Turn on thread page Beta

Do you consider UKIP good or bad? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For certain I feel Labour would mess up again, they were in power since 1997- 2010. Under that 13 years so much went wrong, from wars we shouldn't have been in, treaties signed under our noses and to the devastating recession which hit small businesses and families hard. A government should never do such things. I am not saying the Conservatives are much better, but I have to say, Even though there is a reduction in police officers- some areas have actually increased. Crime has gone down where I live- I would also like to point out, in some statistics redundancy and job loses also include police staff who choose to retire! Also I know that in a labour statistic they were not including Special Constables in the figures- to make it look worse.

    NHS- This is a difficult one and it definitely splits people. I have had a very personal relationship with the NHS for around 10 years. My mum suffers from a very severe mental illness. Under the Labour government she was given tablet after tablet, she would gain weight, be suicidal you name it. They basically made her worse. Then when the Conservatives came in they reformed the Mental Illness branch which my mum was linked to and she was put on one medicine and left her on it and she has been great so far. Now that could be down to other things such as medicine developments etc.

    Also, My late father got brittle bones disease due to an infection (MRSA) he got in 2003 from a hospital that was under performing. It went down hill from there. He spent most of his life in hospital from then on. He went from being an aerospace engineer to a disabled man. I know these thing can happen, but at that point I lost faith in my local NHS Service. I just couldn't come to terms with how it could have happened- especially because it was a simple operation.

    So this won't be popular with many, but I do believe the NHS does need some sort of reform. It won't be easy, but it needs to be done for the future.

    This then brings me onto UKIP, whom I don't fully understand. The fact they get drawn into soo many Race related arguments puts me off them. But you need to be realistic. UKIP will not get enough votes to secure a government. It was estimated they will get around 10-36 MP's. that's not even 10%. So who ever elects them are electing someone that can do nothing apart from scrutinize.

    So really, only Labour or the Conservatives can win..

    Labour seem to be popular with students due to the tuition fee reduction- however I have heard this is going to cause a reduction into the student loans/grants that can be applied for compared to now. It worries me to what extent this will be.

    The Ukip voters will have a say don't get me wrong but it will be on the basis of how many votes they take off the conservatives.. Which will Massively support labour and maybe enable them to tip the Conservatives.

    However, I have to say, there is one thing worse than all the parties combined.. First Past The Post! It is such a dire unrepresentative electoral system. In 2005, Blair got like.. 33-35% of the vote and formed a government.. Its horrendous!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Your mother is a good woman, you should give me her number and I will take her out for a meal.

    Certainly any political discussion would be of more interest than with you. With the greatest of respect.
    She is a good woman, but she is entirely incapable of coherent political discussion.

    In fact, now that I think about it, you two probably would get on very well.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    This discussion has become circular and pointless. I will simply say WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THE NUMBER OF IMMIGRANTS AND IT HAS GOT COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL. Therefore the size and shape of our public services are determined merely by the urgent requirement to build enough hospital and houses and schools to cope with cities the size of Coventry coming in every year. That is not including illegals by the way, and of course they aren't evenly spread, they cluster.
    Would you allow a paedophile, child rapist or murderer to come and live in your house? That wouldn't be sensible would it?

    So why do you want to allow them to come and live next door to all of us?

    Would you allow a feckless indigent to come and live in your house and support him for twenty years so he brings up a sociopathic son who beheads people?

    So why does your side of the debate support them coming into our country, and then being unable to be deported?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ket-areas.html
    Truly terrifying that the cornerstone of your argument is that some immigrants are criminals - we have gone from talking about unskilled migrants to talking about rapists moving into my house. Very revealing indeed about the true motives behind your desire to 'limit' immigration.

    And yes, you are right, we do not control immigration, because this the one of the core tenets of Maastricht. I have already expressed that I believe EU membership to be more important than limiting freedom of movement within the EU, so I do not need to go into detail again.

    Once again, I draw your attention to the fact that our ageing population is a far greater burden than EU immigration.

    "10 million people in the UK are over 65 years old. The latest projections are for 5½ million more elderly people in 20 years time and the number will have nearly doubled to around 19 million by 2050. Within this total, the number of very old people grows even faster." - www.parliament.uk

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)

    I don't disagree that we should further limit non EU immigration. We need to focus on ALL forms of immigration, including a complete review of our failed asylum system, and inability to deport.

    That requires us coming out of the European Court of Human Rights, and if bleeding heart liberals like you don't like it - tough.
    We need to limit or breach human rights to make the country the right shade of white for you again? Sorry if disagreeing makes me a 'bleeding heart liberal'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smonnie)
    She is a good woman, but she is entirely incapable of coherent political discussion.

    In fact, now that I think about it, you two probably would get on very well.



    Truly terrifying that the cornerstone of your argument is that some immigrants are criminals - we have gone from talking about unskilled migrants to talking about rapists moving into my house. Very revealing indeed about the true motives behind your desire to 'limit' immigration.

    And yes, you are right, we do not control immigration, because this the one of the core tenets of Maastricht. I have already expressed that I believe EU membership to be more important than limiting freedom of movement within the EU, so I do not need to go into detail again.

    Once again, I draw your attention to the fact that our ageing population is a far greater burden than EU immigration.

    "10 million people in the UK are over 65 years old. The latest projections are for 5½ million more elderly people in 20 years time and the number will have nearly doubled to around 19 million by 2050. Within this total, the number of very old people grows even faster." - www.parliament.uk



    We need to limit or breach human rights to make the country the right shade of white for you again? Sorry if disagreeing makes me a 'bleeding heart liberal'.
    That makes no sense, I thought many EU citizens were white anyway? That last comment has really devalued your argument, infact it just comes across as resentful.

    Using the fact that the UK's aging population is a bigger strain than a immigration led population growth that is simply unmanageable (regardless of who is to blame for not having resources and houses readily available) is really quite insulting to those who have lived and worked in this country for most of their life (regardless of colour/creed).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chezsu)
    That makes no sense, I thought many EU citizens were white anyway? That last comment has really devalued your argument, infact it just comes across as resentful.

    Using the fact that the UK's aging population is a bigger strain than a immigration led population growth that is simply unmanageable (regardless of who is to blame for not having resources and houses readily available) is really quite insulting to those who have lived and worked in this country for most of their life (regardless of colour/creed).
    No idea what point you are making, sorry.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smonnie)
    No idea what point you are making, sorry.
    Well the only part directed at you was the 'right shade of white' comment, which comes across as bitter and just devalues your debate.

    (Original post by Smonnie)

    We need to limit or breach human rights to make the country the right shade of white for you again? Sorry if disagreeing makes me a 'bleeding heart liberal'.
    If you can't ascertain the points I'm addressing in the rest of my post, then I doubt it will matter how crudely I break it down or how many times I explain it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chezsu)
    Well the only part directed at you was the 'right shade of white' comment, which comes across as bitter and just devalues your debate.

    If you can't ascertain the points I'm addressing in the rest of my post, then I doubt it will matter how crudely I break it down or how many times I explain it.
    Hence the "shade" aspect. These people complain about people "coming over here, taking our jobs" whilst in the same breath indicating that they would never clean toilets or wash cars.

    Nothing bitter about me. I'm actually as close to 100% British as one can be, as well.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smonnie)
    Once again, I draw your attention to the fact that our ageing population is a far greater burden than EU immigration.

    "10 million people in the UK are over 65 years old. The latest projections are for 5½ million more elderly people in 20 years time and the number will have nearly doubled to around 19 million by 2050. Within this total, the number of very old people grows even faster." - www.parliament.uk
    Are you arguing that a nation in control of it's own borders would not be able to alleviate the problems of an ageing population?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Excuse me, but how is this country ****ed? Most people don't realise how lucky we have it. I'm a second generation (dad immigrated and did really, really well) and I am really proud to be English, despite the sporadic racism and odd looks and 1/2+ of girls who won't date a brown guy... but are still nice.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)
    Excuse me, but how is this country ****ed? Most people don't realise how lucky we have it. I'm a second generation (dad immigrated and did really, really well) and I am really proud to be English, despite the sporadic racism and odd looks and 1/2+ of girls who won't date a brown guy... but are still nice.
    People think we're ****ed because they feel they're a tad poorer than a little back, whether they are or not depends who you ask and how they manipulate the figures, while conveniently forgetting they're in the top few pc globally

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaurenceJ96)
    For certain I feel Labour would mess up again, they were in power since 1997- 2010. Under that 13 years so much went wrong, from wars we shouldn't have been in, treaties signed under our noses and to the devastating recession which hit small businesses and families hard. A government should never do such things. I am not saying the Conservatives are much better, but I have to say, Even though there is a reduction in police officers- some areas have actually increased. Crime has gone down where I live- I would also like to point out, in some statistics redundancy and job loses also include police staff who choose to retire! Also I know that in a labour statistic they were not including Special Constables in the figures- to make it look worse.

    NHS- This is a difficult one and it definitely splits people. I have had a very personal relationship with the NHS for around 10 years. My mum suffers from a very severe mental illness. Under the Labour government she was given tablet after tablet, she would gain weight, be suicidal you name it. They basically made her worse. Then when the Conservatives came in they reformed the Mental Illness branch which my mum was linked to and she was put on one medicine and left her on it and she has been great so far. Now that could be down to other things such as medicine developments etc.

    Also, My late father got brittle bones disease due to an infection (MRSA) he got in 2003 from a hospital that was under performing. It went down hill from there. He spent most of his life in hospital from then on. He went from being an aerospace engineer to a disabled man. I know these thing can happen, but at that point I lost faith in my local NHS Service. I just couldn't come to terms with how it could have happened- especially because it was a simple operation.

    So this won't be popular with many, but I do believe the NHS does need some sort of reform. It won't be easy, but it needs to be done for the future.

    This then brings me onto UKIP, whom I don't fully understand. The fact they get drawn into soo many Race related arguments puts me off them. But you need to be realistic. UKIP will not get enough votes to secure a government. It was estimated they will get around 10-36 MP's. that's not even 10%. So who ever elects them are electing someone that can do nothing apart from scrutinize.

    So really, only Labour or the Conservatives can win..

    Labour seem to be popular with students due to the tuition fee reduction- however I have heard this is going to cause a reduction into the student loans/grants that can be applied for compared to now. It worries me to what extent this will be.

    The Ukip voters will have a say don't get me wrong but it will be on the basis of how many votes they take off the conservatives.. Which will Massively support labour and maybe enable them to tip the Conservatives.

    However, I have to say, there is one thing worse than all the parties combined.. First Past The Post! It is such a dire unrepresentative electoral system. In 2005, Blair got like.. 33-35% of the vote and formed a government.. Its horrendous!
    I'm sorry to hear about your dad.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheWaffle)
    I'm sorry to hear about your dad.
    Oh don't worry about it, these things happen. I just wanted to give my reasoning behind what I was saying :-)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smonnie)
    Hence the "shade" aspect. These people complain about people "coming over here, taking our jobs" whilst in the same breath indicating that they would never clean toilets or wash cars.

    Nothing bitter about me. I'm actually as close to 100% British as one can be, as well.
    Ah perhaps I misunderstood what you meant when you said 'certain shade of white'. My Apologies.

    I don't completely agree with your point about British people thinking they are to good to clean toilets, however I do understand there is an element of truth to it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)
    Excuse me, but how is this country ****ed? Most people don't realise how lucky we have it. I'm a second generation (dad immigrated and did really, really well) and I am really proud to be English, despite the sporadic racism and odd looks and 1/2+ of girls who won't date a brown guy... but are still nice.
    I did write a follow up to this post; in short, I was being a bit melodramatic that day because all of the parties seemed to be extremely flawed in one way or another.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geokinkladze)
    Are you arguing that a nation in control of it's own borders would not be able to alleviate the problems of an ageing population?
    No, I'm just giving an example of something much more important than EU immigration which gets 1pc of the airtime.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smonnie)
    No, I'm just giving an example of something much more important than EU immigration which gets 1pc of the airtime.
    I agree with you and it's a point I tried to make to my friends recently. I think something like 50% of all UK benefit spending goes on pensions. Less than 3% is spent on people signing on the dole, yet everyone constantly blames lazy people and immigrants. Things like the benefit system and NHS were set up when we had a smaller population with fewer elderly, it wasn't created with current and future conditions in mind. That's why everything is stressed to the max and it's only going to get far worse. The elderly are going to slowly bleed us dry. We can't keep raising the retirement age so I suggest mandatory execution upon reaching the age of 65. The money that would be freed up could be used to improve the current state of the NHS, and also the bodies of the elderly could be harvested as food for the young further reducing spending. The money saved here could go towards paying the wages of a new government division that specialises in rounding up and herding the sheep, I mean old people, but as they can't really put up much of a fight this division could remain quite small. Perhaps offering some form of tax rebate to families who carry out the harvesting process by themselves could act as an incentive. I for one look forward to a brighter future. UKIP 2015
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smonnie)
    She is a good woman
    No she isn't, she is borderline evil like me and anyone else who considers voting UKIP.

    What was your elegant phrase? "Racist, bigoted, prejudiced."

    That is the problem when you play the race card and ascribe moral turpitude to your political opponents. Eventually even your own mother becomes the devil incarnate.

    One expects it from the left, it has been the stock in trade of identity politics since the seventies at least. The fact that self appointed "steadfast" conservatives have to resort to it because they have no other arguments is revealing as to their intellectual bankruptcy.

    You need to get with the programme anyway. Insulting UKIP voters is so last year for the Cameron wing of the Tory Party. As he found to his cost when calling his own supporters "fruitcakes, loons and closet racists."

    Remind me, how well did that go for him at the European Elections?

    (Original post by Smonnie)
    Truly terrifying that the cornerstone of your argument is that some immigrants are criminals - we have gone from talking about unskilled migrants to talking about rapists moving into my house. Very revealing indeed about the true motives behind your desire to 'limit' immigration.
    Not a cornerstone, more of a brick in the wall.

    This discussion arose because of your disquiet that I suggested we might establish immigration controls on qualitative grounds. I had pointed out WHY it made sense by referring to the benefit of not having foreign criminals living our streets that we could prevent coming to live here.

    If you don't agree that we control immigration on qualitative grounds could you please explain why you want criminals and rapists living here? How do we benefit?
    (Original post by Smonnie)
    And yes, you are right, we do not control immigration, because this the one of the core tenets of Maastricht. I have already expressed that I believe EU membership to be more important than limiting freedom of movement within the EU, so I do not need to go into detail again.
    Immigration is but a symptom of a wider malaise, the loss of our national sovereignty to the EU.

    We need to leave, but to achieve that we need a referendum on the subject, something all the establishment parties have prevented since 1975. Cameron has promised one if he wins, I will believe it when I see it. He lied before and I don't trust a word he says.
    (Original post by Smonnie)
    Once again, I draw your attention to the fact that our ageing population is a far greater burden than EU immigration.

    "10 million people in the UK are over 65 years old. The latest projections are for 5½ million more elderly people in 20 years time and the number will have nearly doubled to around 19 million by 2050. Within this total, the number of very old people grows even faster." - www.parliament.uk
    Do you really have so little confidence in our great nation that you think that having survived and prospered for well over a thousand years WITHOUT mass immigration (the Huguenots were a drop in the ocean by modern standards) our only hope for survival is to import millions born outside our shores?

    Today's immigrants will themselves become old and need support in their turn, it is a population Ponzi scheme.

    (Original post by Smonnie)
    We need to limit or breach human rights to make the country the right shade of white for you again?
    The race card played again, quelle surprise. No need to say more, in playing it you implicitly admit you have lost the argument... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    No she isn't, she is borderline evil like me and anyone else who considers voting UKIP.

    What was your elegant phrase? "Racist, bigoted, prejudiced."

    That is the problem when you play the race card and ascribe moral turpitude to your political opponents. Eventually even your own mother becomes the devil incarnate.
    Except that, yes, she is all of those things. She tries not to be sometimes, but she is racist, bigoted and prejudiced. That's exactly the point I am making.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)

    One expects it from the left, it has been the stock in trade of identity politics since the seventies at least. The fact that self appointed "steadfast" conservatives have to resort to it because they have no other arguments is revealing as to their intellectual bankruptcy.

    You need to get with the programme anyway. Insulting UKIP voters is so last year for the Cameron wing of the Tory Party. As he found to his cost when calling his own supporters "fruitcakes, loons and closet racists."

    Remind me, how well did that go for him at the European Elections?
    I'm not insulting UKIP voters to be fashionable, though. I am stating the facts about the vast majority of them. These are the same people that liked the BNP a couple of years ago.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Not a cornerstone, more of a brick in the wall.

    [COLOR=#505050]This discussion arose because of your disquiet that I suggested we might establish immigration controls on qualitative grounds. I had pointed out WHY it made sense by referring to the benefit of not having foreign criminals living our streets that we could prevent coming to live here. Also I'm a complete idiot.

    If you don't agree that we control immigration on qualitative grounds could you please explain why you want criminals and rapists living here? How do we benefit?
    Your point is a terrible one. The vast majority of immigrants are not criminals - and in fact if you do a quick search for immigration and crime, you will find that they are in fact inversely proportional.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)

    Immigration is but a symptom of a wider malaise, the loss of our national sovereignty to the EU.
    We haven't lost any sovereignty to the EU. And we are part of the EU - a big part - so you are actually saying that we have lost sovereignty to ourselves.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    We need to leave, but to achieve that we need a referendum on the subject, something all the establishment parties have prevented since 1975. Cameron has promised one if he wins, I will believe it when I see it. He lied before and I don't trust a word he says.
    Do you really have so little confidence in our great nation that you think that having survived and prospered for well over a thousand years WITHOUT mass immigration (the Huguenots were a drop in the ocean by modern standards) our only hope for survival is to import millions born outside our shores?
    It's not about needing mass immigration. It's about needing to be part of a supranational organisation in order to stand shoulder to shoulder with the world superpowers - USA, China, Russia, India. Leaving the EU would point towards becoming an isolationist nation with an island mentality - oh, and it would mean that everything we buy would go up in price, too. If you like the idea of an island mentality and can stand for us to be as relevant on the international stage as Finland, then great! But it doesn't sound like you do - it sounds like you believe our 'great nation' to be more important than it is.

    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    Today's immigrants will themselves become old and need support in their turn, it is a population Ponzi scheme.
    Yes, they will, but they will make up a tiny proportion of the overall elderly population.


    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    The race card played again, quelle surprise. No need to say more, in playing it you implicitly admit you have lost the argument...
    No matter what arguments you mould to fit, it is the fact that these people are different to you that you are scared of.

    History will laugh at UKIP - I'm ahead of the curve.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smonnie)
    Except that, yes, she is all of those things. She tries not to be sometimes, but she is racist, bigoted and prejudiced. That's exactly the point I am making.
    She is a look into your own future. It is a well established fact that people move to the right as they age, someone like you, a Conservative in youth, will share her views, or more by middle age.

    And look back on what you now espouse, with embarrassment.

    (Original post by Smonnie)
    I'm not insulting UKIP voters to be fashionable, though. I am stating the facts about the vast majority of them. These are the same people that liked the BNP a couple of years ago.
    A combination of political illiteracy and the "association fallacy."

    The illiteracy is to imply a political party which caused two of the biggest by election swings in political history, and were the first new party to win a national election in over a hundred years did so by hoovering up the votes of millions of fascists, when the BNP NEVER scored more than a risible percentage in national elections and by elections.

    UKIP certainly has many ex BNP voters, but it has far more ex Tories, ex Labour and Lib Dem voters, and ex non voters.

    The association fallacy, again typical of the left, is to conflate a fascist party (the BNP) with a democratic one (UKIP). Guilt by association in the more common parlance.
    (Original post by Smonnie)
    Your point is a terrible one. The vast majority of immigrants are not criminals - and in fact if you do a quick search for immigration and crime, you will find that they are in fact inversely proportional.
    You still don't seem to have grasped this "terrible" point, and instead desperately construct a straw man.

    Where did I ever say that "the vast majority of immigrants" are criminals? Please quote any comment in any of my posts? You can't because I never said that.

    You didn't like me saying we should control immigration on qualitative grounds, I put forward an argument to do so, to prevent criminals coming here.

    You can't argue against that it would seem, and have been flailing about ever since.

    I will ask you the question, one final time. WHY SHOULD WE NOT CONTROL THE "QUALITY" OF IMMIGRANTS BY NOT ALLOWING CONVICTED CRIMINALS TO IMMIGRATE?

    Feel free to answer, but don't expect me to respond in my turn if you fail yet again to address this point.


    (Original post by Smonnie)
    We haven't lost any sovereignty to the EU. And we are part of the EU - a big part - so you are actually saying that we have lost sovereignty to ourselves.
    This indicates that you neither understand the meaning of the concept of "national sovereignty" nor how the EU works.
    (Original post by Smonnie)
    It's not about needing mass immigration. It's about needing to be part of a supranational organisation in order to stand shoulder to shoulder with the world superpowers
    Tell me you are joking? :rolleyes:
    (Original post by Smonnie)
    History will laugh at UKIP - I'm ahead of the curve.
    I have no idea what history will make of UKIP, but DO know that you are ahead of your own curve.

    By the time you reach middle age you will realise we were right all along. Just sayin...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geokinkladze)
    and yet you favour the green party. I guess sexual discrimination isn't as important to you as racial discrimination.
    Race and sex are incomparable in terms of seriousness. nevertheless discrimination solves nothing
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chodaboy)
    I agree with you and it's a point I tried to make to my friends recently. I think something like 50% of all UK benefit spending goes on pensions. Less than 3% is spent on people signing on the dole, yet everyone constantly blames lazy people and immigrants. Things like the benefit system and NHS were set up when we had a smaller population with fewer elderly, it wasn't created with current and future conditions in mind. That's why everything is stressed to the max and it's only going to get far worse. The elderly are going to slowly bleed us dry. We can't keep raising the retirement age so I suggest mandatory execution upon reaching the age of 65. The money that would be freed up could be used to improve the current state of the NHS, and also the bodies of the elderly could be harvested as food for the young further reducing spending. The money saved here could go towards paying the wages of a new government division that specialises in rounding up and herding the sheep, I mean old people, but as they can't really put up much of a fight this division could remain quite small. Perhaps offering some form of tax rebate to families who carry out the harvesting process by themselves could act as an incentive. I for one look forward to a brighter future. UKIP 2015
    I highly recommend the film "Logans Run"
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
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.