Talk:UK Independence Party

The infobox should read centre-right, not right wing

The party clearly states it believes in immigration based on a points system like in Canada, free treatment on the NHS, etc. Zenostar (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is easy to find reliable sources that describe UKIP as "centre right and others as "far right". For this reason "right wing" is the best description of the broad position of UKIP on the political spectrum. Atshal (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, what the party states is rarely that clear and the whole of its 2010 manifesto has been repudiated while it works on new policies; regardless the two policies mentioned on their own do not make UKIP centre right. (The BNP advocates free treatment on the NHS; and I'm not aware that any UK political party, right or left, suggests otherwise.) In answer to Atshal, it is not easy to find reliable sources that describe UKIP as centre right. About the only ones to do so you have mentioned before - Phillip Lynch "Explaining support for the UK Independence Party at the 2009 European Parliament elections" (2011) and "The UK Independence Party: analysing its candidates and supporters1" (2011) in which he says that UKIP is centre right, but gives no reason for this assertion. The articles are, in any case, concerned with the self-ascribed positions of its supporters in 2009 and not its policies or leaders. That is not, I would suggest, sufficient to pin UKIP's position down to anything more vague than right wing. Emeraude (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It is easy actually - 5 minutes and Google is all you need! 'Right wing' is definitely better than either 'centre-right' or 'far-right'. Atshal (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And then several hours sorting out that most of them are pretty poor - that's Google for you. But you're right: with the sources we have right wing is the only acceptable wording. Emeraude (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I would remove the field which is not in the template anyway. It only causes us to argue across hundreds of articles whether the type of party that UKIP is should be considered right-wing or whatever, and the same types of arguments occur for the other types of parties. Incidentally the source provided did not say that UKIP is center-right, but that Ukippers placed themselves on average slightly to the right of center. They placed the Conservatives slightly to the left of center. So they generally agree about their relative position in the spectrum, they just disagree about where the center lies.

And while it sounds moderate to say that they only want to adopt policies that a relatively tolerant country like Canada has, 20.7% of people in Canada are immigrants, compared with 12.4% in the UK, according to the UN as quoted in List of countries by foreign-born population. I do not think they want to see those levels in the UK.

TFD (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Another case of the right wing not wanting to admit to being right wing. If you are too ashamed to admit that you support a right wing party, perhaps you shouldn't suport a right wing party. Nothing about the ukipper's policies, bar a few populist bones thrown to Sun readers, suggests that the party is anything but what the whole world understands, and encyclopedias define, as right wing. Pollythewasp (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Membership section

The membership numbers graph in that section appears somewhat unbalanced with the text appearing above it as opposed to beside it as with other infoboxes. I don't have enough experience with editing to make this change, could someone with the requisite skills please see what they could do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBFCPresident (talk • contribs) 15:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd question whether the table is of any real value. There is enough narrative in the preceding text - more than enough - I would have thought. There's a real danger that every time a new figure is announced it gets added to the table (and text) and the whole thing becomes unwieldy. I think we had this problem a year or so back. Emeraude (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I also do not see a point in having a table with historic membership numbers. I think the article would be better with the table removed, but retaining a brief description of the general trend of membership (as already exists). Atshal (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

Please correct apostrophe error in the final sentence of the introductory section, which should have 'its' rather than 'it's'.

Thanks! 147.114.44.208 (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

TWO Mp's in the House of Commons!

Reckless won, they now have two, get editing lads. 146.199.20.118 (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't assume we all have penises! RomanSpa (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Rewritten lead section

I feel that the current lead is bloated and fairly incoherent in structure and the choice of content. I have had a go at rewriting it in order to make it concise and include only broad material pertaining to the significance and position of UIP in the UK political scene, and very brief history. Mainly, I have removed things like the dates that Nigel Farage got elected, and material that sounded like UKIP blowing its own horn a little too much e.g. "biggest surge for a fourth party" etc.

Opinions appreciated - perhaps we can do a few revisions of this before adding it to make sure we have a consensus.

The UK Independence Party, colloquially known as UKIP (/ˈjuːkɪp/), is a right wing political party in the United Kingdom. It was founded in 1993 by members of the Anti-Federalist League with the primary objective of securing the United Kingdom's withdrawl from the European Union. The party describes itself as a "democratic, libertarian party" and is widely regarded as Eurosceptic and right-wing populist.

The party is led by Nigel Farage, with deputy leader Paul Nuttall. The UK Indepedence Party has twenty-four Members of the European Parliament, making it the largest UK party in the European Parliament, two MPs and three representatives in the House of Lords. In October 2014, UKIP reported a membership of over 40,000.

The party made its first significant breakthroughs in the 2013 local elections, when it came fourth in the number of council seats won and third in nationwide vote share, and in the 2014 European elections when UKIP became the only party other than Labour or the Conservatives to come first in a United Kingdom-wide election for over a century.

Atshal (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not bad. I'd suggest that "UKIP" is used throughout after the first para. Also, in para 3, might be better to mention representation in Commons and Lords before EP. Emeraude (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Is "UKIP" really a colloquialism or merely an acronym? It's clearly different to the Republicans being called the "GOP", because that isn't their own abbreviation '''tAD''' (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed: remove "colloquially". Bondegezou (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Should it be put that UKIP is an acronym, as opposed to being referred to as U K I P? Or does the phonetic make sure of that? '''tAD''' (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "colloquially" is not the best choice of word here. I have changed the phrase "colloquially known as" to "commonly known as", which I think is better. New version below. Atshal (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I prefer keeping "right-wing populist" rather than changing to right-wing because it has a clear meaning. TFD (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. (I mean, correct.) Emeraude (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I have made a few adjustments given the feedback. For the initial description I have retained "right-wing", following the style of Conservative Party (UK) and Labour Party (UK), as this is the most broad and uncontroversial description of their position -and as with the articles for the other two parties, the lead goes on to mention how the party view themselves, and how others often view the party's position. Comments, of course, appreciated. Atshal (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Right-wing can mean different things - it could refer to parties like the BNP or it could include the Tories or even the Liberal Democrats. Since the words we chose should be unambiguous, you would need to explain what you meant by right-wing. I presume you mean right-wing populist. TFD (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Justification for "right wing" over "right wing populist" in opening sentence.

There are a number of reasons right-wing is better for the opening sentence. In particular, there are a number of possible descriptions of UKIP that can and have argued for - far-right, centre-right, right-wing populist, libertarian, radical right etc. Right-wing is just a general catch all phrase, that is accurate but not very precise, and encompasses most possible descriptions. Secondly, and importantly, the lead should be a general description as it is the first thing that people read, and right-wing populist is rather a niche term and not widely understood, while everyone has an idea what right wing means. Thirdly, while right-wing populism may describe partly describe what UKIP, there are almost certainly aspects of there politics that are not right-wing populist. Fourthly, not everyone would agree UKIP is right-wing popullist - for example UKIP itself. Fifthly, the description of 'right-wing populist' is still included in the lead, and accurately described that this is how the party is often viewed. Sixthly, 'right wing' is much more widely used than "right wing populist" as a description for Ukip - a Google search for the exact phrase "UKIP is right wing" returns 7660 results while a search for "UKIP is right wing populist" returns 9 results. Seventhly, 'right-wing' is just a less controversial term than 'right-wing populist' and less likely to invoke endless edit wars. Atshal (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Version 2

The UK Independence Party, commonly known as UKIP (/ˈjuːkɪp/), is a right wing political party in the United Kingdom. It was founded in 1993 by members of the Anti-Federalist League with the primary objective of securing the United Kingdom's withdrawl from the European Union. The party describes itself as a "democratic, libertarian party" and is widely regarded as Eurosceptic and right-wing populist.

The party is led by Nigel Farage, with deputy leader Paul Nuttall. UKIP has two Members of Parliament, three representatives in the House of Lords and twenty-four Members of the European Parliament, making it the largest UK party in the European Parliament. In October 2014, UKIP reported a membership of over 40,000.

The party made its first significant breakthroughs in the 2013 local elections, when it came fourth in the number of council seats won and third in nationwide vote share, and in the 2014 European elections when UKIP became the only party other than Labour or the Conservatives to come first in a United Kingdom-wide election for over a century.

Looks fantastically concise, nothing out of place at all and removed the airy-fairy over-egging of the version currently on the article. Has my support '''tAD''' (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There's still the old bugbear about "come first in a United Kingdom-wide election" as opposed to gained most votes/seats, the point being that a EP election is not the same as a race for a general election. However, I seem to remember this was discussed some time ago with no clear decision on better wording. Emeraude (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that that phrase is problematic. What do you think about replacing the end of the final sentence with "...and in the 2014 European elections when UKIP won 24 seats, making it the largest UK party in the European Parliament" and deleting the "making it the largest UK party in the European Parliament" from the second paragraph? Or possibly instead of "largest party", "most represented party", or something else? Atshal (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would do it. It makes sense to keep the 24 with the other figures for representatives in the second para. UKIP's achievement in 2014 was to get the most votes, so how about "....when UKIP became the only party for over a century other than Labour or the Conservatives to receive most votes in a United Kingdom-wide election." ? Emeraude (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Building on, what about "when UKIP received the most votes, the first time in modern history that a party other than Labour or the Conservatives has won a British national election." This quite closely follows the lead in this Guardian article from after that election: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-european-elections-political-earthquake. Atshal (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No, because they didn't "win" the elction, and neither was it a "national" election. That was the point of the previous discussion. "Modern history" is too vague - "century" is at least a definite time frame. I suggest "...when UKIP received the most votes, the first time for more than a century that a party other than Labour or the Conservatives has won most votes in a British election."Emeraude (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I adapted the wording directly from an article in The Guardian. They did win the election, and it was a national election, I don't really understand the problem with this. UKIP were reported to have won the election in every major publication - I could provide links to The Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, Mail etc. if you like. Agree with the comment about 'modern history'. 82.45.44.45 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC) <---- This comment was made by me Atshal (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 11#A historic victory for previous discussion. Regardless of what some newspapers wrote at the time, if UKIP had won a "national election" then Farage would currently be residing in Downing Street. He isn't. Emeraude (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, how about we change "national" to "nationwide" to clarify the meaning? Atshal (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Page notice

Both by-elections have been contested, the page notice can be removed by an admin '''tAD''' (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Local government

UKIP has 600 councillors now? That's not what the source states. LeopoldMarsh (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. The number increase was slipped in by User:SleepCovo at 00:00 on 22 November 2014‎ (when everyone else was asleep I expect). Restored and access date updated. Emeraude (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Party membership

This looked useful for here and the article on the Greens. Bondegezou (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

UKIP should be referred to as drawing support from across the political spectrum

UKIP's support has changed substantially during 2014 and the term "right wing" should either become more qualified, as it no longer is not a true reflection of the party drawing it's support across the political spectrum, or due consideration given to it being removed. Polling by YouGov and commentary from the Guardian in November 2014 has shown that UKIP support has doubled since January 2013 from former Labour voters (7% to 13%) and grown from former Lib Dem supporters (15% to 17%) with former Conservatives down from 60% to 48% being less than half of all support now.

My two suggestions are that:

a) in the opening introduction the reference to being a "right wing political party" is simply changed to being "a political party" as it goes on to say it is "regarded as ... right wing populist"

b) "regarded as ... right wing populist" is also changed to "regarded as ... right wing populist, although support is now being drawn from across the political spectrum".

This better reflects the changing shape of the party.

Neilpatrickwhelan (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that UKIP draws support from parties across the political spectrum has no bearing on where it is placed on the political spectrum. More importantly, the term "right-wing populism" refers to a family of parties. Whether they are truly right-wing is beside the point. But all these parties have in fact succeeded in attracting disillusioned socialist voters, many of whom would never vote conservative. TFD (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The purpose of raising this topic is precisely the point about whether they are truly right wing and classified as such given the shift in support for the party, as per the citations given. Although the term "right-wing populism" is itself a disputed categorisation, I don't object to it as such, however, my suggestions stand that the page needs to reflect the change in support to incorporate the significant rise of left-leaning voters. One might also observe that a better term would be libertarianism or even anti-establishment as UKIP is ranged against all three main parties plus many parts of the media and state-sponsored BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilpatrickwhelan (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neil. It was me who reverted the edit you made. I think the opening sentence of any article should be broad and uncontroversial and allow a completely uniformed reader to learn in an instant what the subject of the article is. So, for example, a reader from Australia who has never heard of UKIP can read the first sentence and know that UKIP is a right-wing political party from the UK. That is succinct and accurate without superfluous information obfuscating the information that person really wants get from the lead. If they want to know a bit more about the type of people who support UKIP, they would probably go to the section called "Voter Base", which is where I would suggest you add this information. I would not be totally averse to removing "right wing" from the first sentence completely, but the inclusion of a broad term describing the alignment of the party is in line with how the articles for other major parties - e.g. Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems - are written. Atshal (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Atshal, thank you for your comment which makes perfect sense. I would be happy to write this into the Voter Base section if there is no objection and expand on the libertarian nature of the party if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilpatrickwhelan (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for that. Atshal (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The article says, "an adviser to Labour leader Ed Miliband, said that in his opinion Labour voters who defected to UKIP may never return because the party is failing to address concerns on welfare and immigration." There should be more about that. But the gist of right-wing populism is that the old parties are all the same, they are a corrupt part of the establishment, the real issues are quite simple, and the left-right spectrum is meaningless, Nonetheless, the only parties they have any possibility of aligning with is the traditional Right, such as Tories in the UK. TFD (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi TFD, thank you for your comment which raises an interesting point about whether aligning with a right-wing party means you should more likely be classified as right wing yourself. This is certainly counter to the current coalition of course, but I do understand your sentiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilpatrickwhelan (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The right-left spectrum refers to policies, i.e to parties themselves, and not to individual voters. People change their views all the time (several studies in the past, for example, have found that people become more right wing as they age, but this is, of course, in relation to their original position) or we wouldn't actually need elections other than for new voters! That UKIP is attracting support from voters who previously voted Labour says a lot about those voters but absolutely nothing about UKIP. It may be, for example, that they were always to the right of Labour supporters anyway. This is an issue for voter base, not the lead or anywhere that is describing UKIP policy or position, which has not signficantly changed. Incidentally, what evidence there is is even stronger for what happened to the BNP vote - it went to UKIP - but no one is suggesting we should now classify UKIP as fascist. Are they? Emeraude (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Editnotice

The Template:Editnotices/Page/UK Independence Party containing:

Has been deleted following this request on Template talk:Editnotices/Page/UK Independence Party:

Template-protected edit request on 6 December 2014

The byelection for Mark Reckless' seat has now passed, so this notice can be removed. Atshal (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Atshal (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Black Kite: any objections to deleting this? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Powell conection

Should the proven correspondence between UKIP and Enoch Powell in the 1990s be included in its early history? He endorsed three candidates and turned down running for the party twice. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11291406/Revealed-how-Nigel-Farage-and-Ukip-begged-for-Enoch-Powells-support.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11290715/The-Ukip-letters-to-Enoch-Powell.html

Maybe if there was dedicated page to Ukip's history but seeing as the main article is already getting too long, I'd say its not really worth putting in trivial information such as the party courting a retired politician for support. Tomh903 (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on those links no. You need to establish that it is significant, which will come with other papers repeating the story, UKIP replying, politicians commenting, etc. My guess is that will come, but I would wait a couple of days. TFD (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And even then, it's probably not worth more than a sentence or two. Emeraude (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Pound Shop Enoch Powell

As well as highlighting the links between Powell and UKIP, might not Wikipedia use a sentence to mention that - on BBC Question Time - the UKIP leader has been called a "Pound Shop Enoch Powell"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.234.86 (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

In the world of politics, ad hominem insults are ten-a-penny, and Wikipedia would look a frightful mess if we included every single one of them (on balance, we would need to insert the equally vibrant insults directed at Russell Brand). I really don't think that one quote by a comedian the other day weighs that heavy on a political party founded 21 years ago. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

“Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.” Wikipedia

Given this section highlights links between Powell and UKIP, it could be called practical reasoning to mention the quote about Farage being a 'Pound Shop Enoch Powell'. A ten-a-penny empty insult, or a degree of truth about a party that had links with the hard-right MP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.83.149 (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Brand didn't know of this connection, nor did he even imply knowledge of Farage's broadcast admiration for Powell. That particular insult would be misplaced ib such a section. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Membership up to 42,057 as of Dec 2014

Source is Patrick O'Flynn, worked for last membership update. - https://twitter.com/oflynnmep/status/545211056038363136 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.161.154 (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

See previous discussions on membership figures. It is not necessary to keep updating figures every time a new member joins and we need an independent source, not a Twitter note. Emeraude (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So the twitter source used for the current figures are somehow more credible than these ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.161.154 (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. Equally unreliable. Emeraude (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

'Nicholas Fromage' kicking immigrants off White Cliffs of Dover

"Ukip fury over phone app designed by school kids featuring 'Nicholas Fromage' kicking immigrants off white cliffs of Dover"

+ UKIP leader said game was 'risible and pathetic' and 'crosses the line'

+ The phone app was developed by students at Canterbury Academy

+ Called 'Ukik', the game aims to 'make a mockery of extremist views'

Mail Online, 22 December 2014

Given concerns that UKIP might be using crude tactics to raise its' profile, should not the high level media overage about the Ukik phone app be reported/reflected in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.234.86 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what you're trying to imply that this will add to the article. What "crude tactics to raise their profile" are you on about? If there are enough sources, make an article for the game, but I can't see how much this minor tiff adds to the article '''tAD''' (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This "minor tiff" (high level of media overage) adds to the article in that it highlights how the phone app story has something to say about the real nature of UKIP. Is not mentioning the "crude tactics to raise their profile" another way of saying that Ukik (sorry, UKIP) are a racist party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.83.149 (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It's pitifully trivial and you sound as if you want to push an agenda for what you call their "real nature" '''tAD''' (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

But you would say that, anyway! Others might consider that a phone app - featuring 'Nicholas Fromage' kicking immigrants off white cliffs of Dover - has something to say about the underlying nature of this party. Does not this, plus the high-level of media attention, make it an issue worth mentioning?

Young Independence Merge

Young Independence was merged into this article on the 27th of December 2014. This was due to the fact it contains unreferenced content or content where the sole reference is the organisations own website. It is also worth nothing that the previous AfD page had a result which was delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsa (talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)