go back to Switzerland: I don't see a country that has ground to a halt there! Also, 5% of the electorate as a whole is a pretty fair threshold (especially when considering only about 60% of the electorate actually bother in a general election). Anyway, we already have a system of posting petitions electronically in this country which is, ironically, run by the government!

    One last thing, I would like to add that my explanations of UKIP policy aren't taken from UKIP literature, they're simply my own interpretation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)

    4)Scrap the Human Rights Act while condemning ID cards.

    ID cards were denounced as a breach of civil liberties. Scrapping the HRA runs counter to a policy of being worried about civil liberty.
    No it doesn't. The Human Rights Act would not be necessary if we actually had a government that governed in the interests of the people. The HRA never protected my rights but it certainly protects the rights of terrorists and murderers, whilst doing absolutely nothing to protect the rights of those held without trial for months on end on "terrorism" charges. You might think that's ok because they are just "terrorists" but what if a future government doesn't like what you think or do and decides to hold you without charge at its pleasure? What then?

    ID cards are most definitely a breach of civil liberties. In Britain the people have been the masters and the state the servant until recently but with the recent erosions of civil liberties that balance is reversed. ID cards are just a symptom; the real problem is the National Identity Register which will be linked with the EU Schengen Information System which leaks like a sieve.

    And the referendum idead: A few problems
    1) It undermines the whole system of representational democracy. We elect people to make decisions for us not to make them ourselves. We do this for good reason.
    I am not altogether happy with this many referendums either. They should not normally be necessary when a government is elected on an honest manifesto that it abides by, but I don't like the arrogant attitude of those in parliament now. But as for frequent referendums being bizarre, tell that to the Swiss.

    And electing people to make decisions for us? We don't elect them and turn them loose to do what they want. And all too often they act as if we have done exactly that.

    2) Who will ensure that this survey or whatever is done properly? If it becomes official we end up having effectively endless referenda all the time. If it is done badly we allow the system of government to be ruined.
    The system of government, if you mean British democracy, is already ruined by virtue of the fact that most policies are decided by EU institutions with diktats transposed into British law by the Quislings in Westminster. If this policy came into force, I expect the Electoral Commission would be in control of fair play.

    (Original post by alasdair_R)
    Every other post on that forum seems to be about immigration - and you've the gall to claim UKIP isn't like the BNP?
    You must have missed the 3,995 threads on UKIP General Issues, the 4,662 on Talk About Anything, the 1,669 on International Politics, the 659 on the British Police State, etc, etc ... and gone straight to the 302 on Immigration. Perhaps immigration is what interests you most? If so fine, it interests me too, but it isn't my overriding concern.

    UKIP is nothing like the BNP. "UKIP: Equality for all, regardless of race or religion" which is just fine by me.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Tamora)
    You must have missed the 3,995 threads on UKIP General Issues, the 4,662 on Talk About Anything, the 1,669 on International Politics, the 659 on the British Police State, etc, etc ... and gone straight to the 302 on Immigration. Perhaps immigration is what interests you most? If so fine, it interests me too, but it isn't my overriding concern.

    UKIP is nothing like the BNP. "UKIP: Equality for all, regardless of race or religion" which is just fine by me.
    Y'know, I didn't even notice there was an immigration sub-forum?

    Many of the posts all over the site - General Isues, Talk about Anything, British Police State - are either about Immigration or the BNP or 'white discrimination', or get diverted on to that topic within the first page. Certainly more than you would expect from a party whose focus supposedly isn't racism or immigration.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greyhound02)
    Ok,

    1) Cutting NHS targets doesn't mean scrapping them all. I'm sure that those targets that are meaningful and actually help the treatment of patients and improve health will be kept, and vice versa. There have been way too many targets that have generated very undesirable results, and I don't see the controversy in removing/ modifying them. This to me is removing 'bad' politics from public services (to put it VERY simply).
    Missing the point entirely. Yes the targets may be bad and detrimental but that is not the point. The point is that removing them is removing politics from the NHS and allowing it to do its job freely. Having elected PAs is putting politics into policing and limiting its ability to do its job freely. These two policies appear contradictory.

    (Original post by Greyhound02)
    2) If my memory is correct, councils get roughly 25% of their funding from the council tax and 75% from central government grants, so surely you could halve council tax, and make up for it through a small increase in central government funding. Anyway, the total tax haul could come down if we didn't have to fund the EU.
    If council tax is to be scrapped only for national tax to be increased by the same amount then this policy is simply a con trick. And the EU funding is irrelevant to the point.

    (Original post by Greyhound02)
    3) There are of course many excellent reasons for scrapping the CAP that I won't go into, and farmers freedom is just one of these. If GM food is banned, farmers will not be 'free' in this respect, but surely one of the roles of government is precisely to determine where the distinction between freedom and public health/ interest lies. Farmers aren't free in many respects: there are rules about how meat must be killed in order to protect public health, and I assume we both see that as a reasonable infringement on farmers freedom. Banning GM food can be justified in much the same way (I don't want to start a massive debate about whether GM food is in fact safe or not, I'm just saying that many people believe it isn't, and therefore would justify banning it on these grounds).
    Conceded.

    (Original post by Greyhound02)
    4) Many, many people are opposed to ID cards because of the gross infringement of civil liberties they represent, yet recognise that the HRA has been used too frequently to defy common sense and decency for the advantage of criminals. Look, before the HRA was passed Britain didn't have a huge civil liberties deficit, and I don't see why one would appear if the HRA was scrapped.
    The HRA itself is now part of civil liberties and removing it sends the signal that civil liberties is not a priority. I said that UKIP's policies appear confused and this is a good example. If UKIP is serious about this area it needs to keep HRA and scrap ID cards. If there is concern that the HRA is being abused then modify it or bring in legislation to close loopholes. But scrapping it seems at odds with scrapping ID cards.

    (Original post by Greyhound02)
    5) Just because the general policy is to increase NHS trust autonomy, this shouldn't mean that UKIP should say "we will never interfere with NHS trusts in ANY respect", and again I don't see the problem with saying that, in general, NHS trusts will be freer, but the party believes in longer hours.
    Agreed. Yet the policies do appear contradictory and therefore give the impresion of an unsure policy. The idea of giving autonomy to the NHS trust is that you think they can do a better job than politicians. This is contradicted by forcing them to stay open longer implying that politicians know best.

    (Original post by Greyhound02)
    As for the referendum idea:
    1) I really strongly disagree that it undermines the system of representative democracy. Switzerland is a famous exponent of citizen referendums, would you say that Switzerland is not a representative democracy? Also, we've had numerous referendums in the UK particularly since New Labour came to power, have we not been a representative democracy since then?
    2) Well, every time we have an election and referendum in this country, we run the risk that it 'won't be done properly', but we rely on officials and rules to make them work properly, and the same procedures will work for future referendums. There are no 'new' risks from having more referendums: quite the opposite perhaps! Perhaps with more referendums, the officials will get better at making them work!
    3) I go back to Switzerland: I don't see a country that has ground to a halt there! Also, 5% of the electorate as a whole is a pretty fair threshold (especially when considering only about 60% of the electorate actually bother in a general election). Anyway, we already have a system of posting petitions electronically in this country which is, ironically, run by the government!

    One last thing, I would like to add that my explanations of UKIP policy aren't taken from UKIP literature, they're simply my own interpretation.
    1) I didn't say it was incompatible, only undermining. We elect an official to take decisions for us precisely because we recognise that we are not able to make informed decisions. Having many referenda runs against that.
    One point to add, I don't recall any nationwide referenda since 1997. (In fact the last was in 1975)
    2) You have missed my point again. I'm not saying that the referendum cannot be organised properly, only that the survey undertaken to decide whether to have a referdum or not will either itself be a de facto referendum because you will have an official poll, or it will be open to abuse because it is not run properly like an election.
    3) I wonder if Switzerland would hold as many referenda as we would have to under this proposed scheme. I doubt it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    UKIP is less extreme than the BNP, but they're still members of the fairly radical right wing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dionysus)
    UKIP is less extreme than the BNP, but they're still members of the fairly radical right wing.
    While I am by no means a UKIP supporter, and mildly ambivalent about Europe (like the free market, hate the bureaucracy) this seems to me to be completely unfair and nothing more than a way to try and demonise UKIP. Ironically enough, the BNP are much better described as fairly radical left wingers, on the economic front at least. In fact they really subscribe to the worst bits of both worlds: left wing economic policies and right wing social policies.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    While I am by no means a UKIP supporter, and mildly ambivalent about Europe (like the free market, hate the bureaucracy) this seems to me to be completely unfair and nothing more than a way to try and demonise UKIP. Ironically enough, the BNP are much better described as fairly radical left wingers, on the economic front at least. In fact they really subscribe to the worst bits of both worlds: left wing economic policies and right wing social policies.
    We can argue all day long about whether the BNP is 'left' or 'right', but whatever they are, UKIP is essentially a slightly less extreme version of it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You see, I have no idea why you'd say that if you weren't trying to dismiss UKIP out of hand by comparing them to a genuinely distasteful party.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alasdair_R)
    We can argue all day long about whether the BNP is 'left' or 'right', but whatever they are, UKIP is essentially a slightly less extreme version of it.
    That's a lot of rubbish. Is the Labour Party a slightly less extreme version of Stalin?

    Unlike the BNP, UKIP are a liberal, anti-socialist party. They are not racist, they simply agree with the European Union. I am inclined to agree with them - sometimes the EU does push its luck so far that I'd rather not have one than the present unreformed one. My support for Europe is based on a vision and a belief that it will get better.

    In fact, the only vague comparison that you've made is that both parties are concerned by immigration. Which, it seems, are much of the electorate. Immigration politics are certainly valid, unless you're either extreme left or right-wing and believe in open borders.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    Immigration politics are certainly valid.
    Not especially. There is no legitimate economic or social reason to oppose moderate levels of immigration. These parties seem completely opposed to immigration in all its forms, and I fail to see any motivation for this other than xenophobia.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dionysus)
    Not especially. There is no legitimate economic or social reason to oppose moderate levels of immigration. These parties seem completely opposed to immigration in all its forms, and I fail to see any motivation for this other than xenophobia.
    Define 'moderate'.

    UKIP agrees with moderate immigration.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    Define 'moderate'.

    UKIP agrees with moderate immigration.
    Most people, when they define themselves or their views on a given issue as "moderate", are doing so primarily in order to portray somebody else as extreme and therefore BAD BAD BAD.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
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.