UK General Election 2010

[Dante]

Voting still matters. It's just that we have a stupid system to take advantage of it. Unfortunately, electoral reform is as low on the British partys' collective agenda as it is on those of our esteemed American allies. Which is a shame because they need it even more than we do.

UKIP on children, education and schools.

http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/ukipeducation.pdf

Page 8:

"The UK Independence Party is committed to repealing the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights."

Page 19:

"We will insist that if contraceptives have been prescribed to under-age girls that schools and health professionals inform either the girl

[Dunenewt]

So you'd rather let criminals get away with crime, just because we don't want to infringe on their human rights?  Its time we actually had a criminal justice system that works.

[Dante]

Oh sure, start talking about justice when I open a discussion on education policy. That's a good rebuttal.

[Dunenewt]

I didn't see any negative points raised regarding educational policy!  Where were they?  UKIP want a grammar school in every town - a recent study by the Sutton Trust revealed that grammar schools are an important tool in social mobility.  UKIP want to get rid of the Erasmus/Socrates scheme, which is fine, because lots of other countries have equivalents without having the wasteful EU propaganda attached.  Those Jean Monnet scholarships are a stupendous waste of money in the name of creating a pan-European identity.

[Dante]

So you missed the fact that the first three quotes were all from "Education: Time to come clean," then? Repealing the Human Rights Act on page 8 of a document on education policy, doesn't that strike you as somewhat suspect? The teaching of abstinence as somewhat ridiculous? The abolition of exchange schemes simply because they do not fit with the party's 1900 fixation with glorious isolation as a teeny bit paranoid?

Criminal justice was mentioned only as it pertained to young people, with the section on the return of corporal punishment being particularly relevent to schools.

Do wake up.

[Dunenewt]

I have the file in PDF on my computer...I just fail to see the problems that you see.  Its nothing to do with a '1900' fixation with isolation (in 1900 we were fighting wars on other continents anyway), its the fact that the money put towards these schemes is so wasteful, and geared towards EU propaganda, rather than meaningful experiences.

[Dante]

Congratulations, you (poorly) dealt with a single point out of... four. Not bad, but I can pick out at least six additional points from my quotes alone that merit further discussion.

For example, I had rather expected someone to interject with "teaching abstinence would be as laughable here as it was in the US" by now, or "'naming and shaming' hasn't worked on anything yet, why should it start now?" So yeah, one point in ten and you can't even provide any sources demonstrating where the money for said programs comes from (could it be the EU?). That's kind of pathetic.

[Dunenewt]

They're not advocating abstinence as the sole method of contraception, rather as a way of stopping underage pregnancies. 

Yes, the funds do come from the EU.  The EU spends 2bn EUR each year just on blatant propaganda alone, not including the studying side of it.

http://www.captaineuro.com/

[Dante]

Ok, I'm not going to talk to you until you can argue like an adult. Come back later.

[Dunenewt]

You haven't put across your side of the argument, you have merely quoted sections of the manifesto.  May I suggest you do some background reading before you continue.

A good start.

Here's some more.

[Dante]

Fine. I told myself I wasn't going to do this, but Dragoon has made a sterling effort to rebuff the stupid in another thread and it will be a dark day indeed when I don't at least try to one-up him. So, for your edification and humiliation I present

DANTE'S TEN POINTS OF ARGUMENT

Point the First

"The UK Independence Party is committed to repealing the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights."

I... can't believe that I have to explain how this is a bad thing. In a document on education, I remind you.

The Human Rights Act, essentially, made the European Convention on Human Rights an official consideration of British Law, legally obligating all public bodies to act in accordance with the Convention unless the wording of a British law directly contradicts it (ONOES, it's European and must therefore be evil!). In legalspeak, this also allows breachs of the Convention to be dealt with in British courts, where they would otherwise have to be taken to Strasbourg.

The Convention, for example, prohibits torture (Article 3, "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," no exceptions) and slavery (Article 4, includes "servitude and forced labour"). It also protects the rights to life (Article 2), Liberty (Article 5), Security (Article 5), Fair Trial (Article 6), Privacy (Article 8 ), Freedom of Expression and Association (Articles 10 and 11) etc. The Act also went further by completely banning all capital punishment in Britain (previously kept on the books as punishment for treason).

I suspect that the real reason that UKIP want to get rid of both of these pieces of Legislation (besides the fact that the Act was based on the Convention and we can't possibly have people outside the UK telling the UK what to do even though the UK signed and ratified the Convention along with everyone else...) is that Article 16 allows states to restrict the movements of foreign aliens, but forbids them from declaring citizens of member states to be such.

Now tell me how abolishing the Act and withdrawing from the Convention could possibly be a good thing. Do we want to restrict French travellers now? Do we want to start executing people? Do we want to remove the legal protection that protects people from discrimination (Article 14 and Protocol 12)? Because if we do, and if that legislation is somehow relevent in a school, then I stand by my earlier comment.

Worst. Party. Ever.

Point the Second

"We will insist that if contraceptives have been prescribed to under-age girls that schools and health professionals inform either the girl

[Dunenewt]

Fine. I told myself I wasn't going to do this, but Dragoon has made a sterling effort to rebuff the stupid in another thread and it will be a dark day indeed when I don't at least try to one-up him. So, for your edification and humiliation I present

DANTE'S TEN POINTS OF ARGUMENT

Point the First

"The UK Independence Party is committed to repealing the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights."

I... can't believe that I have to explain how this is a bad thing. In a document on education, I remind you.

The Human Rights Act, essentially, made the European Convention on Human Rights an official consideration of British Law, legally obligating all public bodies to act in accordance with the Convention unless the wording of a British law directly contradicts it (ONOES, it's European and must therefore be evil!). In legalspeak, this also allows breachs of the Convention to be dealt with in British courts, where they would otherwise have to be taken to Strasbourg.

The Convention, for example, prohibits torture (Article 3, "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," no exceptions) and slavery (Article 4, includes "servitude and forced labour"). It also protects the rights to life (Article 2), Liberty (Article 5), Security (Article 5), Fair Trial (Article 6), Privacy (Article 8 ), Freedom of Expression and Association (Articles 10 and 11) etc. The Act also went further by completely banning all capital punishment in Britain (previously kept on the books as punishment for treason).

I suspect that the real reason that UKIP want to get rid of both of these pieces of Legislation (besides the fact that the Act was based on the Convention and we can't possibly have people outside the UK telling the UK what to do even though the UK signed and ratified the Convention along with everyone else...) is that Article 16 allows states to restrict the movements of foreign aliens, but forbids them from declaring citizens of member states to be such.

Now tell me how abolishing the Act and withdrawing from the Convention could possibly be a good thing. Do we want to restrict French travellers now? Do we want to start executing people? Do we want to remove the legal protection that protects people from discrimination (Article 14 and Protocol 12)? Because if we do, and if that legislation is somehow relevent in a school, then I stand by my earlier comment.

Worst. Party. Ever.

Let's just take this point to begin with.  You don't quite understand what is going on here.  The ECHR has proved time and time again to be protecting criminals and punishing the innocent.  You've gone for a strawman argument though, and suggested that it will lead to capital punishment, something that UKIP has said would be a matter for a referendum.  But then you'd hate that, because you assume the British public is stupid, could not be trusted with such matters...

Also, you imply that slavery, torture, and the rest would automatically become legal...yet again, this was illegal before the ECHR - the UK has had a long history of protecting individual liberties, and forbidding such acts was enshrined in law before the ECHR, and would be around after the ECHR is abolished.

By the way, I am an English person living abroad, within the EU, yet I am against the EU...does that not suggest to you, that UKIP is perhaps not xenophobic, or racist, or whatever else you call it...may I suggest that you have been taken in by the myth of the EU...if we want anti EU arguments I'm sure Edric can help me out here, attacking it from a different angle to how I would.

Just about every point you make invokes the strawman argument - poor work.

[Dante]

You're putting words in my mouth. Did I say that capital punishment would automatically return? Slavery, torture? Nope. I said that removing legislation that prohibits them was a bad idea. And you have failed to provide a reason as to how it could possibly be a good idea. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Savvy?

And the British public are stupid. The very existence (let alone popularity) of the BNP, UKIP and their ilk is proof enough of that. The popularity of certain red-top tabloids would also go a long way to indicating a slight IQ deficiency. You can't trust middle England to get a damned thing right these days, and as for a referendum on capital punishment... It's beeen abolished. It's gone, forever. Some people need to learn to let go of the past.

By the way, I am an English person living abroad, within the EU, yet I am against the EU...does that not suggest to you, that UKIP is perhaps not xenophobic, or racist, or whatever else you call it...

No, it suggests to me that there's a double standard at work.

[Dragoon Knight]

I am going to present a theory.  It is that stupidity is somehow spreading on this forum.  I do not know how, but it is patently clear that otherwise sane (though spammy) people are being taken in by its dreaded scourge.

- Aboloshing any law, EU or otherwise, that protects people is a bad thing.  Give me one example of where the ECHR protects criminals, then compare it to what would happen under a naming and shaming of the Bulger killer.  Give me one example of where the EHCR punishes the innocent, then compare it to what would happen if innocent look-a-likes of paedophiles were denied jobs or otherwise ostracised.  To ensure you actually deal with this point, I'm going to say that I don't expect you to answer it.  A win-win situation.

- Ignoring the fact that Captial Punishment is barbarism, are we?  Oh, don't worry, we'll hold a referendum.  That means we'll be safe, as long as the country doesn't have more stupid people than it does intelligent ones!  Oh, wait, shit...

- Justifying the removal of the EHCR because some of its effects will still be in place doesn't make it right.  "Hey now, we're not going to start enslaving people! ... We'll hold a referendum first..."

- No, the UKIP is xenophobic to the extreme.  Perhaps not as racist as other, even more extreme parties, but they're right up there among the big hitters.  By supporting them, you reveal yourself to be cut of the same cloth, which is a disturbing thought amongst what are meant to be educated people.  Tell me, Dunenewt, do you wish all the foreign people would stop getting treated so well in the UK?  Do you wish for the UK to try and reverse 50 to 100 years of social evolution?  Because it seems like the answer to both of those questions is yes.

And please, before you start criticising others' arguments, take a good long look at yours.  Then, perhaps, a good long look at yourself in the mirror.  Perhaps the stupidity virus manifests as a rash of some sort.

[Edric O]

Alright, I will ignore this debate about UKIP for a moment (I stand by my assessment of them being Thatcherite scum, by the way), and post about something completely different. J.K. Rowling wrote an article explaining why the Tories are still the nasty party and you should not vote for them:

The Single Mother

[Dunenewt]

- No, the UKIP is xenophobic to the extreme.  Perhaps not as racist as other, even more extreme parties, but they're right up there among the big hitters.  By supporting them, you reveal yourself to be cut of the same cloth, which is a disturbing thought amongst what are meant to be educated people.  Tell me, Dunenewt, do you wish all the foreign people would stop getting treated so well in the UK?  Do you wish for the UK to try and reverse 50 to 100 years of social evolution?  Because it seems like the answer to both of those questions is yes.

Ah, you've just proven to me that you have really no idea of what UKIP is or stands for.  UKIP is against policies such as the CAP, one of the reasons given is that it keeps Africans in poverty whilst keeping the Euro elite rich.  UKIP has BME candidates standing for them, proportionally more than the Lib Dems I think.  UKIP has an Argentine born Spanish MEP, who was sacked by the EU as an accountant for 'failing to show loyalty' when she tried to expose all the fraud, the former Leader, and current spokesman has a German wife, there is a Bosnian refugee standing as a PPC in London.  If you are going to come up with a coherent argument, may I suggest 'Know Thy Enemy'.  UKIP believes in civic nationalism, just like the SNP do.

[Dante]

The difference between UKIP and the BNP, and I'm not saying that there's only one, is that UKIP does not actually hate foreigners. They're quite willing to play nice with outsiders. They would just prefer it that foreign presence in and influence over Britain be kept to a minimum, preferably none. Racist? Well if the shoe fits...

As for the Tories, their rebranding has been more successful than I'd have liked, but it's heartening to see that there are some people who see through it. I seem to recall that it's not the first article that she's written about them. Or maybe I'm thinking of someone else. Regardless.

[Wolf]

Knowing very little about UK politics, my contribution may be virtually meaningless: but I'd be willing to bet once UKIP's isolationist agenda were fulfilled (which it arguably can or cannot be) it would simply dissolve.

[Dunenewt]

The difference between UKIP and the BNP, and I'm not saying that there's only one, is that UKIP does not actually hate foreigners. They're quite willing to play nice with outsiders. They would just prefer it that foreign presence in and influence over Britain be kept to a minimum, preferably none. Racist? Well if the shoe fits...

As for the Tories, their rebranding has been more successful than I'd have liked, but it's heartening to see that there are some people who see through it. I seem to recall that it's not the first article that she's written about them. Or maybe I'm thinking of someone else. Regardless.

Thanks for undoing your argument for me.

Wolf - UKIP wants to be out of the EU, and into a free trade agreement with the EU, like Switzerland or Norway.  Also, they advocate setting up a Commonwealth Free Trade Area.  UKIP is NOT an isolationist party.  If you want isolationist policies, look towards the EU.

[Dante]

Dunenewt, I'm beginning to subscribe to Dragoon's theory of stupidity being infectious. You've never displayed quite this level of numbrain before, I'm curious as to why it should suddenly have gotten so much worse.

Let me explain something to you. One does not need to hate people in order to be racist. If you listen to interviews with pro-Apartheid white South Africans from the 1950's, you generally find that their attitude towards their black neighbours was, from their point of view, somewhat paternal. They believed that the black population was incapable of looking after itself, that black people were less intelligent and less culturally advanced. They believed that "seperate but equal" was perfectly fair, and that "good neighbourliness" was the best policy for all, whereby black communities lived outside their places of work and the whites controlled everything. They saw themselves as understanding father figures to a people who needed outside discipline and control in order to make anything of themselves. Though some of them did see black people as lazy, untruthful and unprincipled, they did not, in fact, hate black people at all.

Yet they were racist. Practically the definition of the word. QED.

Wolf: You tend to find that parties formed for a particular agenda do either dissolve or find a new agenda to adopt. I would suspect that having a permanent foe to fight against (for all intents and purposes) is all that keeps UKIP together. Essentially the party is bound together by shared hatred rather than shared goals. Hardly the best way to run a government.

[Dunenewt]

In which case Socialist parties are bound together due to hatred of Capitalism, surely?  Not that I believe that, but going by your logic...

Considering UKIP wants closer ties to India, Ghana, Nigeria, etc...doesn't strike me as a racist party!

Besides, Tommy Sheridan for the SSP (is that who you're voting for?) stood for the No2EU - Yes to Democracy party in the 2009 EU elections.

[Dante]

Oh for the love of Ghandi, don't be such a moron, 'Newt. Socialist parties are bound together by shared interests in socialism. Funny that, isn't it? UKIP is a party that stands against things. It stands against the EU, it stands against green policies, it stands against The Human Rights Act. Anything that it stands for is intended only as a replacement for things that it would remove or abolish. It is a party of negatives. Most other parties, even the Tories, have something that they stand for.

You say UKIP wants to work with India, among other places. And Apartheid South Africa wanted to see whites and blacks working together in harmony via that policy of "good neighbourliness." With seperate drinking fountains. There are many forms of racism. It isn't limited to epithet-spitting BNP crazies.

Sheridan is currently with Solidarity, which has split the Scottish socialist movement. And as it happens, neither the SSP nor Solidarity is fielding a candidate in my area. I couldn't vote for them even if I wanted to.

Besides which, I seriously doubt you'll see Sheridan calling for the abolition of the Human Rights Act.

[Dragoon Knight]

Splendid, Dunenewt!  You carefully opted not to deal with anything I said, except that which you could come up with a witty retort for.  Let me repay this by dissecting your post with utmost care.

Side note: I am so very tempted to quote you as simply saying "olololol UKIP" and me responding as "You're wrong, now be quiet". :P

Ah, you've just proven to me that you have really no idea of what UKIP is or stands for.

Really?  I have?  Because I don't think I did.  Everything that you've explained about the UKIP ties in pretty well with my understanding of them.  They're a bunch of elitist, arrogant and stupid individuals who believe that the UK should regress a generation or two, under the delusional belief that this will make everything better.  That's to sum it up, anyway.  If you'd like me to rip apart your argument in more detail, do please let me know.  I take great pleasure in explaining exactly how stupid people are being.  There could be diagrams and everything.

UKIP is against policies such as the CAP, one of the reasons given is that it keeps Africans in poverty whilst keeping the Euro elite rich.

It's against something which constitutes almost fully half of the EU's budget, and is geared towards ensuring fair deals for farmers?  While that's hardly surprising, since it's got the letters "EU" in it, it doesn't really support your argument.  Pray, how exactly does this policy keep Africans in poverty?  Then, after your explanation (which I am looking forward to with baited breath, by the by), explain how those same Africans would be better off without minimum pricing guarantees and suchlike.  I double-dare you.

UKIP has BME candidates standing for them, proportionally more than the Lib Dems I think.  UKIP has an Argentine born Spanish MEP, who was sacked by the EU as an accountant for 'failing to show loyalty' when she tried to expose all the fraud, the former Leader, and current spokesman has a German wife, there is a Bosnian refugee standing as a PPC in London.

So what you're saying is that, because they have made sure to employ a ethnically diverse group of people, they simply can't be xenophobic?  I am loving this logic.  Does this mean that you think that the more minorities employed, the more open-minded the employer?  Because it couldn't have anything to do with keeping up appearances, in the same pathetically P.C. way advertisers always ensure they have "diversity" when they portray a group of people.

Also, the charity I work for only has white people under its employ.  Since this is clearly a yard stick for how bigoted, racist and xenophobic a body of people are, I guess we'd better break out the swastikas, no?

If you are going to come up with a coherent argument, may I suggest 'Know Thy Enemy'.

I try to make a point of not knowing stupid people or stupid things, but on this particular occasion, you concerns are unwarranted.  I know perfectly well what the UKIP stand for; what staggers me is that you seem to as well.  Although your interpretation of these issues is extraordinary.  You think that their policies are good ideas, when any sane person should be able to determine that they are not.

You remind me of a moth being drawn to a flame.  Or a fly being drawn to those blue zappy things you get in chip shops.  A stupid thing flying right towards a dangerous thing, happy all the while.

UKIP believes in civic nationalism, just like the SNP do.

No no, you silly boy.  NOT "just like the SNP".  A completely different way than the SNP.  There's a difference between identifying yourself as being Scottish and limiting the rights of those who aren't.  There's a difference between staying true to traditions and trying to enforce them as the only "proper way" of doing things.

In fact, the UKIP even go so far as to criticise the SNP and Plaid Cmyru for their ideals, which is laughable considering that the UKIP want to dictate what religious attire people can and can't wear.  What the UKIP have done here, you see, is to hide their xenophobia and borderline racism under a thin veil (the irony of this makes me smile).

Now, I trust that I've addressed all of your points - a courtesy I'm sure you'll reciprocate.  You've done so well with Dante's Ten Points, after all.  Oh wait no... no you haven't. :)

[Dunenewt]

The Greens want to roll back EU influence in many areas as well.  UKIP is for the establishment of free democratic United Kingdom.  Trying to bandy words with me by being selective with your language wont work on me at all...

...every party has shared interests, every party is for something, every party is against something, otherwise they wouldn't be a party!

Voting for the TUSC then?  They are 'led' by the anti-EU Bob Crow.

[Dante]

Ok, I'm not going to talk to you until you can argue like an adult. Come back later.

This time I mean it. You're pulling a Hwi and ignoring points that you can't deal with while failing to properly discuss the remainder. Until that changes, which will require an in-depth post similar to those made by myself and Dragoon above, I wash my hands of you.