UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
blindswelledrat said:
I get your point, but how can you fight rhetoric with fact?
UKIP don't use fact to support the rhetoric, they just use alarmist soundbites. TO attempt to use fact you would need to actually define what would make the NHS 'broken' and given that 'broken' is not even a healthcare thing, its impossible to do.
In the meantime the point is that for many of us the NHS seems to be functioning fine so that will remain the starting point for any discussion and UKIP should actually have to prove their point rather than us have to disprove it.
They all use soundbites deliberately designed to present a situation in the best possible light for them and the worst possible light for anyone else. UKIP don't use fact to support the rhetoric, they just use alarmist soundbites. TO attempt to use fact you would need to actually define what would make the NHS 'broken' and given that 'broken' is not even a healthcare thing, its impossible to do.
In the meantime the point is that for many of us the NHS seems to be functioning fine so that will remain the starting point for any discussion and UKIP should actually have to prove their point rather than us have to disprove it.
The public is pissed off with this hence the rise of anti-politics. See my article linked earlier today.
I don't have an answer to your question. How to fight rhetoric with facts. People ignore the dozens of reasonable and decent interactions they have each day, they might remember the occasion when someone is really really helpful, they WILL remember the incident where someone was a bit of an arse and probably tell five others about it. Human nature.
FiF said:
brenflys777 said:
FiF said:
Seriously though what is the point of trying to raise the bar on this thread when continual crap like that is posted.
.
I think the bar was drained rather than raised last night..
Any attempts to link to articles that aren't completely partisan get ignored. In the last 24 hours anti UKIP posts which would be considered racist or ageist are only notable because they make the childish attempts to link UKIP to Hitler or the BNP look less nasty.
This is an amazingly exciting time in politics. Like them or loathe them UKIP have lifted some of the taboos, immigration, the EU, grammar schools, right of recall, etc they all seemed to have been buried in consensus politics until recently. Instead of taking it personally against their tribe, the opportunity to confront and win debates on the issues should be welcome to all the parties. Having UKIP or even the Greens should be a great chance to deal with the issues be it in parliament or on TV debates etc but instead they seem to resent their presence.
The needless insults and misrepresentation on here seems entirely consistent with a PM who thinks photoshopped pictures of his opposition in bed together is funny and a Labour Party that campaigns in Middleton on keeping the NHS from being privatised after they PFI'd the local hospitals!
The bar needs raising everywhere.
As we all know, arguing with zealots is difficult at best. And to me the more committed of the UKIP contingent are not much different than the Jehovah's Witnesses, with a similar unshakeability that defies rational thought, and a willingness to accept assertion as fact. The most committed of any political party are like this, to be fair; I'm not restricting myself to UKIP.
That's just my view, and others are equally as valid. But having a genuine debate that doesn't descend into pointless name-calling and trolling on this thread is simply not going to happen.
JagLover said:
Soundbite policies.
Having seen them I can only repeat my post:but lots of the sound-bite policies I have seen are actually common sense but simultaneously meaningless because they try to make things black and white for the lowest common denominator when the subjects they discuss are not black and white.
SO I could stand up tomorrow and say
"I am running for Government, here is what I will do
1)Mend the NHS
2)Stop bad foreigners coming here and just accept good ones
3)Stop all tax for anyone under £20k earnings
4)GIve us the best defence system in the world
5) ELiminate crime completely"
etc etc
Just because I say things you like, it doesn't mean I am capable of running a government
FiF said:
Moving on from the rancid bile that has been puked out by all sides over the last few hours.
How and why do political parties struggle to get anti-politics?
http://sotonpolitics.org/2014/09/17/parties-and-an...
In summary the final paragraph from that link.
at last .someone gets it and is able to put a perfect summation in print.How and why do political parties struggle to get anti-politics?
http://sotonpolitics.org/2014/09/17/parties-and-an...
In summary the final paragraph from that link.
said:
None of the main parties get anti-politics. Perhaps some of the truths of anti-politics remain too hard for those working at the coalface of politics to hear. In certain respects this is understandable, party activists and leaders have committed their lives to participating in politics and must find it hard to empathise with those who see no benefit or virtue in politics. The first party leader or group of activists who really show an ability to understand the world from another’s perspective and then show a real capacity to shift the way they do politics might indeed reap a considerable reward in support. Each false dawn risks alienating the public further. There is little sense from the evidence about anti-politics that most citizens see the solution as them becoming more active, taking more decisions, sitting on more committees or taking part in referenda. There is some push for having more of say but the overwhelming sentiment is for a political leadership that is seen engaged, connected and responsive and not driven by spin, self-aggrandisement and connections with big business. People want a representative democracy that works. If a political party could show them how to get that it would be on to a winner.
Zod said:
Esseesse said:
Zod said:
Given that none of you was prepared to engage with my criticisms of a selection of UKIP policies, why should bsr bother?
I have engaged in a number of criticisms from a number of people. I mostly have been ignored which suggests to me you had nothing of merit to reply with but cannot concede that there is something in the broadly UKIP position. I cba really to continue to have a one sided debate, debating anything is worthless if people are unwilling to reconsider and question their own positions. Quite close to a /thread for me, might be worth revisiting after the Reckless vote.Zod said:
JagLover said:
Zod said:
Given that none of you was prepared to engage with my criticisms of a selection of UKIP policies, why should bsr bother?
Sorry I didn't see that Zod. What page was that on?In all seriousness, I would be very happy to discuss UKIP policies with you. However, despite your protestations to the contrary, you are not seeking a discussion. You are simply looking to smear the party.
Take the following for example. There is much to be discussed on the subject of HS2. UKIP's policy at the last election really has the square root of sod all to do with HS2. Yet this is the only point that you raise.
on page 28 zod said:
– UKIP will scrap the HS2 project which is uneconomical and unjustified.
although, we actually advocated three new high speed lines in our last manifesto (that Nigel never saw, despite having signed the foreword).
There are several important points related to HS2.although, we actually advocated three new high speed lines in our last manifesto (that Nigel never saw, despite having signed the foreword).
1) Cost.
2) Economic benefits.
3) Environmental impacts.
4) Etc, etc...
Whether Nigel actually read a document 5 years ago, or not, has nothing at all to do with HS2.
If you want to have a sensible discussion, then by all means go ahead. If you keep it sensible, then you will find that people will join in.
tangerine_sedge said:
The point is, that UKIP keep on spouting "broken NHS" and "controlled immmigration", but it is not broken (evidenced by my example), and it is not solely the fault of immigration either (given the list of things you state). Still UKIP keep on repeating the untruths as if they are fact.
where do you live ? it has a huge bearing on the pressure on local services.Patients are bearing the brunt because there are too few GPs to meet the rising demand for their services and those in post are overworked and overstretched as a result, Baker said.
of course,it is from an extreme right wing source http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/26/pat...
blindswelledrat said:
JagLover said:
Soundbite policies.
Having seen them I can only repeat my post:but lots of the sound-bite policies I have seen are actually common sense but simultaneously meaningless because they try to make things black and white for the lowest common denominator when the subjects they discuss are not black and white.
SO I could stand up tomorrow and say
"I am running for Government, here is what I will do
1)Mend the NHS
2)Stop bad foreigners coming here and just accept good ones
3)Stop all tax for anyone under £20k earnings
4)GIve us the best defence system in the world
5) ELiminate crime completely"
etc etc
Just because I say things you like, it doesn't mean I am capable of running a government
blindswelledrat said:
Don't be silly.
I'm referring to the fact that they haven't a clue what they are doing and have no policies on anything and have no clear idea how they will implement the one policy they do have. On balance, even if you really really like Nigel, you have to admit it doesn't inspire confidence.
Or maybe I am wrong? Feel free to correct me and discuss their fiscal policies, and who would be their chancellor of the Exchequer? Perhaps explain their foreign policies and how they would benefit us?
Or how, exactly, they are going to fix the NHS as I am sure you'll agree that stopping nasty foreigners isn't the be-all and end-all
Clearly you haven't looked to see if they have policies on the subjects that you have listed. Have a read of the following link:-I'm referring to the fact that they haven't a clue what they are doing and have no policies on anything and have no clear idea how they will implement the one policy they do have. On balance, even if you really really like Nigel, you have to admit it doesn't inspire confidence.
Or maybe I am wrong? Feel free to correct me and discuss their fiscal policies, and who would be their chancellor of the Exchequer? Perhaps explain their foreign policies and how they would benefit us?
Or how, exactly, they are going to fix the NHS as I am sure you'll agree that stopping nasty foreigners isn't the be-all and end-all
Edited by blindswelledrat on Friday 17th October 10:49
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
don4l said:
Zod said:
JagLover said:
Zod said:
Given that none of you was prepared to engage with my criticisms of a selection of UKIP policies, why should bsr bother?
Sorry I didn't see that Zod. What page was that on?In all seriousness, I would be very happy to discuss UKIP policies with you. However, despite your protestations to the contrary, you are not seeking a discussion. You are simply looking to smear the party.
Take the following for example. There is much to be discussed on the subject of HS2. UKIP's policy at the last election really has the square root of sod all to do with HS2. Yet this is the only point that you raise.
on page 28 zod said:
– UKIP will scrap the HS2 project which is uneconomical and unjustified.
although, we actually advocated three new high speed lines in our last manifesto (that Nigel never saw, despite having signed the foreword).
There are several important points related to HS2.although, we actually advocated three new high speed lines in our last manifesto (that Nigel never saw, despite having signed the foreword).
1) Cost.
2) Economic benefits.
3) Environmental impacts.
4) Etc, etc...
Whether Nigel actually read a document 5 years ago, or not, has nothing at all to do with HS2.
If you want to have a sensible discussion, then by all means go ahead. If you keep it sensible, then you will find that people will join in.
Esseesse said:
Zod said:
Esseesse said:
Zod said:
Given that none of you was prepared to engage with my criticisms of a selection of UKIP policies, why should bsr bother?
I have engaged in a number of criticisms from a number of people. I mostly have been ignored which suggests to me you had nothing of merit to reply with but cannot concede that there is something in the broadly UKIP position. I cba really to continue to have a one sided debate, debating anything is worthless if people are unwilling to reconsider and question their own positions. Quite close to a /thread for me, might be worth revisiting after the Reckless vote.Einion Yrth said:
The problem is Zod that you have such an unpleasantly combative debating style that it is difficult to see why any one would attempt to engage with you. It's not as if you're going to change your mind about UKIP, is it?
Unpleasant? You just don't like being confronted with uncomfortable observations.Of course I could change my mind about UKIP. It would require very significant change from UKIP though.
Zod said:
Nonsense. Calling my post smearing is a transparent attempt to trash it without engaging. It is entirely legitimate to ask why a party that was in favour of three new high speed lines is now against a single one. It is not as if UKIP is saying that it is in favour of HS2, but would change the route and look to reduce the cost. It just says that it would scrap it.
Let me try to engage you in a discussion about HS2.On balance, I am against it.
It seems like a hugely expensive project. I feel that our road network has been neglected for at least 2 decades. We would be better off upgrading many of our A roads.
don4l said:
Zod said:
Nonsense. Calling my post smearing is a transparent attempt to trash it without engaging. It is entirely legitimate to ask why a party that was in favour of three new high speed lines is now against a single one. It is not as if UKIP is saying that it is in favour of HS2, but would change the route and look to reduce the cost. It just says that it would scrap it.
Let me try to engage you in a discussion about HS2.On balance, I am against it.
It seems like a hugely expensive project. I feel that our road network has been neglected for at least 2 decades. We would be better off upgrading many of our A roads.
Zod said:
Einion Yrth said:
The problem is Zod that you have such an unpleasantly combative debating style that it is difficult to see why any one would attempt to engage with you. It's not as if you're going to change your mind about UKIP, is it?
Unpleasant? You just don't like being confronted with uncomfortable observations.Of course I could change my mind about UKIP. It would require very significant change from UKIP though.
k-ups. The fact is that you are unnecessarily abrasive at all times and often downright insulting for no good reason. You adopt some imagined intellectual high horse and talk down to those who disagree with you, you are sadly, frankly boorish. I apologise for the insult but I felt it had to be said.Esseesse said:
Your entire post is devalued by writing thing such as 'eliminate crime completely', there is no comparison between that and what UKIP say they want to achieve. It's a straw man argument, frequently used by people to misrepresent their opponent because their own arguments are to weak to stand on their own.
Aren't they offering to 'mend' the 'broken' NHS? That's what we've been talking about.Aren't they offering to do many things without saying how they will pay for it or implement it?
Aren't they claiming they will achieve things without any description of how eg: 'We will take control of our borders', "We will negotiate amazing trade deals with foreign bodies" or "we will stop forced marriages"
I think they are. So picking one item of my post and arguing semantics and claiming it to be a 'strawman' argument is actually doing exactly what you are accusing me of.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff