Talk:UK Independence Party

Template:Hidden information

Current members of the European Parliament

Janice Atkinson needs to be removed from the "Current members of the European Parliament" section as she is nolonger a UKIP member or part of the EFDD. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 21:01, 5 July 2015 (GMT)

RFC for dispute regarding inclusion of UKIP/BNP comparison in lede of UKIP article

Several weeks ago a statement was added into the lede of this article which (in its current form) states that "Others have drawn comparisons between UKIP and far-right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP)." This is then cited to an article from The Guardian newspaper. There was never any consensus obtained to add this information into the lede, and many editors have objected to it, resulting in edit wars and administrative blocks on editing the entire page. Concerns have been raised that its inclusion in the lede constitutes undue weight and that as such it compromises the NPOV nature of the article by seeking to over-emphasize the links between UKIP and a more extreme party. Those who support its inclusion dispute this viewpoint, deeming it to be due weight. A debate was held at Talk:UK Independence Party#Suggested removal of BNP comparison in the lede but it appears to have gone stale with no consensus so I was hoping that opening it up to other editors in an RfC would help bring us to a solution. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Per previous discussion (which didn't go stale you just didn't get the result you wanted!), the comparison has been made and is significant given the relative demise of BNP and multiple sources which say the BNP vote (or at least the soft end) moved to UKIP. We report the comparison, we don't state that there are the same as the BNP. The sheer number of these requests and reopening of resolved issues is getting tedious ----Snowded ^TALK 18:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

With respect, this situation was never resolved; myself and five other editors expressed the opinion that it was undue weight to include it in the lede. Yourself and one other editor stated the opposing view, claiming that it belonged in the lede. Beyond some minor alteration to the wording no consensus was achieved regarding what to do with it, hence the RFC. There was just deadlock. As it is I am definitely open to compromise, but that wasn't happening at the previous discussion, which hadn't seen any posts in three days, so I was hoping that that might happen here, with some fresh editors giving their input. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that several of those editors argued from UKIP policy statements I think you are misrepresenting the evidence a little. Call an RfC, more editors would be good.----Snowded ^TALK 21:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I had always thought that someone would had eventually inserted a comparison of UKIP with the BNP, sooner or later. Inevitable. In terms of membership, UKIP does suffer from infiltration from present and former membership and former general supporters of the BNP (or at least the risk, or the fear, of it). If it must, well, I think that it would be acceptable in a single sentence in its own right (but not in the first paragraph), of 2 lines maximum, provided that the fact that Michael White and the Guardian (and the political background of any other reliable (and usable) sources which can be found) are of the Left to the Centre-Left in terms of political background or affiliation, is clearly highlighted, in the beginning of that sentence. This is an article about UKIP, not the BNP, and this is not really the place to introduce the BNP to those who have never heard of them before. Either "the British National Party", or "the BNP", but not "the British National Party (BNP)". Make your blooming mind up! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, a better (reliable, and acceptable) source (preferably excluding both the Daily Worker or Morning Star (Marxist-Leninist) and the Socialist Worker (Trotskyite)) needs to be found. The present citation ([1]) is not acceptable, because not once does it mention the BNP by name. It is a made-up source, the same as the supposed Guardian source ([2]; [3]), which supposed to have supported that Louise Bours was in fact Louise van de Bours (who obviously, except to her political opponents, has never used such a name in any other capacity other than professionally as a stagename). -- Urquhartnite (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

While consensus for a comparison might've been obtained previously, relying on The Guardian as a source is without a doubt treading into non-neutral territory. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Do a google scholar search, you will find lots of comparisons, references to them polling from the same groups etc. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm all up for editors finding new evidence to support the claim (and additionally that the comparisons are particularly relevant and important) but the claim should be speedily removed for now since it's falsely sourced and was introduced as part of the set of edits which provoked the edit war which got this page locked downDtellett (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I edit articles from all major parties but have given all but given up on this one as it appears to be wp:OWNED by UKIP supporters who haven’t read the rules. As Snowded has said they reject sources which they don't like. This useful Guardian article titled “What's the difference between BNP and Ukip voters?” was added it on 6th June 2014 and removed by User:RoverTheBendInSussex 17th with the comment. “I don't think a left wing tabloid newspaper can be referenced as a reasonable source!” Similarly the comment “While consensus for a comparison might've been obtained previously, relying on The Guardian as a source is without a doubt treading into non-neutral territory” by user:FoCuSandLeArN is clearly wp:POV Unlike the tabloids, The Guardian is one of the suggested wp:Suggested sources. The comparison should be included in the lead and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV should be applied. JRPG (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

We probably have a meat farm .... ----Snowded ^TALK 19:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted what I meant to say. Neither The Guardian, nor any other source for that matter, should be treated as a catch-all reliable source when UKIP is involved, when it is a left-leaning newspaper. All I'm saying is that these contentious statements need to be backed up by more than a single source. If you resort to egregious name-calling when a simple matter like referencing is pointed out to you, then it is you that is showing bias, not the others. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment summoned by bot … a) it would help if someone could 'point the way' (ie sources gathered in one place) to how widespread this comparison is and what the comparers concluded … … b) Even if widespread, the suggested comparison is a tad loaded and context-less, by which I mean should the wording be something like 'UKIP's immigration (and??) policies have led some to compare etc.'? I think we all recognise the difference between 'Person X has been compared to Ghengis Khan', … … 'Because of his moustache, person X has been compared to Ghengis Khan' … … and 'Person X has been compared to Ghengis Khan, concluding that no two persons could be less alike.' … … Initial thoughts, I shall return!Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

An administrator deemed consensus to have been reached on this issue, and removed the offending passage within the lede. Hence I have ended this RFC as its purpose now appears to be defunct. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request July 23

Whilst the endless debate about whether, where and how to compare UKIP to the BNP rambles on, the actual WP:NOTINSOURCE statement whose recent insertion provoked the edit war that got this page locked survives unscathed. Could an administrator please remove the statement "Others have drawn comparisons between UKIP and far-right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP)" per WP:BURDEN until, as a bare minimum, it has a source which doesn't actively undermine the original editor's claim. Dtellett (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

There is already a section on this above, please move your comments there rather than asking for repetition. But for the Guardian is a valid source so I fail to see how it can undermine anything ----Snowded ^TALK 01:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This request is not a contribution to that discussion, but a simple policy-based request that administrators remove a inaccurately-sourced statement pending any consensus over whether, where and how it should be restored and sourced, per the standard Wikipedia policy of putting the burden of proof for unsourced disputed content on those wishing to include it. An article which compares UKIP with several organisations which are not the BNP (or similar far-right movements) is not a valid source for the claim that "Others have drawn comparisons between UKIP and far-right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP)" ; this is not a point which requires any further debate. Irrespective of other ongoing discussions aiming to reach a broader consensus view on whether and how comparisons with other movements should be reported, Wikipedia's policies on unsourced contentious content should be followed. Dtellett (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully support and second Dtelletts reasoning on this. The statement should be removed immediately.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Then replace the reference with Mycock and Hayton "The Party Politics of Englishness" which is more explicit. As I pointed out in the discussion above a very simple search of google scholar will find you several more. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think there's plenty of material from Mycock and Hayton that can be discussed above and worked into the article, but I don't think an article comparing the positions of six, mostly mainstream, political parties on an issue is any better as a source for the statement "Others have drawn comparisons between UKIP and far-right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP)", especially since it classifies UKIP as "right wing populist" (already in the text) and notes differences as well as similarities in UKIP's position on that issue vs the far right. Since the still-unsourced statement was introduced amidst several somewhat inflammatory contributions which the responsible editor has graciously apologised for and "search Google" is also not a valid source, it should be removed unless and until a more acceptable version can be agreed upon in the discussions above. Personally I'd lean towards discussing overlaps with far right positions/rhetoric and voter support at greater length and with greater emphasis on fact rather than commentator's opinions in the body rather than the lede, but that's irrelevant to my simple request that Wikipedia's policies on unsourced contentious material are followed. Dtellett (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Best practice is to rely on statements of simple fact rather than of opinion. I am sure a great many opinion comparisons have been made in a great many sources, but if we are to abide by the non-negotiable WP:NPOV, we should avoid adding contentious "comparisons." (Per Godwin, I can even find "comparisons" of Margaret Thatcher to Hitler, but that does not mean we ought to include such comparisons in any article.) If a specific notable source expresses such an opinion, then such a fully-sourced opinion can be cited, but only as an opinion of the person holding it. The sentence presented here is "right out" as it presents opinions of unnamed "others." And the request should be handled only by an editorially uninvolved admin. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Also note the use of "although" in a sentence that then implies the claim by the UKIP is wrong, is contrary on its face to WP:NPOV and "although" is a well known "word to avoid" in any Wikipedia article. Collect (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to place my support behind the comments of Dtellett and Gaius Octavius Princeps here. I'm happy to continue discussing the merits of references to the BNP within the lede, but the current wording should never have been retained given how massively contentious it is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The quote says, "Others have drawn comparisons between UKIP and far-right political parties such as the British National Party (BNP)." But the source does not mention the BNP or use the term far right. TFD (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Mycock and Hayton one does though and there are lots of links on a Goggle Scholar Search. TFD, you have a lot more experience of this, would you suggest something? ----Snowded ^TALK 06:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to a draft copy of a 2013 paper, "Comparing the support bases of UKIP and the BNP," which discusses the issue. It says that Cas Mudde in 2007 did not consider UKIP to be a far right party, and this year Mudde said it was borderline.[4] But this paper argues it is. (Just to confuse things, it uses the term extreme right for what Mudde calls far right and far right for what Mudde calls extreme right.) I think this could provide useful information for the article. The article should not say the two parties have been compared without explaining the comparison. It implies they are similar, without actually saying that. TFD (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Widfeldt and Brandenburg's draft of the paper they presented states "The argument here is not that UKIP can straightforwardly be equated with BNP. They have completely different origins, and serious scholarly work does not label UKIP as “fascist”, which quite frequently is the case with BNP (e.g. Goodwin 2011; Copsey 2008)." I think associating UKIP with the BNP in the lead is bias and mischief. Collect's point that 'Per Godwin, I can even find "comparisons" of Margaret Thatcher to Hitler, but that does not mean we ought to include such comparisons in any article' is well made and to me sums up why comparisons are out of place here.--Flexdream (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is making the suggestion that we say in Wikipedia's voice that UKIP=BNP. There are how ever two points (i) some sources have made the comparison (ii) more importantly UKIP has taken at least part of the space occupied by the BNP in recent times contributing to its reduction to a rump. The later points means that the overlaps in constituency and also populist appeal are significant. I think TFD is suggesting something in that space----Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this an attempt to suggest UKIP~BNP. I think defections of Labour and Conservative voters to UKIP are far more significant than any shift of BNP voters. I also think UKIP has more in common with Old Labour than with the BNP. I don't think selecting the most unfavourable comparison and pushing it in the lead is NPOV.--Flexdream (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I missed that: "I also think UKIP has more in common with Old Labour than with the BNP." Incredible! So UKIP wants to nationalise the major industries and the banks, adheres to Clause 4, wants to join the Common Market, supports strong trade unions...... Unbelievable. Emeraude (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Blue Labour favoured protectionism, and was anti-immigration[5]. Collect (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The operative word here is more. I remember when Old Labour had a manifesto commitment to leave the Common Market. I think saying UKIP has more in common with the BNP than with Old Labour is more incredible.--Flexdream (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Flexdream I don't think selecting the most unfavourable comparison and pushing it in the lead is NPOV either, here is imo a npov article https://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/blog/ukip-and-bnp-%E2%80%93-two-kind-or-different-planets that perhaps can be quoted. Govindaharihari (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That appears to be a condensed version of the article I presented. Flexdream, certainly UKIP does not equal BNP, which is why I objected to the wording that suggested it did. I think it is sufficient to say in the lead that they are often seen as a right-wing populist party, which the BNP btw is not, and discuss their classification later in the article. TFD (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @TFD. Nice to hear from the original source :) My objection is to comparing UKIP with the BNP in the lead. Maybe you share that objection? I think that any genuine attempt to be nuanced would fail, while any attempt at guilt by association of such a prominent and leading comparison would succeed and would point the casual reader to the idea that UKIP~BNP. It's a misleading impression to give in the introduction to the article.Flexdream (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      • But ... doesn't a piece by a political scientist or political scientists, on its own, likely to fall under WP:NOR#PRIMARY?! When was political science an exact, incontrovertible science anyway?! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• There seems to be rough consensus to remove this sentence, which I have now done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with removal from the lead because it is accurate it is misleading. Urquhartnite, while social sciences are not as exact as natural sciences, that does not mean we do not ignore them. In this case they say that UKIP is perceived to be to the right of the main parties. TFD (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Good call MSGJ. Thank you. The lede looks much nicer now with the contentious and incorrectly referenced sentence removed from it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 August 2015

The Spokespeople section is incorrect.

Suzanne Evans is the Deputy Chairman (not Deputy Chairwoman) as stated at http://www.ukip.org/people_key. Patrick O'Flynn is no longer a spokesman (as described in the Farage resignation and return section).

Membership Section The table of number of members has an asterisk next to 2015 without any reference as to what the asterisk is meant to signify. Pstaveley (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Partly done:: I did change Chairwoman to Chairman per the page you provided, but the page is not apparently a list of spokespeople, so absent a reliable source I have declined to implement the rest of your request. Note that protection has been reduced to semi-protection, so you can make future edits yourself. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The spokesmen list needs updating: Christopher Mills is now Business Spokesman, Mark Reckless Economics Spokesman (replacing O'Flynn MEP), Steven Woolfe MEP Financial Services Spokesman, Douglas Carswell MP Political Reform Spokesman and Suzanne Evans Welfare Spokesman. Everything else remains the same. () JackM1993 (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 August 2015

More lead stuff. "In May 2015, UKIP reported a membership of over 47,000, with its support base consisting primarily of older, white, male, working-class, less formally educated voters." UKIP don't have that data. Sentence should read "In May 2015, UKIP reported a membership of over 47,000".--Flexdream (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Had I been an administrator reviewing this I would have turned it down, because the discussion below clearly shows that consensus was not reached first. It appears that any of you can make edits now. In future, if the page is fully protected again, make sure you come to an agreement on what exact edit needs to be made before invoking the {{edit protected}} template. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be open to dividing the sentence in two, so that the lede no longer implies that "UKIP reported" the information on the demographics (i.e. age, class etc) of its support base. However, that demographic information regarding the party's support base is solidly attested by academic sources which appear in the body of the article itself. Thus, the statement that "its support base consisting primarily of older, white, male, working-class, less formally educated voters" should certainly remain inside the lede, and has been consistently supported here on the talk page during previous attempts to have it removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternately of course, this entire problem could be dealt with simply by reversing the structure of the existing sentence to "With a support base consisting primarily of older, white, male, working-class, less formally educated voters, in May 2015 UKIP reported a membership of over 47,000." Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The only source actually given in this article is "Ford & Goodwin" which appears paywalled (and is quite overused in this article). Its abstract, however, makes no claim that UKIP supporters are "less formally educated." ("more economically marginal and politically disaffected ‘core loyalists’ who are attracted to UKIP by its anti-immigration rhetoric and populist anti-establishment strategy. UKIP also succeeds in attracting core support from groups such as women who have traditionally rejected extreme right parties such as the British National Party (BNP).") In fact the abstract specifies the appeal to women voters, and specifically states that UKIP is not "extreme right" I the sense of the BNP. Collect (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Another F&G abstract states (as noted above) "We then move to consider the political changes that have further marginalized these voters, as first Labour and then the Conservatives focused their energies on recruiting and retaining support from middle-class, moderate swing voters. Finally, we show how UKIP has developed into an effective electoral machine which looks to win and retain the loyalties of these voters." The mention of education is with reference to one single part of the study - that is those with less education have been pushed to the margins, but not that the UKIP specifically is primarily that group. Collect (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it matters that Ford and Goodwin's book is behind a paywall; after all, very few books are given away for free by the publisher, but rather have to be paid for by the reader (unless of course they are borrowed from a library). Certainly, it isn't Wikipedia policy that the sources used in our articles must be freely available to all, and if that were to be the case then we would be greatly restrained and the whole project rendered rather pointless. It is true that Ford and Goodwin are used fairly heavily in this article, although that is only to be expected at this stage given that theirs is the only book-length academic study yet published on the UKIP phenomenon. I would certainly advocate for the inclusion of information from a wider range of academic studies (many have been published in peer-reviewed journals over the past five years or so) but the ability to make significant contributions to this article with the use of such sources is currently hindered by its 'locked' status which prevents editors from being bold with their additions. As for the issue surrounding whether or not we should mention the educational attainment of UKIP's core support base, I would point to Ford and Goodwin's clear statement on page 159 of their book that "UKIP's support has a very clear social profile, more so than any of the mainstream parties. Their electoral base is old, male, working class, white and less educated." At present, we actually quote this statement of theirs in the "Voter base" section, and that is why we then paraphrase it within the lede. I hope that that clears some things up. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That Ford & Goodwin is behind a paywall is totally irrelevant and to criticise its use smacks of bad faith. Buy it (it's not expensive). Or borrow it. Then read it. Alternatively, read any of a number of reviews of the book that highlight these issues. Better yet, do what Wikipedia demands and rely on the good faith of those who have read it and cited it. What should not happen is to take an abstract (where?) as the substantive work. Emeraude (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Horsefeathers - I read the abstracts and sources and pointed out Most Wikipedia users do not have unlimited funds to read $15 books (even on Kindle). I, in fact, cited the sentence where the authors make clear that they are not saying "UKIP is primarily less educated people" but, in fact, they clearly state it has substantial support from women ('core support is the term they use). I trust that the abstract is correct in making that affirmative statement, which is diametrically opposed to the claim which it is used to support. Page 95 does not support the claim for which it is cited. What the source does state is that the UKIP is not a matter of "right" or "left" but a split between the "financially secure and highly educated middle class, and as more insecure and precarious working class which feels its concerns have been written out of political debate." The proper claim for the source is "Ford & Goodwin state that the UKIP support is not a matter of "left" or "right" but of a matter of the financially well-off middle class and the less well off working class." As for assertions of "bad faith" that is about the least useful use of an article talk page one can do. Collect (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Collect, you appear to have confused two distinct sources here. The book that is being cited repeatedly in this article is Ford and Goodwin's 2014 work Revolt on the Right. It is that book which contains the explicit claim that "UKIP's support has a very clear social profile, more so than any of the mainstream parties. Their electoral base is old, male, working class, white and less educated." What you instead appear to be referring to (at least when discussing the abstract) is an earlier work, which isn't a book at all but an academic paper published in the peer-reviewed journal European Journal of Political Research back in 2011. This was authored not just by Ford and Goodwin but by Ford, Goodwin, and David Cutts. The paper looked explicitly at UKIP as it existed in the build-up to the 2009 European Parliament elections. The later book which they subsequently authored takes a much broader view, hence why it has been given primacy in this article. I hope that that clears up some of the misunderstanding that has arisen here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, you appear not to have read my precise quote from that exact book. What the source does state is that the UKIP is not a matter of "right" or "left" but a split between the "financially secure and highly educated middle class, and a more insecure and precarious working class which feels its concerns have been written out of political debate." Did you miss that? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've looked up page 95 of Revolt on the Right (I have it open in front of me now), and nowhere does it use the words "left" or "right" or state that "financially secure and highly educated middle class, and a more insecure and precarious working class which feels its concerns have been written out of political debate." It's just not in there. Are you sure that you've got the text and page number right ? Anyway, I'm not really sure what precisely we are debating here. Ford and Goodwin's work (in general) makes it abundantly clear that you are perfectly right in pointing to the existence of a strong class dimension to UKIP's support base. The party's support base demonstrably consists of older working-class white folk who feel politically disenfranchised by 'mainstream' political parties which, since at least the 1990s, have focused their attention on the more prosperous emerging middle-classes. Furthermore, I think that this has been made very clear in the article, in particular in the "Voter base" section. So aside from disagreeing on whether or not the quotes that you have supplied appear on page 95, we seem to be on the same page here (no pun intended), no ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

[6] The salient discussion is on page 242 of the Google page numbering to be quite precise - [7] is page 95 and states that the three major parties all represent the "highly educated, socially liberal middle classes ... and celebrate a cosmopolitan and globally integrated Britain" and it is in reference to this preceding statement that they state the UKIP has "older" voters, etc. Not that UKIP has old, poorly educated males - but that their core is older than that of the three major parties, and is less "economically advantaged." As for "male" - it is not on page 95. The "old, male, working class" is based on Ashcroft's report - and mentioned as such. Ashcroft showed that in 2010, 57% of UKIP backers were male.

[8] (from the House of Commons) is likely of interest here. "Social surveys suggest members of the three main political parties are more likely to be male than the electorate in general, more likely to be retired, to hold either professional or managerial occupational status and to earn over £40,000 per annum." In other words, those not in the three major parties were less likely to be male (Figure 12). Figure 9 shows that the percentage identifying with any political party in the UK has waned very substantially since 1991 (from 87% down to 72%). Figure 13 shows that UKIP has 57% professional, managerial or routine non-manual supporters.

Only 42% of UKIP supporters are "working class" (manual workers or never worked). From Ford & Goodwin, by the way. The UKIP does have the lowest percentage of "under-35" supporters, by the way, but that does not make it "primarily" old or primarily working class. One factor may be systematic error - as lower percentages of people announced they supported a minor party than the percentage of people who actually voted for that party. (UKIP had 12.6% of the vote in 2015) Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Also see The Guardian [9] showing the percentage of "over 60" in UKIP went from 51% in Jan 2013 down to 41% by Oct 2014 -- meaning all the "new" voters were basically echoing the general percentages for the electorate. In fact, UKIP voters are more likely to be homeowners than the average. "The proportion of Ukip voters coming from the Labour party has trebled from 7% to 23%. Politically, “recent” Ukip converts look much more like the electorate as a whole than “early” converts." YouGov [10] states that UKIP voters are less right wing then Tories. Then we have Ipsos-MORI [11] which shows the major "age problem" is for Labour in the 65+ group - which shows an 18% swing to Conservative (who go from 37% for 55-64 to 47% for 65+, while Labour goes from 31% 55-64 down to 23% 65+) Ipsos basically shows that Labout appears more to have "turned off" the older voters than anything else in the 2015 election cycle. Collect (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Like to mention that very few Britons are members of major political parties and the demographics of membership does not represent that of supporters. TFD (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice - but the HoC report is about polling results of supporters - not about "registered members" and the demographics are specifically of supporters and not of "registered members." Ditto The Guardian article, and the Ipsos results. The fact is that while UKIP started off as pretty much "right", the demographics of its supporters are no longer reasonably so described, as a very large percentage of its newer supporters are from Labour (just as the SNP derives a large proportion of its current supports also from Labour). Collect (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The House of Commons report, including in your quote above, specifically uses the term "members" and says for example there are 149,800 members of the Conservative Party. While members of the three main parties are more likely to be male, the report says 51% of Tory and Labour supporters are female, while for Lib Dems it is 53%. For UKIP and BNP, it is 43% and 36%. Comparing UKIP supporters with members of the main parties is misleading. Figure 13 confirms that UKIP supporters are more likely to be less skilled, less educated, male, older and white. Incidentally, the report does not refer to "registered members." Only parties, not their members, are required to register with the Electoral Commission. TFD (talk)

As you noted - all of the demographics used by me from the HoC report are for "supporters" as self-identified - not for "members" and not making any distinctions between "major" and "minor" parties in the study. The polls covered all parties, thus saying the poll handled UKIP differently is simply incorrect here. The single biggest factor is that the major loss for Labor was to SNP and UKIP, and the major gain for UKIP was from Labour. And that as far as "right wing" is concerned, the Tories are now more "right wing" than the current UKIP median. And the Ipsos-MORI data are pretty clear on this. Collect (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the demographics in the Commons report "Membership of UK political parties" is about members rather than supporters, including the statement you quote above: "Social surveys suggest members of the three main political parties are more likely to be male than the electorate in general, more likely to be retired, to hold either professional or managerial occupational status and to earn over £40,000 per annum." (my emphasis) And since the total memberships is 1% of the electorate, you cannot conclude, "those not in the three major parties were less likely to be male." TFD (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a point to this? The HoC report ("Membership of UK political parties" from 30.01.2015 by Richard Keen states clearly: "The social characteristics of political party members and supporters are analysed in section 3." The sources include "British Social Attitudes Survey Politics report 2013", Paul Whitely's survey (which showed that for all the major parties, "members" were more likely to be retired and well-off). Figure 12 showed that "members" were also more likely to be male for the major parties, by a substantial margin. None of this relates to UKIP at all, however. Figure 13 is from Ford & Goodwin as I noted above ... and is about "supporters" and not about "members" at all. The salient data I cited, moreover, about UKIP is not about "members" but about "supporters." Note that you cite a sentence which is about "the three main political parties" and not about UKIP, as far as I can tell. Is this clear? Collect (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted you Collect, but is part of your argument the claim that UKIP are not "right-wing" because they have gained much support from former Labour supporters ? As has been stated before on this talk page, there are problems with this argument. Throughout much of the twentieth century, Labour advocated a social-democratic platform that they aimed primarily at urban working-class voters. As a result of economic and thus class-based shifts in the nature of British society since the 1980s, Labour have instead pulled to the centre, emphasising a range of socially liberal policies, and focusing on attracting support from the rapidly growing proportion of young(er) middle-class voters. This left many working-class, socially conservative voters (particularly those who are older) feeling politically disenfranchised, and the radical right (both in the form of the BNP and the more moderate UKIP) exploited this to their electoral advantage. Very similar phenomena can be seen across Western Europe, as a large slice of working-class support has shifted from the centre-left to the radical right (in the form of France's Front National, or the Sweden Democrats, for instance). Of course, no one has seriously argued that UKIP are to the right of the Conservatives on every issue; it is clear for instance that many "radical right" parties advocate mixed economic policies that have more in common with those of social-democrats than those of "right-wing" conservatives or libertarians. Where they stand resolutely on the right however is in their attitude to 'race', culture, defense, social issues relating to women and minorities, as well as in their historical connections to the far right. This certainly isn't a new phenomenon - many fascist groups in the 1920s-40s advocated mixed economic policies that were "to the left" of the pro-free market views of many conservatives, for instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

We have a source which states that the center of the Conservative party support is to the right of the UKIP now - making the point that UKIP started off as more clearly to the "right" than it is at this point in time. Definitions of the political spectrum are labile, and we well sought to apprise ourselves of the latest wording found in reliable sources. I certainly would point out that the UKIP is not viewed as "fascist" to say the least by the current reliable sources. The Labour Party may, in fact, choose a relatively "left wing" leader if Corbyn succeeds, showing that even the Labour Party's position on the political spectrum can and does shift. Collect (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are looking at the left-right issue the wrong way around. The relative position is based on public perception. UKIP supporters see their party to the right of the main traditional parties, and supporters of those parties agree with them. While Ukippers may not see themselves as right-wing, but centrists, and see the other parties as left-wing, they agree they are the more to the right than them. All successful parties of course try to broaden their appeal beyond their base. So Tories have since Disraeli made an appeal to the "working classes", while Labour has broadened its appeal to the middle classes. It does not mean the political poles have reversed. TFD (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Read the sources. Relying on "public perception" is not the same as relying on scholarly research - as you have argued many times. The HoC report is quite clear - and saying (more or less) "well now we can just use 'public perception'" is wrong by policy and by common sense here. This is not a "reversal of poles" it is a shift in the nature of the supporters of that party, something which can and does occur in many places and at many times. Right now, it looks as though a potential Labour leader is substantially not in the same area as Blair had been. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Scholars rely on public perception and the perception of opponents as well as self-placement within the political spectrum. The terms left and right are based on the fact that parties choose to seat themselves in chambers of deputies lineally from left to right. In the EU parliament for example, UK MEPs sit from left to right: Labour, Lib Dems, Tories, UKIP. It is not as if scholars invented the concepts of left and right, arbitrarily assigned them qualities, then sought to classify existing groups. TFD (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, you, yourself, have noted that "seating charts" are totally meaningless <g>. The current scholarly sources specifically do not call UKIP anything stronger than "right" at this point ... and I recall you strongly support relying primarily on current scholarly opinion ... Collect (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I never said they are totally meaningless. They give an indication of relative position in the political spectrum or at least where the parties involved see themselves and each other. And the sources agree that UKIP is to the right of the mainstream parties, including the Tories, the traditional UK right-wing party. TFD (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

In the Leadership section, please remove the wikilink to UK Independence Party leadership election, 2015 as that page has been deleted because there is no election planned. Section currently reads (with wikilink in bold), A leadership election was due to take place after Nigel Farage briefly resigned... The deletion discussion is here. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  14:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

We could perhaps go one further and delete that sentence in its entirety. I really don't see what it actually adds at this juncture of the article at all. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Done - I removed the wikilink. Protection has been reduced to semi-protection; if you would like to remove the sentence in its entirety, go ahead, and/or see WP:BRD. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Basic housekeeping

First re: 'On the international stage, it is a member of the right-wing Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe and the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy groups. In May 2015' isn't 'On the international stage' needlessly verbose, especially as the referenced groups are European. Secondly, some of coverage of the 2015 election (Defence etc) is now in the wrong tense. I came to the article 'cos of the RfC, but noticed these while here.Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The concern here is that if we simply state "it is a member of the right-wing Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe and the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy groups" the reader might assume that these are UK-based domestic groups, rather than appreciating that these are pan-EU organisations. Perhaps a middle-way could be found here, by replacing "On the international stage" with "Internationally". That way the verbosity is reduced but it still makes it clear that these groups are active on the international scene rather than purely being domestic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not use the fact that the groups are already covered by separate Wikipedia articles? Thus:

UKIP has been represented in the Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe and the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy groups.

Using the "has been" as such memberships are not static. Collect (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not 'In Europe, UKIP is a member ...' though I don't think anything is needed, we have links to clarify who these groups are. I remind regulars of wrong tenses in relation to 2015 election.Pincrete (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"Has been" (present perfect continuous tense) does not require "no longer" - while "is" requires a continuing status as simple present tense here. Collect (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 August 2015

Insert non-formatted text here

In the opening sentence of the fourth paragraph of the "Foundation and early years: 1991–2004" sub-section, "ensured" should be "ensued". A minor correction is all that needs to be made here.

Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Protection has been reduced to semi-protection, you should be able to make these changes yourself now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

another Palgrave source etc.

[12] Restructuring the policy space in England: The end of the Left–Right paradigm? Jonathan Wheatley, 13 July 2015:

Political scientists often talk about ‘ideological dimensions’ that aggregate related policy issues into a single latent construct. Applying factor analysis and Mokken Scale Analysis to opinion data generated from a Voting Advice Application deployed in England in the run-up to the European parliamentary elections, I show how individual issues may be aggregated into two principal dimensions: an economic dimension that separates Left and Right in terms of the economy and a cultural communitarian–cosmopolitan dimension. I also identify a third (libertarian–authoritarian) dimension, but this appears to aggregate very few issues. By positioning party supporters on a two-dimensional map defined by the two principal dimensions, I show that United Kingdom Independence Party supporters are situated very near the ‘communitarian’ pole of the cultural communitarian–cosmopolitan dimension. Finally, I show that overall, the communitarian–cosmopolitan dimension forms a rather more coherent scale than the Left–Right dimension and this tendency is even more marked among younger voters and voters with little interest in politics. Overall, this would appear to show that the notion of (economic) Left and Right is losing its salience in English politics.

If one looks at "Euroskepticism" as being "left v. right" one faces the daunting task of explain the Green Party opposition to the EU [13].

UKIP started off clearly to the "right" but the elections indicate that the supporters do not regard themselves as "far right" at all - thus if we did use "public perception" of supporters, we could no longer assert "far right" assuming that had been its historical position on the spectrum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No they do not consider themselves "far right", they consider themselves to be to the right of the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour, whom they consider left-wing. We should convey that they are the most right-wing party in Parliament. Opposition to the EU of course is in itself neither left nor right and is not the reason UKIP is considered right-wing. TFD (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"We should convey that they are the most right-wing party in Parliament." Wouldn't that be the Democratic Unionist Party? Brustopher (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. I suppose it would be more accurate to say the most right-wing Great Britain party in Parliament. TFD (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

For that claim you would need a specific strong reliable source - preferably recent and scholarly due to the rapidly changing nature of their support per the HoC report. The HoC report clarifies that the support for UKIP today is a lot different from when it was first established, indeed. Collect (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It is already reliably sourced and uncontroversial to boot. TFD (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Whitaker & Lynch

Under 'Voter Base' the article states 'The authors found that voter support for UKIP correlated with concerns about the value of immigration, hostility to immigrants and a lack of trust in the political system but the biggest explanatory factor for their support of UKIP was Euroscepticism.'. The link is to an abstract and I do not have access to the full paper. Do the authors really write about 'hostility to immigrants'? 'Hostility' is a strong word with which to characterise UKIP supporters.--Flexdream (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

They do not use that phrase. I changed the link to the full article at the University of Leicester website. You can read it and see if the phrasing in this article is accurate. TFD (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@TFD Thanks for that and the link. Much appreciated. You're a real asset on this article. I can't find 'hostility' anywhere in the source so I'll remove that phrase. --Flexdream (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the phrase 'hostility to immigrants' was introduced by Atshal in May 2013. Soon after Twilde removed it with the comment '(→‎Voter base: I see nothing about "hostility to immigrants" in Whtaker & Lynch's paper, so think it would be fair to delete that phrase. To avoid dispute I have replaced it with a direct quotation from the abstract of that paper.)'. Soon after that Emeraude reinstated it with the comment '(Undid revision by User:Twilde: quoting from the abstract is not valid. The whole article is the source, not the abstract.)'. So presumably Emeraude knows where in the source 'hostility to immigrants' is mentioned.--Flexdream (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No. My point (which I made on this page, above) is that Wikipedia assumes good faith on the part of editors. It is not sufficient to say that a word does not appear in the abstract of a journal article, and therefore we can't use it! The article itself must be the source, not the abstract, and we must assume that the editor cited the full article and was acting in good faith. To change, we need to go the full article, not the abstract, which, thanks to TFD, we have now been able to do and the Wikipedia article has been correctly amended. Incidentally, I cannot agree with Flexdream that "'Hostility' is a strong word with which to characterise UKIP supporters"; it seems prefectly reasonable to me, but to use this particular article would be a clear case of interpretation. Emeraude (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So your point of view is that considering 'hostility to immigrants' is a characteristic of UKIP supporters is reasonable, even though this source did not support it, and there's no suggestion any other reliable source does either? You do concede that I have correctly amended the Wikipedia article however.--Flexdream (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I made the original edit and have no problem with it being changed. The original context was me trying to make the whole article more NPOV, and the voter base section in particular was extremely pejorative, with comparisons to BNP etc. I had to include that sentence to placate the user Emeraude, who insists on inserting and trying to keep in the article anything that portrays UKIP in a bad light, in order to prevent him reinserting even worse statements. It has rightfully been removed two years later! Atshal (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Atshal Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate the difficulties in this article with editors who are hostile to UKIP.--Flexdream (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding other use of sources which are not easy to check see my edit here.[14]. Is this dissection of UKIP referring to academic sources resulting in a lengthy article on UKIP quite unlike that on other parties?--Flexdream (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The section is clearly vastly excessive in my opinion, and inappropriate. I don't really understand why it is in the article. A brief paragraph would be enough in my opinion. Atshal (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If articles on other parties do not have similar sections of a similar length, that is reason to expand those other articles, not to remove cited content from here. Bondegezou (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

UK_Independence_Party#Voter_base The sub section is totally excessive and apparently opinionated as well, to create similar large sections in other political parties would be impossible and totally undue as this section is. A brief paragraph would be enough as Ashal said. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. This is valuable psephological work. I would be very happy to see similar sections for other political parties. I see no policy-based rationale for cutting here. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Absurd length as well as general unreadability for "voter base" section

The "voter base" section is far too extensive and far too based on a very small number of sources - being extremely reliant on Goodwin and Ford, to be sure. Only 16% of all articles on Wikipedia are harder to read than that section :( meaning it is a tad less than comprehensible for the typical Wikipedia user. Would someone start an RfC on this issue? Collect (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is too extensive and disproportionate to the article, and goes into too much minute,detail and opinion. Others things are wrong too in the "support" section - why is there a detailed list and description of membership on a year by year basis? I suggest the whole "support" section gets moved to its own article, where such detailed analysis would be more appropriate, and a succinct paragraph is left in the UKIP article.