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

    2
    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    Indeed, they are nothing like the BNP, their only simmilarity is the fact that they dont like the EU really.
    Not true, UKIP are also tough on immigration, just to a lesser extent - but they're still far tougher on it than lib/lab/con ... plus UKIP seem more socially authoritarian to me than lib/con/lab, which makes them like the BNP in that respect also.

    Economically they're opposites, socialism vs free-market. The BNP will hate Thatcher, UKIP will love her.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    The BNP will hate Thatcher, UKIP will love her.
    I'm not a great fan. I think she was pretty naive in her dealings with her EU partners and deceitful with the British public. I also think she was too harsh and uncompromising with the miners.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by robbo3045)
    The BNP is backward and scary. I hope they never come to great power, or we are doomed.
    BNP's membership is mainly made up of uneducated white working-class males. I wouldn't worry about them coming into power yet.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Not true, UKIP are also tough on immigration, just to a lesser extent - but they're still far tougher on it than lib/lab/con ... plus UKIP seem more socially authoritarian to me than lib/con/lab, which makes them like the BNP in that respect also.

    Economically they're opposites, socialism vs free-market. The BNP will hate Thatcher, UKIP will love her.

    UKIP are tough on immigration, yet their policies dont seem anything more than those implemented in countries like Australia, Canada and the US.

    They dont seem in any way socially authoritarian to me, They say very little about social issues, it seems rather low on their priority list especially when compared with Parties like the BNP or even in my opinion New Labour.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Darkness and Mist)
    UKIP are tough on immigration, yet their policies dont seem anything more than those implemented in countries like Australia, Canada and the US.

    They dont seem in any way socially authoritarian to me, They say very little about social issues, it seems rather low on their priority list especially when compared with Parties like the BNP or even in my opinion New Labour.
    Being more liberal than the BNP and new labour isn't saying much: a "libertarian" party jolly well should discuss social issues, and fall consistently onto the side of liberalism. If they did that I would support them, but I don't purely want economic liberalism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George5210)
    They are a very right wing, one policy party. What else are they going to do once they take us out of Europe? Of course I understand they have other policies, but are they ones people are actually voting for?

    I think they are basically a pressure group in the form of a political party ... maybe they should stay that way ...
    You know they are the 4th biggest political party in the UK in terms of votes in the last general election.

    (Original post by Maker)
    They are a bunch of crooks. How can a party that wants the UK to leave Europe have 12 MEPs all taking European money so they can leave use it to Europe? Basically, if they suceed in their objective, they will make themselves redundant. People who vote for them must have a serious mental deficient.
    Why shouldn't they use the EUs money against it if they are opposed to it? If they can get free money from the EU good for them. By standing in the euro elections they show how many people want to leave the european union, if they manage to continue increasing their share of the votes and eventually get around 40-50% it would probably force a referendum on eu membership.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    But I think their stance on immigration is too tough, a five year freeze on it? What about good skilled immigrants, why can't they come over? I know UKIP have black members and are not racist or anything - I don't think there is malice to their tough stance on immigration. But I do think it's wrong nonetheless and wouldn't better society.

    And I just feel like there are too many daily mail readers who vote for them, rather than libertarians. For that reason they could never implement the social aspects of liberalism. I see them as a party that would take a tougher stance on drugs before reclassifying them favourably - they certainly would not decriminalise or legalise them outright. Not very libertarian for a party that uses that word to describe itself.
    A five year freeze on immigration would allow time for recent immigrants to integrate into the nation and prevent certain areas of the country simply becoming foreign. Plus it would reduce the perception of immigrants being bad, improving the lives of ethnic minorities in the country who might otherwise face discrimination or abuse. The far right vote would collapse straight away which could only be a good thing for the country as people find real solutions to problems facing them instead of simply blaming everything on immigrants as some people do.

    They may claim to be libertarian but I think of them more as conservative. There not the type of people who would legalise drugs as its not what most people would want especially there supporters. Also it would leave many people vulnerable afterall its not like middle class people would really get into drugs it will mainly just be poorer young people who come from bad backgrounds. Sometimes people need protecting from themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    They are a bunch of crooks. How can a party that wants the UK to leave Europe have 12 MEPs all taking European money so they can leave use it to Europe?
    It's not "European" money, it's taxpayers' money that has been forcibly appropriated even from those who oppose the EU. The EU happily spends it on self-promoting poster campaigns and sending propaganda material to schools; I hardly think it's unreasonable for anti-EU parties to be given some of their own money back.

    Basically, if they suceed in their objective, they will make themselves redundant. People who vote for them must have a serious mental deficient.
    Presumably they regard leaving the EU as the end goal, not the preservation of the UKIP party machine...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFroggy)
    A five year freeze on immigration would allow time for recent immigrants to integrate into the nation and prevent certain areas of the country simply becoming foreign. Plus it would reduce the perception of immigrants being bad, improving the lives of ethnic minorities in the country who might otherwise face discrimination or abuse. The far right vote would collapse straight away which could only be a good thing for the country as people find real solutions to problems facing them instead of simply blaming everything on immigrants as some people do.

    They may claim to be libertarian but I think of them more as conservative. There not the type of people who would legalise drugs as its not what most people would want especially there supporters. Also it would leave many people vulnerable afterall its not like middle class people would really get into drugs it will mainly just be poorer young people who come from bad backgrounds. Sometimes people need protecting from themselves.
    You seem to share similar views to those of the propsed Patriotic Conservative Party. Follow the link in my signature to a website discussing a PCP. Or maybe you could PM me.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I think UKIP...






    ...could improve their logo from not looking so tacky.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robbo3045)
    Most definitely.



    All of the above speaks for itself, and also going on the legacy of the party in years gone by, who would insight homosexuals (or 'aids monkeys') to change their ways, and keep themselves behind closed doors. And the obvious hatred of a culturally diverse nation. A spokesman for the BNP also called Aids a 'friendly disease', in killing 'blacks and homosexuals'.

    I also question the source of funds for a never ending prison system, boosting endless numbers of beds and staff in hospitals and the copious amounts of benefits they aim to give.
    It does speak for itself- common sense politics .

    A few old quotes won't get your argument very far, but yes they are against cultural diversity in the extreme state in which it is forced upon us now, rather than the regional cultural diversity underneath a dominant culture we had in the past.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by MrFroggy)
    They may claim to be libertarian but I think of them more as conservative. There not the type of people who would legalise drugs as its not what most people would want especially there supporters. Also it would leave many people vulnerable afterall its not like middle class people would really get into drugs it will mainly just be poorer young people who come from bad backgrounds. Sometimes people need protecting from themselves.
    And then you go and spoil it all, by saying something stupid like a socialist would say (but related to the economy instead.)

    I simply can't support a party where many of the voters, and probably candidates, think like this. Though your immigration point was actually quite decent and I don't mind that so much. I don't think it's the role of the state to put poor people into prison "to save them", actually.

    I'm sure the liberal democrats realise this, on closer inspection of certain high up members histories - they just can't say it outright now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    And then you go and spoil it all, by saying something stupid like a socialist would say (but related to the economy instead.)

    I simply can't support a party where many of the voters, and probably candidates, think like this. Though your immigration point was actually quite decent and I don't mind that so much. I don't think it's the role of the state to put poor people into prison "to save them", actually.

    I'm sure the liberal democrats realise this, on closer inspection of certain high up members histories - they just can't say it outright now.
    In the real world (but not in your "libertarianutopia") drug use doesn't only effect the users of such a drug but many others that are attached to them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I like them a lot, i just feel they are too much of a one issue party, i don't really like their name either to be honest as it just adds to that.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    In the real world (but not in your "libertarianutopia") drug use doesn't only effect the users of such a drug but many others that are attached to them.
    Indeed, hence I support a policy that is likely to decrease the amount of people using drugs, that helps those who are addicted with medical care rather than locking them up, which decreases the likelyhood of crime by eliminating drug dealers and the black market, by lowering prices of the substances which reduces muggings and burgularly, which can save billions a year in police and prison expenses and which allows the police to focus on important crimes such as assaults and rapes etc instead, and which would generate billions in taxes each year.

    When Portugal decriminalised drugs a decade ago it reduced the amount of people using drugs and it reduced crime rates. In Holland when cannabis was decriminalised it reduced the amount of people smoking marijuana there - and in the UK and USA where we have this war on drugs, rates of drug use has been rising steadily. Half the people in this country have tried cannabis - do you really think spending a billion more on police will stop that? Do you really think spending 20 billion more on police will stop that? People can get this stuff into prisons, I'd like to see you try and reduce the rates of cannabis use ... you'd have to legalise it, and that's something you're not prepared to do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    In the real world (but not in your "libertarianutopia") drug use doesn't only effect the users of such a drug but many others that are attached to them.
    So does, say, adultery, but I don't think the 'Patriotic Conservatives' will be lining up in the lobbies to introduce stoning. At least, I hope they won't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by favh)
    So does, say, adultery, but I don't think the 'Patriotic Conservatives' will be lining up in the lobbies to introduce stoning. At least, I hope they won't.
    Although adultery isn't a crime in a strict sense, it is very important with regards to divorce and can have quite bad consequences.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Although adultery isn't a crime in a strict sense, it is very important with regards to divorce and can have quite bad consequences.
    In that regard it is treated as a sort of breach of contract, not a criminal matter. If the adulterer had lived with and become just as important to their partner emotionally, but not married them, they would have little recourse.

    The principle could be applied even more widely (and absurdly), though. Suppose that two parents really wanted their daughter to become a doctor. They become very upset when she decides to study law. They call the police, and the courts try her with causing someone emotional distress. They give her a 7 year prison sentence (the maximum for possession of a Class A drug). Is this justice?

    It seems to be that if you really intend to advance an argument that a person can be imprisoned for doing something non-violent, on their own property and with their own body that merely upsets other people, you have to defend these sorts of absurdities.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by favh)
    In that regard it is treated as a sort of breach of contract, not a criminal matter. If the adulterer had lived with and become just as important to their partner emotionally, but not married them, they would have little recourse.

    The principle could be applied even more widely (and absurdly), though. Suppose that two parents really wanted their daughter to become a doctor. They become very upset when she decides to study law. They call the police, and the courts try her with causing someone emotional distress. They give her a 7 year prison sentence (the maximum for possession of a Class A drug). Is this justice?

    It seems to be that if you really intend to advance an argument that a person can be imprisoned for doing something non-violent, on their own property and with their own body that merely upsets other people, you have to defend these sorts of absurdities.
    No, I'm not defending laws which protect people from offense but drug abuse does more than just offend, it rips apart many families.

    I also aon't believe in these rights as concrete things, they are absractions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    No, I'm not defending laws which protect people from offense but drug abuse does more than just offend, it rips apart many families.

    I also aon't believe in these rights as concrete things, they are absractions.
    Drug use does not necessarily 'rip apart families'. I have known a number of drug users who have perfectly stable family lives. Certainly it does in some cases - but are you seriously claiming that adultery never does? How about a girl with catholic parents having an abortion? Or a son of pacifists joining the army? Should all these things be illegal, too?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.