The UKIP fallacy – Sturdyblog
Zero migration means either unprecedented cuts in public spending or debt at 150% of GDP in fifty years.
I just watched a video of some lovely Ukip supporters being, well… Ukip supporters, writes SturdyAlex.
I was particularly struck by the nice lady who suggested that a French person who has been living and working in the UK for years, should just be forcibly repatriated because “well, yeah, we all go home to our own places”. This (apparently, totally acceptable and not xenophobic at all) standpoint is justified with simple pragmatism: “This country cannot support any more people”.
It is a common view. It is also utterly misconceived.
A country is its people. There is no vague, mythical construct that “supports people”. People support each other. And in a service economy, numbers matter greatly*.
So, if you advocate deporting a couple of million people, it is true enough that you will have fewer people to support. But – and this is the bit of the equation on which Ukip and their supporters are always strangely silent – you will also have fewer people who do the supporting.
You can see where this is going. For more on why UKIP is wrong, visit Sturdyblog.
Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
bringing you the best of the blogs.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Hmmmm! UKIP supporter is wrong eh!, you only managed to find one, odd that I find loads of them, nearly as many as I find wrong Labour supporters oh and wrong conservative supporters, its seems we all have to be 100% politically aware of the party we wish to support, to be a judged as a competent voter, wasn`t there a conservative MP wanted to bring in a test for individuals before they would be deemed correct and intelligent enough to cast a vote, bit of a slippery slope this practice of pointing out people not fully aware of the party they are supporting, should we embarrass them all and tell them not to vote until they have got it right, I`m not into this idea.
I tend to find loads of wrong UKIP supporters – it’s an occupational hazard of writing a left-wing blog. Are you suggesting that the claim at the centre of Sturdyblog’s article (not mine) – that UKIP supporters believe the UK would be better-off if immigration was halted and at least the majority of immigrants were returned to their country of origin – is wrong?
That’s not what I’m getting from Mr Farage’s speeches.
No I`m not suggesting that, merely pointing out, that there are plenty of supporters from all parties that have not got a full grasp of the political parties manifesto and statements of intent, by highlighting UKIP and a supporter the post may not quite be even handed to all political parties, nor should we really downgrade any supporter of a party on the grounds they do not own a full grasp of their parties intentions, this is why I mentioned the Tory MP ( some years ago whose name escapes me at the moment ) that called for voters to be tested in their ability to make a choice based on the knowledge of the parties intentions, which would exclude plenty of voters, a idea I cannot agree with.
So you’d rather have MPs voted into Parliament on the basis of ignorance? I can’t support that (although I don’t support voter exclusion on the same basis, either).
Voting is a democratic right, but there is also an implied duty that voters should know what policies the parties represent.
hahaha! it`s not that I would have MPs voted into parliament on the basis of ignorance, I would say I would rather politicians and parties convey their policies in a manner and language of common English to try to avoid the lesser equipped voter being misled or mistaken by flowery or legal language above their understanding although I understand that can not always be the case. I am pleased you agree voters should neither be excluded from the democratic process, I also agree there is a implied duty that voters should know the policies of the party they wish to vote for, I also believe the party that conveys the policy should be in a manner understandable by all of our citizens not just the better educated and aware, hence my first point that it was not fair to pick on a UKIP supporter who was clearly mistaken in the policy being put forward by the party she intended to vote for, voters from all parties share this fault with the other lack of clarity from the main parties
Wasn’t this person being presented as an example of such voters, though? Okay, it’s not very nice for the person concerned, but they are indicative of many others – especially among UKIP supporters – who are similarly mistaken. It would be wrong to ignore their existence.