UKIP are more than a man in a pub drinking a pint. Behind Farage's Cheshire Cat grin are some dangerous policies.
You don’t have to have real political power in Britain to shift the terms of the debate. Just look at UKIP. Despite the fact that the party is expected to do well in this year’s European Elections, it is unlikely that this will translate into anything meaningful come next year’s General Election – although don’t bet against Nigel Farage overturning Laura Sandys’ majority in South Thanet.
And yet despite this, the Tories and to a lesser extent Labour appear to be running scared of the eurosceptic party – each week both seem to unveil new ‘tough’ announcements on UKIP pet issues such as immigration and welfare.
However while having a risible influence on the mainstream, UKIP’s distance from any real political power allows the party to retain its radicalism (not actually radical at all, but rather reactionary) which those closer to the summit of power are forced to abandon (remember when Lib Dem conference used to vote to hammer the rich and unilaterally disarm?)
Behind Nigel Farage’s charisma, however, the madness remains. Farage may come across like the mildly amiable chap from everybody’s local, but he leads a party which, from a policy perspective, is completely off the scale.
UKIP aren’t simply ‘anti-politics’, but they actually stand for things, such as:
Charging NHS patients to jump waiting lists
Back in July, UKIP’s ‘health spokesperson’ John Stanley penned an article in which he argued that people requiring urgent NHS treatment should be seen within two hours – a reasonable enough proposition. However he added that those requiring non-urgent treatment should be given the option of paying so as to jump the queue ahead of those who cannot afford to:
“We should accept that if a triaging clinician feels we don’t need treating within two hours required for standard cases then we be either willing to pay or willing to wait longer so cases most deserving are treated best. People should pay a higher charge if they haven’t registered with a GP as being directed back to primary care avoids unnecessary A&E visits.”
Stanley also endorsed GPs charging to see patients and said that, under UKIP, people who qualified for free prescriptions would be exempt from the flat fee – but only if they had not been drinking.
Banning all teaching of climate change
UKIP would ban the teaching of climate change in schools were it to win the 2015 General Election, according to the party’s education spokesperson. This, despite the fact that there is a 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists supporting global warming and the fact that human emissions are behind it.
Climate ‘sceptics’ don’t publish many scientific papers (I wonder why), and UKIP doesn’t want children to know about the vast majority of papers which overwhelmingly support the idea of man-made climate change.
Last week UKIP Education spokesman MEP Derek Clark told Index on Censorship:
“We will still ban Al Gore’s video for use in schools if I’ve got anything to do with it. I will not have much opposition within the party. It is, of course, not just this video which needs banning; all teaching of global warming being caused in any way by carbon dioxide emissions must also be banned. It just is not happening.”
The party has the laziest MEPs in Europe
UKIP’s attendance record in the European Parliament is worse than that of their counterparts from the three major parties. Happy to sign-in and collect their allowances (beer money), UKIP’s nine MEPs missed around a third of the votes in the European Parliament between 2009 and October 2013.
The complete abolition of inheritance tax
Just 2.6 per cent of those who die every year pay inheritance tax. The average taxpaying estate is worth £875,000, according to HMRC. Inheritance tax raises £2.9bn a year for the Treasury from some of the wealthiest people in the country, while estates worth less than £325,000 don’t pay a penny.
And yet UKIP wants to abolish it completely.
At a time of rising inequality, redistributive policies such as inheritance tax are a symbolic bulwark against US-levels of inequality. In this respect, UKIP policy panders to the 2.6 per cent of the population who have some of the biggest estates in Britain. Play the world’s smallest violin.
Has friends on the European far-right
UKIP is part of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Parliament (EFD). The EFD is comprised of 10 parties and one independent MEP. These include the anti-immigrant Movement for France, the ultra-nationalist Slovak National Party and True Finns.
The leader of the Slovak National Party has said the best policy for dealing with the Roma is “a long whip in a small yard”. In December 2011, an opinion poll of True Finn voters revealed that 51 per cent agreed with the statement: “People of certain races are unsuited for life in a modern society”.
Apparently this is ok with UKIP, though. In fact, anyone objecting to such alliances is liable to face severe repercussions. In 2010, UKIP expelled MEP Nikki Sinclaire after she objected to working with “extreme views” of UKIP’s political allies.
316 Responses to “5 things voters should know about UKIP”
trollthriller
I note you have no citations to back your case. That is unsurprising.
trollthriller
I look forward to you providing reputable sources for your laugh-out-loud silly assertions.
There’t nought less sceptical than a “climate sceptic”. Go check out the PIOMAS figures on the reduction in the Arctic for yourself. Oh, I forgot, you’re a plastic sceptic.
Everyone who is against you is a fascist? Really? You’re not very good with dictionaries. either. No surprise. You kip.
trollthriller
The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to human emissions of greenhouse gases and has been endorsed by this great cloud of witnesses:
the National Academy of Sciences,
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
the American Geophysical Union,
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
the American Institute of Physics,
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/042.html
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
the American Physical Society,
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
the American Meteorological Society,
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
the American Statistical Association,
http://www.amstat.org/news/climatechange.cfm
the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/
the Federation of American Scientists,
http://www.fas.org/press/statements/_docs/08grand_challenges.html
the American Quaternary Association,
http://www.inqua.org/documents/QP%2016-2.pdf
http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf
the American Society of Agronomy,
https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf
the Crop Science Society of America,
https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf
the Soil Science Society of America,
https://www.soils.org/files/science-policy/asa-cssa-sssa-climate-change-policy-statement.pdf
the American Astronomical Society,
http://aas.org/governance/resolutions.php%23climate#climate
the American Chemical Society,
http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/WPCP_011538/pdf/WPCP_011538.pdf
the Geological Society of America,
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
the American Institute of Biological Sciences,
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
the American Society for Microbiology,
http://www.asm.org/images/docfilename/0000006005/globalwarming%5B1%5D.pdf
the Society of American Foresters,
http://www.safnet.org/fp/documents/climate_change_expires12-8-2013.pdf
http://www.safnet.org/publications/jof/jof_cctf.pdf
the Australian Institute of Physics,
http://www.aip.org.au/scipolicy/Science%20Policy.pdf
the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,
http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/26
the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO,
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf
the Geological Society of Australia,
http://scentofpine.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gsa-position-statement-and-recommendations-e28093-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-change-july-2009.pdf
the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies,
http://www.fasts.org/images/policy-discussion/statement-climate-change.pdf
the Australian Coral Reef Society,
http://www.australiancoralreefsociety.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=5d093a51-a77e-4ae0-bd9f-67e459d57ac1&groupId=10136
the Royal Society of the UK,
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf
the Royal Meteorological Society,
http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332
the British Antarctic Survey,
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science/climate/position-statement.php
the Geological Society of London,
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/views/policy_statements/page7426.html
the Society of Biology (UK),
http://www.societyofbiology.org/policy/policy-issues/climate-change
the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences,
http://www.cfcas.org/media/news-releases-media-advisories/climate-change-in-canada-eminent-canadian-scientists-issue-a-call-for-action-to-prime-minister-martin/
the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
the Royal Society of New Zealand,
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/organisation/panels/climate/climate-change-statement/
the Polish Academy of Sciences,
http://www.aktualnosci.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/stanowiska_opinie/2008/stanowisko_pan_131207.pdf
the European Science Foundation,
http://www.esf.org/index.php?eID=tx_ccdamdl_file&p%5Bfile%5D=9227&p%5Bdl%5D=1&p%5Bpid%5D=4051&p%5Bsite%5D=European+Science+Foundation&p%5Bt%5D=1320257130&hash=021516f447f3a4b0e2ebab85f133729c&l=en
the European Geosciences Union,
http://www.egu.eu/statements/position-statement-of-the-divisions-of-atmospheric-and-climate-sciences-7-july-2005.html
http://www.egu.eu/statements/egu-position-statement-on-ocean-acidification.html
the European Physical Society,
http://nuclear.epsdivisions.org/Reports/eps-position-paper-energy-for-the-future
the European Federation of Geologists,
http://www.eurogeologists.de/images/content/panels_of_experts/co2_geological_storage/CCS_position_paper.pdf
the Network of African Science Academies,
http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=4825
the International Union for Quaternary Research,
http://www.inqua.org/documents/iscc.pdf
the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics,
http://www.iugg.org/resolutions/perugia07.pdf
the Wildlife Society (International),
http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/35-Global%20Climate%20Change%20and%20Wildlife.pdf
and the World Meteorological Organization.
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/mediacentre/statann/documents/SG21_2006_E.pdf
There aren’t any national or international scientific societies disputing the conclusion that most of the warming since 1950 is very likely to be due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, though a few are non-committal.
The last organization to oppose this conclusion was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG). They changed their position statement in 2007 to a non-committal position because they recognized that AAPG doesn’t have experience or credibility in the field of climate change and wisely said “… as a group we have no particular claim to knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics through either our education or our daily professional work.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Non-committal_statements
http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.pdf
http://64.207.34.58/StaticContent/3/TPGs/2010_TPGMarApr.pdf
neilcraig
Your graph would be ennobled by the word fraudulent if it had actually had some verification.
The claim that ocean depth temperature must be rising because the claim is that overall temperatures ought to be rising and it isn’t everywhere else is, once again, an evidence free assertion that could not be put forward by any honest scientist.
I note that no other alarmist has dissociated themselves from you. Do you dispute that this proves no alarmist should ever be treated as more honest than yourself (including, of course, the IPCC with their Himalayan melting fraud you have no problem with).
neilcraig
Just gratuitous rudeness rather than intellectual debate. Perhaps you could explain why free markets are “nonsense”, with examples of why North Korea is so much better off than the South.
You certainly must be if you are not perfectly well aware you are spouting rubbish.