Turn on thread page Beta

Do you consider UKIP good or bad? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Any party that promote disunity, disintegration and cultural separation is inherently bad. Of course over population is an issue, but lets not point the finger at the most vulnerable. It is corporations that set the context of mass migration. Point the finger at them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    UKIP all the way , the party that makes the most sense.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdamGooderson)
    Any party that promote disunity, disintegration and cultural separation is inherently bad. Of course over population is an issue, but lets not point the finger at the most vulnerable. It is corporations that set the context of mass migration. Point the finger at them.
    Who is pointing the finger? How?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdamGooderson)
    Any party that promote disunity, disintegration and cultural separation is inherently bad.
    Except, see, UKIP does none of those things it simply advocates immigration control.
    (Original post by AdamGooderson)
    Of course over population is an issue, but lets not point the finger at the most vulnerable. It is corporations that set the context of mass migration. Point the finger at them.
    Why is controlling immigration pointing fingers at anybody?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Just thought I'd preface this by saying I am not a UKIP supporter and will not be voting for them.


    (Original post by Steliata)
    I dislike UKIP for numerous reasons:
    • I don't trust an idiot like Nigel Farage to lead the country. His statements during the recent debates made him out as a fool.
    I agree he made some stupid statements, but you must surely agree that he has a certain gift for appearing sincere. Idiot or not, I believe he is speaking his mind and being honest, and he can be funny. The other leaders are so drearily, predictably rehearsed, just doling out the usual soundbites. I cannot understand why people said Sturgeon "won" the debate. She was from the same identikit mould as the rest. Just look at the opening statements again and you can instantly see the difference when Farage makes his.

    Frankly I can why he has appeal, and he is often rather unfairly attacked in the media who will wilfully misconstrue something either to attack him or to drum up a story on a slow day.

    Of course to me that just confirms my impression that he speaks his mind honestly, maybe idiotically and without thinking, but still honestly. The others are trying so hard not to get caught out, playing the media/spin game like good little professional politicians. The one point I must wholeheartedly agree with him on is that there are too many career politicians around.



    • The continuous scapegoating of immigrants that the party engages in for issues that are seemingly unrelated. Restricting immigration is not the answer to all the ills of society, and their rhetoric about it is boring and panders to popular opinion rather than logic and compassion.
    Agreed, I hardly think immigrants are causing bad traffic. However there are questions to be put on the topic, and arguably it is only because of UKIP that other parties are being forced to discuss it. Rather aggravatingly, people still use accusations of racism to try and shut them down in debate rather than answering points which some members of the public obviously want answered (else UKIP would not be getting votes). It is not racist to want to have a free and frank discussion about immigration.

    • The contradiction of their anti-immigration policy and their anti-foreign aid policy - if you want to reduce immigration it is prudent to offer countries aid in order to raise standards of living there and reduce the need for migration. And vice versa - a lower amount of foreign aid will probably result in more immigration.
    A strong point and I see your logic here. I suppose their response would be to say that they're seeing precious little results in terms of our aid reducing migration at the moment so why throw any more money at it? Is it really improving countries when corrupt officials just pocket it all? Or perhaps they'd say that the money is needed in Britain more, or at least that British MPs are voted in to spend money to benefit their own citizens first and foremost?

    • The way their party seems to hate anybody that is not a straight white male. See almost every public statement they have made since they came into the lens of the media.
    Ok, this is really the comment that made me want to reply. Where on earth have you got that idea from? That seems to be just part of the media and three main parties' attack on UKIP's reputation.

    I have seen lots of accusations of racism and odd comments from various members of the party but nothing like that. Do you have any examples of that because I have not seen anything remotely like that in the news...?

    • The way the 'typical UKIP voter' behaves, thinking they are superior to everyone else and continuously making sweeping judgements about anyone who is not them. I don't think that kind of attitude will lead to any form of political progress.

    So there is my opinion.
    A little unfair perhaps? I rather think that is common to almost any party, group, society, etc... UKIP are by no means the only ones who are guilty of that.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I see a lot of sterotypical statements about UKIP, many of which have no substance. Seriously, actually read UKIPs policies instead of just parroting the "they hate immigrants" line.


    (Original post by Steliata)
    • The contradiction of their anti-immigration policy and their anti-foreign aid policy - if you want to reduce immigration it is prudent to offer countries aid in order to raise standards of living there and reduce the need for migration. And vice versa - a lower amount of foreign aid will probably result in more immigration..

    I don't think that really follows. An increase in immigration from low foreign aid only makes sense if those immigrants are allowed in the country.

    (Original post by Steliata)

    • The way their party seems to hate anybody that is not a straight white male. See almost every public statement they have made since they came into the lens of the media.

    .
    I see no evidence of this.

    (Original post by AdamGooderson)
    Any party that promote disunity, disintegration and cultural separation is inherently bad. .
    I don't see how this applies to UKIP.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B-FJL3)
    Of course to me that just confirms my impression that he speaks his mind honestly, maybe idiotically and without thinking, but still honestly. The others are trying so hard not to get caught out, playing the media/spin game like good little professional politicians. The one point I must wholeheartedly agree with him on is that there are too many career politicians around.
    He is honest, and that is possibly the only thing I admire about him. However I can't get over his policies and the things he has said, he would not make a good Prime Minister in terms of representing the whole country.

    (Original post by B-FJL3)
    Rather aggravatingly, people still use accusations of racism to try and shut them down in debate rather than answering points which some members of the public obviously want answered (else UKIP would not be getting votes). It is not racist to want to have a free and frank discussion about immigration.
    I can see where you are coming from here, unfortunately this has led to immigration being used by some parties to dodge other issues such as the NHS or shady trade deals. My point was mainly influenced by how I have no real problem with immigration so I can see I come across as biased.

    (Original post by B-FJL3)
    A strong point and I see your logic here. I suppose their response would be to say that they're seeing precious little results in terms of our aid reducing migration at the moment so why throw any more money at it? Is it really improving countries when corrupt officials just pocket it all? Or perhaps they'd say that the money is needed in Britain more, or at least that British MPs are voted in to spend money to benefit their own citizens first and foremost?
    Thank you. I agree, that's probably their response to it. Again it's my opinion on foreign aid etc guiding what I've said, other countries hate us enough as it is so it's unrealistic to withdraw foreign aid. In terms of improving corrupt countries, tha's a good point and I think it is more important to sort those things out than just take away the aid. The country will still be corrupt with or without our money.

    (Original post by B-FJL3)
    A little unfair perhaps? I rather think that is common to almost any party, group, society, etc... UKIP are by no means the only ones who are guilty of that.
    In retrospect it was an unfair statement, but they still aggravate me. Thank you for your well-reasoned and polite reply.

    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Seriously, actually read UKIPs policies instead of just parroting the "they hate immigrants" line.
    It's not unreasonable to parrot the "they hate immigrants" line, they follow that themselves. Did you see Farage during the Leaders' Debate? Also, slightly off topic, but here is Nigel Farage a few years ago. He hadn't read the policies... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek159wmiB3E

    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    I don't think that really follows. An increase in immigration from low foreign aid only makes sense if those immigrants are allowed in the country.
    The UK is seen as a desirable place to live. There will always be immigrants wanting a better life, especially if they're from a background that lacks opportunity. We could stop letting these people in and further reduce their opportunities in life or we could help their country make their lives better without them having to leave everything behind. The second one makes more sense to me, personally.

    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    I see no evidence of this.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-25793358 - Attacking gay people.
    From UKIP's policies - Businesses should be able to discriminate in favour of young British workers. (racism and ageism? In the party manifesto? Oh boy)
    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...-faces-7903646 - Attacking multiculturalism and calling 'Islamic terror' a result of Muslims moving to the UK. And, more importantly, the party's refusal to withdraw him as a candidate.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10126032.html - Needs no explanation really.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32176826 - In case you didn't hear about Farage using HIV to gain political points about immigration.

    There are many more examples of Nigel Farage and his party saying horrible things about people that happen to be different but I thought those 5 were enough to get my point across.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steliata)

    It's not unreasonable to parrot the "they hate immigrants" line, they follow that themselves. Did you see Farage during the Leaders' Debate?
    Yes, I didn't see anything along the lines of hating immigrants. He brought up issues with immigrants, but he has said time and time again he doesn't have anything against immigrants.



    (Original post by Steliata)
    The UK is seen as a desirable place to live. There will always be immigrants wanting a better life, especially if they're from a background that lacks opportunity. We could stop letting these people in and further reduce their opportunities in life or we could help their country make their lives better without them having to leave everything behind. The second one makes more sense to me, personally.
    I fail to see how that's a contradiction though.



    Seeing how he's ex-Tory, I don't see the same scrutiny directed at them? Considering he's not very high up as well (and a recent addition), it's not really much of a reflection on the party itself.


    (Original post by Steliata)
    From UKIP's policies - Businesses should be able to discriminate in favour of young British workers. (racism and ageism? In the party manifesto? Oh boy)

    I don't know what year or country you live in, but in the Britain I know, we have a sizable non-white British community.

    (Original post by Steliata)
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10126032.html - Needs no explanation really.
    Nigel is angry at a bunch of protesters for ruining his private family lunch? Or are you not allowed to be annoyed at anyone supporting an LGBT cause for reasons unrelated to their LGBT status?

    (Original post by Steliata)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32176826 - In case you didn't hear about Farage using HIV to gain political points about immigration.
    While I doubt his statistics, there is nothing discriminatory about that. He has a problem with health tourism, and he brought up said issue using HIV as an example illness.

    (Original post by Steliata)
    There are many more examples of Nigel Farage and his party saying horrible things about people that happen to be different but I thought those 5 were enough to get my point across.
    And the vast majority of them are taken to their extreme, as above. I see very little to back up the claims that are being made against UKIP.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steliata)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-25793358 - Attacking gay people.
    From UKIP's policies - Businesses should be able to discriminate in favour of young British workers. (racism and ageism? In the party manifesto? Oh boy)
    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...-faces-7903646 - Attacking multiculturalism and calling 'Islamic terror' a result of Muslims moving to the UK. And, more importantly, the party's refusal to withdraw him as a candidate.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10126032.html - Needs no explanation really.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32176826 - In case you didn't hear about Farage using HIV to gain political points about immigration.

    There are many more examples of Nigel Farage and his party saying horrible things about people that happen to be different but I thought those 5 were enough to get my point across.
    You posted links to a UKIP councillor and a would be candidate with their outpsoken views. Does the forced resignations of Rochdale council over allegations they covered up crimes of paedophile gangs mean that the labour party treats the raping of children lightly?

    You post a link implying Farage called LGBT activists filfth and scum. He didn't. He called the people who terrified his children filfth and scum. Their sexuality or the basis of their protest was irrelevant to him.

    In short you can find lots of links to members past, present or future of all the major political parties
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I couple of times I've heard people say 'the only way to keep Britain British is to vote UKIP'. This is my problem with UKIP, immigrants don't make Britain less 'British'. They are, to me, part of what makes Britain 'British'. Britain is one of the most diverse, multicultural countries and I think that should be embraced, not seen as a negative.

    Something that makes me laugh; when people move to Britain they are given the title immigrants, but when white British families move abroad, all of a sudden they are called 'ex-pats' instead.

    I'm interested to know, for anyone thinking of voting UKIP, do you not think with striker immigration policies UKIP should be promising stricter emigration policies too? seems fair surely.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just to be clear here, come the general election the likelihood of me voting Ukip is minimal. However I would just like to interject on all the hate that 'pro immigration control' is getting here.

    Supporting pro immigration control does not make you a racist, neither does having it as part of a party manifesto make that party 'evil'. Thought like that is ignorant and is purely left over 'labour' indoctrination. A very easy way to discredit a party and a leader, by cultivating this opinion that there are two people, those who are good people and support 'open' immigration and those who don't and are bad evil racist people.

    A point based immigration system is healthy, there's a reason why both America and Australia have it. It allows a country to prioritise it's skill needs and deficit and get the right people in to fix it. Such a system is not inherently bad, it is not going to lead to social segregation or the end to multiculturalism. It would just allow us to control numbers and what skill sets we need.

    For those who would say it's not 'compassionate' then all I have to say is tough. When we were such a super wealthy country and practically everyone had a job, then we were in a good position to take the worlds masses in, feed them, provide for them, give them a better life. We do no one a service, not least to ourselves, when we have a reckless immigration policy. We are a small tiny Island, not a huge super state.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...ar-extremists/

    What on earth is "secular extremism"?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EwanBodenham)
    I couple of times I've heard people say 'the only way to keep Britain British is to vote UKIP'. This is my problem with UKIP, immigrants don't make Britain less 'British'. They are, to me, part of what makes Britain 'British'. Britain is one of the most diverse, multicultural countries and I think that should be embraced, not seen as a negative.
    Your real problem with UKIP is that you are under the mistaken impression that UKIP are "against immigration". UKIP advocate returning to controlled immigration, something which has helped make our country as diverse and welcoming as it is.

    (Original post by EwanBodenham)
    Something that makes me laugh; when people move to Britain they are given the title immigrants, but when white British families move abroad, all of a sudden they are called 'ex-pats' instead.
    What do YOU think they should be called. There isn't a rule you know? Apart from the informal rules of grammar.


    (Original post by EwanBodenham)
    I'm interested to know, for anyone thinking of voting UKIP, do you not think with striker immigration policies UKIP should be promising stricter emigration policies too? seems fair surely.
    Not really, restricting a British person's freedom to leave the country is not the same as restricting a non-British person's freedom to enter our country.

    The oft used analogy is that of a household. You don't stop people who live in your house leaving, but you don't allow anyone who chooses to simply move in.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geokinkladze)
    x
    You do realise that when people post their opinion on this thread they don't necessarily want you to nitpick at it trying to prove that UKIP is a party worth voting for?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steliata)
    You do realise that when people post their opinion on this thread they don't necessarily want you to nitpick at it trying to prove that UKIP is a party worth voting for?
    Correct me if I'm wrong but is this not a "debate and current affairs" forum?

    Anyway I wouldn't exactly describe my reply to the post below as "nitpicking" but ymmv.


    (Original post by Steliata)
    I dislike UKIP for numerous reasons:
    • The way their party seems to hate anybody that is not a straight white male. See almost every public statement they have made since they came into the lens of the media.
    • The way the 'typical UKIP voter' behaves, thinking they are superior to everyone else and continuously making sweeping judgements about anyone who is not them.
    (Original post by geokinkladze)
    Hopefully I'm not the only one who sees the irony in that sweeping judgement?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geokinkladze)
    Correct me if I'm wrong but is this not a "debate and current affairs" forum?

    Anyway I wouldn't exactly describe my reply to the post below as "nitpicking" but ymmv.
    It is, however OP asked 'Do you consider UKIP good or bad?'. I gave my response, which is 'bad' (note I said at the bottom 'so that is my opinion') and I'd like to leave it at that thanks. I don't see the point in debating any further when neither of us are going to change our views anyway.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steliata)
    It is, however OP asked 'Do you consider UKIP good or bad?'. I gave my response, which is 'bad' (note I said at the bottom 'so that is my opinion') and I'd like to leave it at that thanks. I don't see the point in debating any further when neither of us are going to change our views anyway.
    So just ignore responses then. But instead what you seem to want to do is reply and then finish with "I don't want to discuss this anymore". Of course you are entitled to make such requests but don't expect to always get what you want that way.

    BTW I wasn't trying to change your opinion, merely pointing out you were making a sweeping judgement about UKIP making sweeping judgements.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Need we do any more than watch this video?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXebwm7RRo
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EwanBodenham)
    Need we do any more than watch this video?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXebwm7RRo
    She was sacked by UKIP wasn't she?

    This lady however, wasn't sacked by her party:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-hlQGrUes
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geokinkladze)
    She was sacked by UKIP wasn't she?

    This lady however, wasn't sacked by her party:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-hlQGrUes
    Neither was this guy, who blamed the floods on gay marriage



    Neither was this guy who called gay adoption child abuse



    Nor this woman who attacked her accused her HIV positive rival of deliberately contracting HIV and also said should be refused medical treatment



    This guy is still a UKIP MEP despite racially abusing a Scottish government minister



    This guy wasn't sacked despite making racist posts on facebook



    Neither was this guy despite being a homophone and all round idiot

 
 
 
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.