Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Farage Stays as UKIP Leader Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Excellent news, great politician. Shame he didn't get in due to the scaremongering from the Tories about SNP. Viva Farage
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    The Dark Nige Rises.
    better
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    When he gave his resignation speech he really seemed to be speaking from the heart.
    He's tired, his mind may have been changed a bit but has his heart?

    I think he cares for his team & they need time to see if someone else can fill the gap that he will sooner, or later make.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leahnesbit)
    So in your ideal world there would be no books, films, entertainment????? Not to mention the fact you find journalists unimportant (i.e. no newspapers) also without them, you wouldn't know hardly anything about politics anyway. Furthermore, what's not to say things like physics and maths aren't hobbies to some people? Astrology?!!!!! You're point is stupid - you can't say some subjects are more important than others.
    Of course not, I'm simply saying that books, films, entertainment etc. are less important than industry, technology etc. to an economy. When the government decides to intervene in education, it should consider the economic impact of their decision - an investment in STEM (ie more funding) is economically more valuable than an investment in the arts.

    And you've been very uncritical in your response - I'm not saying that some people don't study science as a hobby, or, indeed, study English purely for their career; I'm saying that the subject itself has its origins as a hobby, whereas science has a history of being used to further technology etc. You're not denying that, are you?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KevK92)
    120 second places. You my friend, are deluded. Entirely deluded.
    No, he/she's entirely correct.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think UKIP should merge with some far-right 'conservative' tories and form our very own 'republican' party or 'tea party'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Of course not, I'm simply saying that books, films, entertainment etc. are less important than industry, technology etc. to an economy. When the government decides to intervene in education, it should consider the economic impact of their decision - an investment in STEM (ie more funding) is economically more valuable than an investment in the arts.

    And you've been very uncritical in your response - I'm not saying that some people don't study science as a hobby, or, indeed, study English purely for their career; I'm saying that the subject itself has its origins as a hobby, whereas science has a history of being used to further technology etc. You're not denying that, are you?
    I completely agree with leahnesbit. Yes, I don't dispute that science is vitally necessary to further technology which will help improve methods of production and so will be beneficial to the economy. However I completely disagree with the need to only invest in science based subjects. Are you forgetting that all of these politicians don't have science degrees, but have degrees of the arts or classics? These people are supposedly the most powerful people in the country! It's almost as if the politicians want young people to stay away from the arts, and focus on the sciences, so they can stay in power for as long as possible without large competition of the next generation. They're trying to create a generation that is revolved around technology, and whose purpose is to do the actions instructed by them, as politicians.

    I believe in equality, and because of that I believe that the government should invest equal amounts into the different areas of education. There are so many different jobs, from the low skilled to the high skilled WHICH INCLUDE SKILLED IN THE ARTS and without them society would not be able to cope. If there is going to be a variety of jobs, a variety of people and a society that is accepting, the government should not be trying to force young people into doing science based subjects when their heart lies in the arts.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    my thoughts :

    Politics is a career.

    Not a decision to help people, improve the country, and go back to your normal life
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    As with all things Farage, there was an element of theatricality to his resignation and then reappointment, if that's what it was. I suppose they felt he had to at least pose as resigning after having promised he would if he didn't get elected. I doubt there was ever a real 'resignation', it's just theatre.

    One of the strange things is why he said he would resign if not elected. Did he imagine that would get him more votes? Quite the contrary I would think.
    it was a stupid move, the conservatives threw everything because of it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chesk12)
    i completely agree with leahnesbit. Yes, i don't dispute that science is vitally necessary to further technology which will help improve methods of production and so will be beneficial to the economy. However i completely disagree with the need to only invest in science based subjects. Are you forgetting that all of these politicians don't have science degrees, but have degrees of the arts or classics? These people are supposedly the most powerful people in the country! It's almost as if the politicians want young people to stay away from the arts, and focus on the sciences, so they can stay in power for as long as possible without large competition of the next generation. They're trying to create a generation that is revolved around technology, and whose purpose is to do the actions instructed by them, as politicians.

    I believe in equality, and because of that i believe that the government should invest equal amounts into the different areas of education. There are so many different jobs, from the low skilled to the high skilled which include skilled in the arts and without them society would not be able to cope. If there is going to be a variety of jobs, a variety of people and a society that is accepting, the government should not be trying to force young people into doing science based subjects when their heart lies in the arts.
    amen brother
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Good, the Tories need someone to give them a pain in the arse.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chesk12)
    I completely agree with leahnesbit. Yes, I don't dispute that science is vitally necessary to further technology which will help improve methods of production and so will be beneficial to the economy. However I completely disagree with the need to only invest in science based subjects. Are you forgetting that all of these politicians don't have science degrees, but have degrees of the arts or classics? These people are supposedly the most powerful people in the country! It's almost as if the politicians want young people to stay away from the arts, and focus on the sciences, so they can stay in power for as long as possible without large competition of the next generation. They're trying to create a generation that is revolved around technology, and whose purpose is to do the actions instructed by them, as politicians.

    I believe in equality, and because of that I believe that the government should invest equal amounts into the different areas of education. There are so many different jobs, from the low skilled to the high skilled WHICH INCLUDE SKILLED IN THE ARTS and without them society would not be able to cope. If there is going to be a variety of jobs, a variety of people and a society that is accepting, the government should not be trying to force young people into doing science based subjects when their heart lies in the arts.

    You really have not put up a great argument to support your case - you've done your side a disservice, really. The list below can be linked to the parts in bold.

    1. A government's main priority should be to help the long-term prospects of the economy - if STEM graduates are more likely to contribute to the productive capacity of the economy, it follows that they should get preference.

    2. I can't believe you've actually written this. You're seriously suggesting that it might be some megalomaniacal plot by politicians to ensure they are never pushed out? Do you think that because many politicians have arts degrees, having one is a requirement to become one? If not, then you should recognise that subsidising STEM subjects further will have no effect on the number of new politicians. I'm not going to engage with your conspiracy theory more than I already have - it's not worth it, frankly.

    3. Saying 'I believe in equality' and then extend that to the equality of university education is absolutely ridiculous. It implies that you believe in equality of everything - surely you can't believe in equality of everything, can you?

    'I believe in equality, therefore I think that water should be priced the same as beer.' The same flawed principle is at work here. Just because I believe in equality, that does not make it right for alcohol (something that is worse for you than water) to be on par with water. Asking the government to act with unflinching equality is to ignore the serious role government has in our society - its purpose is to guide the country away from things it should not be doing and to guide us towards things we should be doing.

    4. There's no coercion at work here - if someone's heart is in the arts, they can study an arts subject. Making choice A more attractive does not force people to stop taking choice B.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    You really have not put up a great argument to support your case - you've done your side a disservice, really. The list below can be linked to the parts in bold.

    1. A government's main priority should be to help the long-term prospects of the economy - if STEM graduates are more likely to contribute to the productive capacity of the economy, it follows that they should get preference.

    2. I can't believe you've actually written this. You're seriously suggesting that it might be some megalomaniacal plot by politicians to ensure they are never pushed out? Do you think that because many politicians have arts degrees, having one is a requirement to become one? If not, then you should recognise that subsidising STEM subjects further will have no effect on the number of new politicians. I'm not going to engage with your conspiracy theory more than I already have - it's not worth it, frankly.

    3. Saying 'I believe in equality' and then extend that to the equality of university education is absolutely ridiculous. It implies that you believe in equality of everything - surely you can't believe in equality of everything, can you?

    'I believe in equality, therefore I think that water should be priced the same as beer.' The same flawed principle is at work here. Just because I believe in equality, that does not make it right for alcohol (something that is worse for you than water) to be on par with water. Asking the government to act with unflinching equality is to ignore the serious role government has in our society - its purpose is to guide the country away from things it should not be doing and to guide us towards things we should be doing.

    4. There's no coercion at work here - if someone's heart is in the arts, they can study an arts subject. Making choice A more attractive does not force people to stop taking choice B.

    You can think what you like, and so can I. Equality is for everybody and should be taken into consideration when making any choice. What you're forgetting is that there are many jobs that need professionals and specialists in the arts. Yes people can still go down the arts path, but if they are surrounded by people who are encouraging them to go down a science route, which may have better teachers and better resources, more people will sacrifice their passion to do what they think they want to do, which really isn't a true reflection on what they want to do, but an idea forced into their head by society.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by balanced)
    it was a stupid move, the conservatives threw everything because of it
    :yep:

    His advice is poor, a sign either that UKIP struggle to recruit good people to do the advising, or else that Nige doesn't like being advised. Suspect it's the latter.

    Mind you, we could say the same thing about Ed. :lol:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chesk12)
    You can think what you like, and so can I. Equality is for everybody and should be taken into consideration when making any choice. What you're forgetting is that there are many jobs that need professionals and specialists in the arts. Yes people can still go down the arts path, but if they are surrounded by people who are encouraging them to go down a science route, which may have better teachers and better resources, more people will sacrifice their passion to do what they think they want to do, which really isn't a true reflection on what they want to do, but an idea forced into their head by society.
    You really haven't engaged with my argument about the role of government in the incentivisation of certain behaviours, have you?

    Of course there are jobs for which it is preferable to have an arts degree - that is not being disputed, and is not even part of the debate. The matter of debate is how to solve the shortage of STEM graduates in the UK, which creates a long run disadvantage for UK graduates and for the economy in general.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    No, he/she's entirely correct.
    Correct, maybe. To champion that as some kind of achievement is delusional.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KevK92)
    Correct, maybe. To champion that as some kind of achievement is delusional.
    How the hell is it not an achievement for a party, in five years, to rise from almost complete obscurity to gaining second place in 120 seats?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:


    Farage never quits.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Their main mistake was getting rid of Godfrey Bloom. I don't think Farage leaving now would be good for them when they are just in the process of becoming Britain's 3rd party.
    Godfrey Bloom was an absolute liability. He had about the same political nous as a bar of soap.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Godfrey Bloom was an absolute liability. He had about the same political nous as a bar of soap.
    Yes, I recognise that he had that problem that it would be hard for ordinary people to vote for him as they don't know what he was talking about.

    But he was right. That's the problem. You have to sacrifice your position to appeal to the common person.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling about your A-level results?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.