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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin6767)
    This again is another misconception spread about UKIP like the one I just posted about when someone said they were a sexist party. UKIP are not going on some mass military build up. It is in the party manifesto and has been repeatedly said up and down the country by its members that the party seeks to undo labour cuts and coalition cuts to military. The party is looking to restore it to 2001 strength which will also safe guard jobs at the few ship building ports we have left. This is a restoration to the strength in military terms that we were at 12 years ago not the height of WW2. Merely replacing the stuff that has been cut or destroyed in the multiple wars we were taken into.
    Where will they get the money to do this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Not as bad (there not religious) but pretty similar.

    Even heard Farage calling Obama a man of the left.



    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.
    They will not get a second MP and Labour have the Brighton Pavillion seat as one of their targets. The Green Party has been around a lot longer than UKIP and so should have built up the council-base we are trying to. The fact is, they do not have the momentum that UKIP does and frankly, they never will.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin6767)
    Sorry to burst your ism bubble but that is nonsense. As someone who recently switched from the Conservatives to UKIP I can tell you there are a damn sight more women there than there ever was campaigning for the tories where I live. The Branch chairman is a woman, 12 of the 15 candidates are women. However we don't tend to judge people on whether they were born with a vagina or not. It tends to be the case that if you are the best of the bunch that come forward you get pushed on to do more. However credit where credit is due to the tories they weren't nearly as bad as labour when it came to women members.

    Sorry, I can't hear you over how awesome I am:

    (Original post by thearticle)
    Sinclaire said she had faced many years of sexism from the party. Ukip used to hold national executive meetings in men-only gentlemen's clubs in central London such as the Caledonian Club. "I was allowed to attend the actual meeting but could not join the rest of the NEC in the bar, where the eventual decisions were actually made," she added.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ccused-threats
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    UKIP are the new Tory Party. People should watch out for them. Be afraid.


    Can they 'out-Tory' the Tories?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm told that one of their environmental policies is to ban schools from showing Al Gore's 'An inconvenient truth' (likely because it's inconvenient for their climate-skeptic ideas - pun intended). Bit of a joke on that regard really.

    There was a huge court case in the states about showing al gores programme. As in there are several errors in it that need addressing.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by datpiff)
    UKIP are the new Tory Party. People should watch out for them. Be afraid.


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Yes. Be very afraid if you want to carry on getting more out of the system than you put in.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I suppose UKIP might become the SDP for Tories, which is not actually good as SDP failed to gain a meaningful amount of seats and only wrecked Labour.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackJack)
    I'm still unaware of the Green Party coming second in a national election?
    And so what? Ever heard of "You get nowt for being second"?

    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.
    You missed my point. The employers can do this anyway. Businesses will move to wherever the cheap labour is. The ones that can't afford to do that are the small businesses that also often can't afford to pay the higher wages that they would have to pay without immigrants.

    Also, immigrants working for less means that employers can afford to lower prices and or pay more taxes, leaving British people better off.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin6767)
    Awesome? So we are suppose to take the word of a single woman who is known in the party for being exceptionally bitter about not winning the party leadership twice as gospel as to how all women within the party are treated? Are we to ignore the facts of what I just put in front of you that 12 of the 15 candidates in my district are women lead by a female chair? Are we to ignore the praise and position of Diane James the Eastleigh candidate? Are all these women to be attack and ignored by you on the word of Sinclaire? You can say your point is far more relevant to Mr Cameron who admits to overlooking women, or to the labour leadership which practically admitted to using women as "window dressing" under the Brown administration, or even the Lib Dems who have no female spokes people in important positions. Sorry but one bitter runner up and a Guardian article pulled from 5 years ago doesn't make you look awesome, it makes you look desperate to prove a rather unsubstantiated point. Care to pull up a more credible source? I mean forgive me if I don't take the word of a newspaper that writes endless articles about global warming, greedy evil rich people and how vile everyone that disagrees with them is; only to then call in Russian oil barons to prop up the finances. Do please go a head and provide something from people that are not raging hypocrites.
    The guardian is one of the most reliable papers out there. I don't all agree with it. But it's much better than a lot of papers.

    We're talking about a party who has no senior party members who, as you put, have vaginas.
    Candidates aren't a good measure, because it depends where they're fielded. If they're fielded where they won't win then that really is window dressing.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1467...apologise.html

    Same article as the first one:
    (Original post by first article)
    Andreasen said Farage and others were "very dismissive and disrespectful" when discussing legislation that affects women.

    "The general attitude was that we would never support anything that was in favour of women. He told me that his attitude was that women who are at the age of being able to give birth to children should not be employed because they are a burden to their companies. It is a very extreme position.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin6767)
    My district is a solid conservative area with a large elderly population. Support here couldn't be higher for UKIP and we expect a good proportion of our MEP and council candidates to win, we wouldn't field them otherwise. The Conservatives here have lost 3/4's of their membership and ours has gone up by 70%. We expect to win. What you have to remember is in a relatively short space of time UKIP has gone from little known to maintaining an average of 14% support in the polls. We have had little chance to show ourselves on the electoral stage and we only have 11 MEP's. After the May 2nd elections we are hoping to have a much larger body of people, we simply don't care what they look like. These elections will be the first we have had with momentum as strong as this behind us. I am not claiming we are perfect nor am I claiming that things can not be improved. What I am saying is give us a chance, give us time and give us space. This year alone across the country we have had 14 county councillors defect to us, 6 of which are women and one of which is a dear friend of mine who balances her job with looking after her sick toddler. We have had endless accusations thrown at us for the last ten years from racist bigots to sexists to homophobic zealots. Some people have chosen to believe these things without foundation. We don't believe in carving people up into this group or that but rather unite around traditional British values, a sense of fair play and free commerce. In fact if you ever find yourself in south Shropshire I would be more than happy to introduce you to these people and you can judge them for yourself rather than listening to newspapers.

    My point is this, yes I would agree with you that we don't have many women in senior positions, but at present we have a handful of councillors and MEP's. After 2nd May now that we have the momentum that no relatively unknown party has had in many years we will change this should people vote for us. Look at it this way we have only really taken off in the last 2 years in terms of press coverage and recognition, the lib dems have been around for a few decades and have no senior women, the conservatives have been around for two centuries and have one or two and Labour has been around since beginning of the 20th century and quite frankly treats women with contempt. I have been to Labour conferences and despite what they say in public women are treated awfully behind closed doors. Like I said give us past the 2nd May and past 2015 and if the momentum stays with us these things will change. We just need the momentum to stay with us through elections. To put things in perspective as to how things have changed for this party recently in Derbyshire in 2010 we fielded 4 candidates, this year we are fielding 64 candidates in every single ward. It is unfair to judge us yet.

    Marta was regrettable but look at the things she did, her record as an MEP and you might find she was exceptionally unreasonable as a human being. But look at the conduct of the women we are putting forward. We seriously thought we could take Eastleigh but lost by 1,000 votes. Who did we put forward? A working mum. The first seat we thought we could serious take was filled by a woman. Diane simply wont be forgotten and no doubt will fight Eastleigh again and hopefully will win next time once the tories stop splitting the UKIP vote. Like I said given time our talented will shine through once we get them elected.

    Out of curiosity why not stand for election yourself? There is still time to be nominated and if we haven't already filled the candidacy in your area apply to UKIP and boost our female ranks.
    What a lovely load of tripe.
    You're telling me that a small party has gained support in a time of economic downfall?
    Well stop the presses right there then!

    You don't have ANY, not many but ANY females currently in a senior position in the party.

    And you make no come back to the mum's staying at home and out of careers when they're ready to start bearing children???

    As for homophobia, you through out Oliver Neville of the UKIP youth branch (after winning an election to be the head of it) for saying he disagreed with the party line which is AGAINST gay marriage. No no, you guys aren't homophobes at all :awesome: .
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackJack)
    I have. They came 7th in 2010.
    And yet they have more MP's than UKIP...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Greens ARE in favour of HS2. They just want to adjust the route.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    [...]
    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.
    My thoughts on UKIP? It's the party that says what people who don't think are thinking.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    The guardian is one of the most reliable papers out there. I don't all agree with it. But it's much better than a lot of papers.

    We're talking about a party who has no senior party members who, as you put, have vaginas.
    Candidates aren't a good measure, because it depends where they're fielded. If they're fielded where they won't win then that really is window dressing.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1467...apologise.html

    Same article as the first one:

    The guardian is far from being one of the most reliable newspapers out there. If the present government found a cure fir cancer the guardian would find something bad to say about it as long as it panders to the needs of its middle class liberal readers smugness.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    The guardian is far from being one of the most reliable newspapers out there because I don't agree with its political views
    Ftfy
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Izzyeviel)
    And yet they have more MP's than UKIP...
    In this country it doesn't matter how popular you are - you just need your supporters to be concentrated in one area and you can win a seat like the greens did in brighton
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    In this country it doesn't matter how popular you are - you just need your supporters to be concentrated in one area and you can win a seat like the greens did in brighton
    A bit like Labour and the Tories then...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Izzyeviel)
    A bit like Labour and the Tories then...
    Yes exactly,

    That's why we have so many career politicians like Ken Livingston!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    And so what? Ever heard of "You get nowt for being second"?



    You missed my point. The employers can do this anyway. Businesses will move to wherever the cheap labour is. The ones that can't afford to do that are the small businesses that also often can't afford to pay the higher wages that they would have to pay without immigrants.

    Also, immigrants working for less means that employers can afford to lower prices and or pay more taxes, leaving British people better off.
    No they cannot do this anyway. Before 2004, the hotels were still being cleaned; before 2004, the cabbages and the cauliflowers were still being picked; before 2004, the coffees and the teas were still being made in Costa; this idea that without this mass influx, the whole place would have fallen to pieces is complete and utter drivel.

    And your second argument, I'm sorry is completely preposterous. Employers exploiting migrants does not mean the population is better off, it means more people stay unemployed, which costs the taxpayer in constant JSA hand-outs; it means more of our youngsters unable to get a foot on the ladder, and crucially, it means the big bosses can go on treating these individuals as animals, undercutting the wages in Britain with no-one standing up and saying we've got to put an end to this.

    The fact is, we manage those coming from outside Europe, yet some can't even seem to fathom the prospect of the same for inside Europe because they're so warped with the Europhile propaganda we get daily from the Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem pact.

    The reality is: Canada says no to open doors, Australia says no to open doors, even America, just this week Obama has announced he is saying no to open doors and wants to strengthen controls at the US border. It's high-time we took the same approach as our counterparts and started putting the interests of the British people first. Managed migration, yes, beneficial. If it's out of control, no it's not.

    (Original post by Izzyeviel)
    And yet they have more MP's than UKIP...
    Exactly. Thanks for emphasising my point: the FPTP system is outdated, archaic and unfair.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackJack)
    No they cannot do this anyway. Before 2004, the hotels were still being cleaned; before 2004, the cabbages and the cauliflowers were still being picked; before 2004, the coffees and the teas were still being made in Costa; this idea that without this mass influx, the whole place would have fallen to pieces is complete and utter drivel.
    OK, in the service sector people need to be physically present to do the jobs, but the economics of this apply just as much to people moving from the North of Britain to the South, or from rural areas to cities, as to people moving from continental Europe to Britain.

    And your second argument, I'm sorry is completely preposterous. Employers exploiting migrants does not mean the population is better off, it means more people stay unemployed, which costs the taxpayer in constant JSA hand-outs; it means more of our youngsters unable to get a foot on the ladder, and crucially, it means the big bosses can go on treating these individuals as animals, undercutting the wages in Britain with no-one standing up and saying we've got to put an end to this.
    There isn't a fixed number of jobs in the country. More people means more demand for goods and services, which means more jobs.

    The fact is, we manage those coming from outside Europe, yet some can't even seem to fathom the prospect of the same for inside Europe because they're so warped with the Europhile propaganda we get daily from the Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem pact.
    Can =/= should. Also we don't have free trade agreements with most countries outside Europe.

    The reality is: Canada says no to open doors, Australia says no to open doors, even America, just this week Obama has announced he is saying no to open doors and wants to strengthen controls at the US border. It's high-time we took the same approach as our counterparts and started putting the interests of the British people first. Managed migration, yes, beneficial. If it's out of control, no it's not.
    Actually America is very big on open doors. It has open doors across all its state borders for its >300 million population. From an economic perspective, the two sides of a border are just A and B, the same as any other two locations.

    Exactly. Thanks for emphasising my point: the FPTP system is outdated, archaic and unfair.
    Agreed, but we can't assume that if we has PR then the parties would have evolved in the same way, because that's unlikely. UKIP, for example, would probably have to concede stuff for any coalition agreement.
 
 
 
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.