Donate SIGN UP

Will Ukip Voters Casually Ignore Education Tampering?

Avatar Image
Hypognosis | 13:35 Sat 18th Jan 2014 | News
37 Answers
UKIP announces plans to ban education about global warming in schools. Specifically, they want to stop screenings of Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2240422/ukip_to_ban_all_teaching_of_global_warming.html

To a certain extent, I am not massively worried about such a ban: -

i) My education taught me the basics about weather systems and terrain-related climate factors. Also about the carbon cycle, the water cycle, the greenhouse effect (only in as far as explaining why the earth is not an iceball, given its distance from the sun). There was *nothing whatsoever* about global warming taught in those days.

ii) I have not actually watched the Al Gore film myself: I didn't really need to, as I'd seen plenty of evidence accumulating since the first glacier retreat stories, in the 80s.

So, the nub of my question is that here is another political party wanting the power to tell us what we can or cannot teach our kids: should we allow them to do this?

If you are contemplating voting UKIP, would this policy be a clincher or a dealbreaker?

Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 37rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Hypognosis. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As political parties, via the education minister, have the power to say what children are and are not taught your 'nub' seems a bit irrelevant.

What it does demonstrate (again) is that UKIP are a bunch of loonies.
Derek Clark, the UKiP MEP who has made this propoosal

// Derek Clark Former Schoolmaster and member of the Committee which combined the CSE/GCE into the present GCSE system, my interests, outside UKIP, extend to foreign travel - having visited every Western European country mostly by car, often with a caravan in tow. //

He must have a carbon footprint the size of a UKiP EU expenses claim.
A further example. Thank you Gromit.
This is entirely academic, as UKIP has no chance whatsoever of forming a Government. Its just more daft nonsense from a daft and nonsense party. Best ignored.
Correct in every respect Mikey.
To answer the question, No I do not think it will make any difference either way to their number of votes or who votes for them. Anyone voting for UKiP only has one reason for doing so. Banning teaching subjects is wrong, but is extremely unlikely they will get to enact that power.

Voting for UKIP would never be an option for me.
Glad to hear it Baldric ! But why would anyone vote UKIP, when they have no chance whatsoever of being elected into Government...that is the question I would like somebody to answer.

With our first-past-the-post system for General Elections, parties like UKIP will never be a force to reckoned with. The only reason that they have a minority presence in Europe is because of PR. I think its about time I re-posted dave's view of UKIP, as it is some weeks since I last did it :::

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-are-closet-racists-says-cameron-472769.html

Whatever else I might think about dave and his Party of privilege, he got it right that time !
Question Author
@zacs

I know they have the power: I said they have the power. I asked 'should we allow them to have the power?

Acquiescing to the position of "we can't stop them" and saying my question is irrelevant because of that stance is evading the question.

No disagreement with the remainder of your post. ;-)
Question Author
@mikey4444

//This is entirely academic, as UKIP has no chance whatsoever of forming a Government.//

True but we've been saying the same thing about the LibDamns for decades.

Look what happened!

What if Borgen-ian coalition politics became the status quo for a number of years?

I had literally no conception that the LibDems would get into bed with the Tories and I doubt anyone who made them their tactical vote thought that would happen either. I didn't vote for them, by the way but the overall outcome was a disappointment and a shock.

I dare say there will be a backlash against the LD (of little consequence). Of more consequence is that people will now have coalition outcomes in mind as they decide how to vote and aware they need to be careful of to whom they allot their 'protest vote'.

I'm not suggesting that UKIP would become the new coalition partner; as you said, Cam has driven the wedge in to keep them at bay. All the same deals can be made out of desperation to stay in power and obscure little policies like this one have potential to become the dealbreaker.

Meanwhile... you are all correct to state that the one-track-mind core UKIP voters will be so focussed on the EU exit goal that they will barely notice the sinister baggage being brought along for the ride.

It's supposed to be a one-issue party, after all, so why they bother with sideshows like this, I have no idea.

they're starting to sound a bit like American creationists banning the teaching of Darwin in schools. That sounds creepy to me; but I am not a potential Ukip voter and can't speak for those who might be.
Question Author
I must admit that was my gut reaction to the headline, jno.

After a bit of thought, I decided that they do have a point (about 'indoctrination') and that they should be taught all the science about factors affecting climate - enough to get them to Uni, to study it in depth, at least. After that, they get to make up their own mind.

In an odd way, screening the film in schools may be serving the denier's side because most online debates quickly bring forth the jibe about Al Gore touring the world on the lecture circuit, by jet, with a massive carbon footprint and all the money he stands to make from carbon credit scheme etc. To a flexible-minded teenager, this could jar them into a belief that their teachers had been feeding them lies. Instant convert and another mouthpiece on the social networks, winning further converts.

Oops, wrong forum section. That should have gone into R&S ;-)



Al Gore is a conman.
What I think it illustrates is thet UKIP's xenophobia is just one aspect of the party. It's part of a package of reactionary "let's turn the clock back to a time that never existed" ideals.
I'd imagine that for many potential UKIP voters who live in the same cloud-cuckoo-land it's probably a potential vote-winner. I'm not sure that such people exist in sufficient numbers in the real world for it to be of much significance.
Question Author
Good soldier, Svejk: //Al Gore is a conman. //

Care to expand on that?

Are you attacking him as a person (ie you are privy to details of financial irregularities) or are you saying the message itself is the con?

Hypo, yes of course we should allow them. Who else would you have decide? That's why it's important to familiarise yourself with party policies / manifestos.
No. Both.
There is no better disinfectant that good clear sunlight. Let UKIP spout their nonsense. Lets remember what happened to the BNP's vote after Griffin appeared on Question Time !

The more stupid UKIP sounds, the happier I will be.
Your wish is my command Mikey :)

Have a read of this egregiously stupid piece of nonsense!

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/18/uk-storms-divine-retirubtion-gay-marriage-ukip
Reminiscent of the Free Presbyterian Church in N Ireland at its looniest.

It's funny how many UKIP members "don't speak for the party". Is Nigel the only one who actually does (?!)

1 to 20 of 37rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Will Ukip Voters Casually Ignore Education Tampering?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.