Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Defectors?

"UKIP has about thirty five local councillors, many of which are defectors from other parties,"

How many are "many", otherwise this could be construed as POV.

Strangely enough UKIP doesn't seem to know exactly how many councillors it has claiming that the records are kept by local branches, it's position was before the Local Elections that it had between 30 and 50 Councillors in all [1], as the one gain they had in the elections was cancelled out by a loss and since they have gained a few councillors from defections presumably it is little different - surprising they don't keep national lists of such things, a recent figure I saw was 36, if anyone is feeling particularily bored one day they could go through all the Local Council lists totting them up although of course a couple of by elections or deaths or defections and that figure would then be out - if UKIP have got more than 30 it's their own fault for not keeping track of them if the numbers are under-reported.--Lord of the Isles 09:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

More Criticism Comments

Hi pir. Looks like we hit a word limit in the section above. Firstly two comments on your Bloomsbury theory. (1) The original Searchlight article you mention is here [2] As you'll see, according to this the deeply obscure Bloomsbury Forum in 1999 briefly discussed trying to use UKIP as the vehicle for their rightwing views, but seem to have specifically rejected the idea. (2) The UKIP's policies in its manifesto etc seem to go strongly against what you say the BF stands for. UKIP doesn't want to dismantle the welfare state and strongly supports the NHS [3] It is generally pro-American but didn't support the invasion of Iraq (though it didn't oppose it very loudly and went completely quiet on the subject after recruiting the pro-war Dick Morris as an election advisor.) However, this is enough to put it further away from the Bloomsbury lot than either the Tories or the Labour party. So if the Bloomsburyites are secretly trying to manipulate UKIP, they've been doing a remarkably poor job.

The fact is that UKIP has always contained people from across a wide stretch of the centre left, centre, centre right and right, united only by a desire to leave the EU. It contains huge differences of opinion on almost every other area of policy, which is probably why the party is usually in a state of internal turmoil. The article you quoted portrays UKIP as a sort of breakaway from the Tories, but its first two leaders (Sked and Holmes) were in fact ex-Liberals, as have been many of the local councillors who have joined in the last year or two. It also contains a smaller but still sizeable minority of ex-Labour people, such as Kilroy-Silk. Presumably all these people want the party to go in different directions - it is a messy many-sided tug of war. They do seem to all agree on being a free trade party, though. I suppose socialists who are against the EU join the Socialist Labour Party, not UKIP.

Regarding actual suggestions for altering the article: a) why don't we change "Links to the Far Right" to the more neutral "UKIP and the Far Right"? (After all, we agree that the groups mentioned in that section really are "Far Right", not just "Right". It is the existence of the "links" that we disagree over). b) External weblinks - rather than remove the four anti-UKIP links why don't I just add links to some more neutral commentaries on the party? I can think of one Guardian article worth listing. c) I suggest I add (when I have time) a brief description of UKIP policies on topics other than the EU, eg health, social security, foreign policy, education, etc . basing it on the 2001 manifesto they still have on their website. Would you agree with all that? Best, Tom

(a) - that is an excellent and much more NPOV suggestion for the header. I've also changed the first sentence, for what it's worth. (Also, have any far righters tried to get into the party as a vehicle for their views? I know the BNP dislikes the UKIP for pretty much shutting them out of the Eurosceptic market ...)

(b) - some of the extlinks are references as well, so shouldn't be deleted. I've changed the name of the header to reflect this. Perhaps those could be separate sections.

(c) - very good idea, with notes on how closely they've kept to this manifesto - David Gerard 09:50, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Further note: pretty much every paragraph should have references. Probably stable weblinks to news stories or notable opinion stories. I'm increasingly becoming a big fan of references - they save a lot of talk page angst - David Gerard 09:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi David, Glad you like suggestion (c) - I'll get on with that when i get a chance.

Regarding far right infiltration of UKIP, as a liberal-minded UKIP supporter I've taken a keen interest in this question. The BNP has definitely infiltrated senior officers into UKIP on at least two occasions. The aim seems to have been simply to do as much damage as possible. The first was the Mark Deavin case in 1997, referenced above. The second was John Brayshaw in 2004. Brayshaw, the BNP National Treasurer, joined a tiny UKIP branch in the Vale of York. Nobody spotted that he was BNP, and he had himself elected branch chair by being the only person to turn up to the relevant meeting. This seems to have been part of a scheme to convince the world that the BNP had a secret election pact with the UKIP. In Feb04, Brayshaw's presence in UKIP was held up as the evidence of the existence of this pact. Two UKIP MEP candidates resigned in disgust, and BNP activists began discreetly gloating on a fascist messageboard called Stormfront about all the damage they had caused [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=114033] (I'm particularly proud of having found that posting - searching Stormfront is a bit like sewer-diving to look for gold watches. Note that most of the first posting is a long quotation from elsewhere - possibly the UKIP Uncovered blog - and only the two lines at the foot are by the BNP activist) However, it all then came unstuck due to some inspired hacking by the UKIP press office. [4]

This is probably getting off-topic and possibly only interesting to anoraks like me anyway, so I'll stop. Tom Wilde

Not at all, this stuff is gold. Especially since it's referenced! I can really see the above turning this section into an interesting couple of paragraphs - David Gerard 23:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just expanded the section. Might do with more tightening - David Gerard 09:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've expanded the history section slightly, adding more detail. I've done this mainly from memory but will add references later I can find them. Still haven't had time to update the section on UKIP policies - sorry. Tom Wilde.

Alistair McConnachie and the far-right

I've just noticed some edits to the section "UKIP and the Far Right" made by two anonymous editors in December. The previous, referenced, version said that Alistair McConnachie was a Holocaust denier but was expelled from UKIP for those views. The new version said:

"Alistair McConnachie, a five times UKIP candidate and National Executive member, has been called a Holocaust denier, and, although he was suspended pending appeal as the result of a complaint from another member, the suspension was subsequently rescinded at his appeal. McConnachie continues to argue publicly that UKIP should ally itself with the British National Party."

This passage contains enough detail to show that the authors know a fair amount about the incident, and enough omisisions and inaccuracies to show that the intent of the authors is dishonest. As my own memory of the incident was hazy (I didn't follow UKIP so closely then) I've done what I can to ask around and to read what is still on the web about this.

So far as I can tell, what actually happened was that McConnachie, then the party's Scottish organiser and a National Executive Committee member, wrote to various newspapers in 2001 claiming that the Holocaust had been exaggerated. Nobody on the NEC had had any idea that he held these poisonous views, and they immediately expelled McConnachie from UKIP for 5 years (the maximum term allowed) under party rules banning racists and fascists. However, he then appealed under UKIP's disciplinary code. I don't know the exact ground of his appeal, but I suspect it was the usual Holocaust-denier garbage about not being a racist but "only being interested in historical accuracy". The NEC, on a strict legal reading of party rules, was forced to rescind his expulsion and concede that he had the right to express his private views, but it suspended him from NEC membership for a year for bringing the party into disrepute (much easier to prove!), and made it clear to him that he was no longer welcome in UKIP. McConnachie accordlingly left the party, but one Jewish member of the NEC (Mark Lester) resigned on the principle that the NEC should have upheld the original 5-year expulsion, thus making clear that they saw Holocaust denial as inherently racist.

The version created by the two anonymous editors is dishonest in at least five ways: (a) it fails to mention that after allowing his appeal the NEC took further disciplinary action against McConnachie; (b) it dishonestly implies that only one UKIP member was unhappy with McConnachie's views; (c) it fails to mention that McConnachie was in effect booted out of the party; (d) it implies through omission that McConnachie is still in UKIP even though he hasn't been a member since this incident in 2001; (e) the last sentence "McConnachie continues to argue publicly that UKIP should ally itself with the British National Party", which is unreferenced, is placed so as to suggest that he argues this as a senior UKIP member. As he was (I repeat) booted out in 2001, this sentence, even if true, is utterly irrelevant to an article about UKIP. It could (if true) be included in an article about McConnachie, if anyone should see fit to write one.

I find McConnachie's views repellant, and I also find it repellant that opponents of UKIP should play these dishonest games with the issue of the Holocaust just as we approach the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. I will revert the paragraph to something like its previous form and would be very grateful if the anonymous editors would post their reasons here if they wish to change it again. [Twilde 13/1/05]

Thanks for the clarification. That's the first time I've heard a UKIP defence of what happened with McConnachie and it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Assuming your account is accurate, I agree that the stuff added by the anonymous editors was previously misleading, though I'm not quite convinced it was deliberately so - someone could quite easily have known all those details (I did) and not heard your side of the story (I hadn't). Anyway, that's by-the-by.

I also agree that the details you give above belong more in an article about McConnachie than one about UKIP, with just a link from this UKIP page.

Wombat 11:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've just reverted anonymous edits on this subject (again), this time by 81.77.160.101, back to Twilde's version as discussed above. Really, guys, look. If you're going to make controversial changes anonymously on topics which have been the subject of much debate on the talk page, then please post to the talk page first. You may well have a good case for overriding the consensus, but if so, let's hear it! And let's not get into an edit war here over something so minor. That's what the talk page is for. Wombat 11:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted these anonymous edits again twice today. Most of us have better things to do than revert edits which fly in the face of sensible consensus on this talk page. But as long as these edits continue to be done from different and anonymous IP addresses, I don't see what else can be done! Wombat 09:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've just re-read the above and on reflection I agree with Wombat that it isn't necessarily the case that the anonymous editors were being deliberately dishonest. Therefore I withdraw that word. [Twilde 16/1/05]

European Commissioners

Good new section added today on what UKIP perceives as the main problems with the EU, unfortunately tainted by one glaring inaccuracy (my emphasis below):

UKIP's stated criticisms of the EU are (a) that it is massively corrupt, (b) that it is undemocratic (they particularly resent the ability of unelected European Commissioners to issue directives which override national law), (c) that Britain's membership is extremely expensive and (d) that Britain's sovereignty is diluted by being part of a large block.

But the European Commission has no power to issue directives, or in fact to make any EU laws. All the Commission can do in the legislative field is to make proposals, which must then be decided on by Parliament and Council. It is also the executive body, putting into practice what Parliament and Council agree. I've therefore modified the new section as follows (my emphasis again):

UKIP's stated criticisms of the EU are (a) that it is massively corrupt, (b) that it is undemocratic (they particularly resent the presence of unelected European Commissioners in the executive), (c) that Britain's membership is extremely expensive and (d) that Britain's sovereignty is diluted by being part of a large block.

I couldn't think of any other way to make the change without either misrepresenting UKIP or preserving inaccuracies about the EU institutions. I know my text as it now stands doesn't quite capture the essence of UKIP's objection - after all, I have seen UKIP literature that claims the Commission has powers which, frankly, it doesn't. That kind of discussion doesn't belong in an NPOV summary of UKIP policies, but neither do factual inaccuracies, hence my attempt at 'softening'. If anyone else has a better suggestion, go ahead and make the change! :o)

Other than that, I think this section is a good one. Toby W 06:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Toby - thanks for your kind words about my edit, and for your own clarification above. I see that Wikipedia's entry on the European Commission says that :

"It has sole authority to initiate legislation in the first pillar (most policy areas), though it can be requested to do so by the Council of the European Union or the European Parliament, and it shares the power of initiative with the member states in the second pillar (foreign policy and defence) and third pillar (criminal law)."

This certainly sounds to me as if the Commission does indeed have at least a powerful role in the making of laws. (Unless I have misunderstood the quote, or the Wikipedia entry on the Commission is itself flawed?) Having said that, I agree that my original wording - while capturing the spirit of UKIP's often-made complaint - fails to reflect the fact that the European Parliament and Council do have the power to amend the Commission's proposed legislation in some policy areas, within tightly-defined limits. I'm told that the European Parliament has even rejected the Commission's legislation outright on a handful of occasions!

I wonder if the following would more nearly reflect the essence of UKIP's objection without misrepresenting the workings of the EU?:

"(b) that it is undemocratic (they particularly resent the fact that unelected European Commissioners have sole authority to initiate legislation in most policy areas); "

What do you think of this? I'll wait for your comments/countersuggestions before editing. Best wishes, Tom Wilde 8.21pm 27/10/04.

Yep, that edit sounds fine to me - go for it. Thanks.

I've replied to some of your more detailed comments on your own talk page - I hope that's OK. Toby W 20:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay - I've made that edit. Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Until now, I didn't even know I had a talk page! Twilde 14:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Changed "most policy areas" to "some policy areas". I thought "most policy areas" could be taken to mean most policies across the whole range of issues as they affect (in the present context) the UK, which isn't true, although UKIP likes to suggest it is. "Some policy areas" is undoubtedly true. Woblosch (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Spurious link

An anonymous editor has twice added this external link:

• Sovereignty

I've removed this because it's nothing to do with UKIP. It's a general eurosceptic/nationalist site. Perfectly valid in itself, but the link belongs on the Euroscepticism page (where it now resides), not on a page about an unrelated political party. Wombat 10:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History

I've just removed the following recently-appeared paragraph from the History section of the article.:

"Following his initially unsuccessful leadership bid, press reports in December 2004 speculated that Kilroy-Silk planned to leave UKIP and start his own political party, or to join another party with similar views. The English Democrats has been suggested as a natural home for Robert Kilroy-Silk, as he has openly expressed his support for an English Parliament on several occasions."

I removed it because I've had a bit of a look for references and so far as I can tell, the only people to have suggested that Robert Kilroy-Silk might defect to the English Democrats are ... the English Democrats themselves. Therefore if this paragraph belongs anywhere (which I doubt) then it belongs in the article on the English Democrats. (twilde 10/1/05)

Agreed; I never saw the English Democrats mentioned either. But I've restored the first sentence of the paragraph, since there was quite a lot of mainstream press speculation in Dec 2004 about K-S moving elsewhere or starting his own party. Hope that's OK. Wombat 11:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me! Twilde 13/1/05

It is good that somebody has added a paragraph about the 2005 General Election. However, some of the facts given (number of UKIP candidates, share of vote) are inaccurate, and the conclusion (it being unclear what future there is for UKIP due to the irresistable rise of English nationalism) is purely POV (and unintentionally amusing, too, given the poll performance of the English Democrats!). Therefore I'll do a little rewrite, but I'll keep it brief and will try to keep it factual. Twilde 22/5/05

Thanks Tom - that's a much better summary than the previous one. One question: in the comparison of UKIP's performance to that of other parties, I think saying that the SNP polled less than UKIP could be misleading for non-UK readers. If I didn't know that the SNP only stood candidates in Scotland, I'd get the impression from the current text that UKIP did much better than the SNP on average. But knowing that UKIP put up candidates across the country (while the SNP didn't) gives quite a different impression, since, of course, the SNP polled much better than UKIP everywhere it put up candidates. So for the benefit of non-UK readers, in the section comparing UKIP's performance to that of the Lib Dems and SNP, perhaps it might be helpful to add "ahead of the Scottish National Party (who only contested seats in Scotland)"?

I won't make that addition unless you approve, though.

Oh, one more thing - do we have a quote from a UKIP official or UKIP press release on the official reaction to the election result, or a link to an article about it? It would be interesting for readers to see what 'spin' the party put on what might otherwise be regarded as quite a disappointing result for them. Wombat 09:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with your proposed addition about the SNP. I'd add it myself now, but I'm running late and must fly. Re. UKIP reaction to the results - yes, there was a statement by Roger Knapman, the party leader, saying results not too bad etc etc, which provoked some rumblings on the UKIP discussion board I now frequent. I'll try to find a link later. Tom Wilde

Pronunciation guide

An anonymous user has twice deleted information about how to pronounce 'UKIP', most recently with the comment no, it's not you-kip. fuck off. I've restored this information. I can't see any good reason to delete the pronunciation guide - after all, a newcomer to EU politics would be unsure about how to pronounce the party name otherwise. Unless I'm missing something? Anyway, please don't repeatedly delete uncontroversial passages of the text without discussing it here first. Cheers. Wombat 16:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I've no idea why anyone would have a problem with that passage. I've never yet met a UKIP supporter who didn't pronounce it "you-kip". Very odd! User:Twilde 7/1/06

Petrina Holdsworth (party chairman)

Just going to fix the mispelling of her name (is currently down as Petrina Holsworth).

Arawn

Re: this para

UKIP has about thirty five local councillors, many of whom are defectors from other parties. In the 2004 elections it picked up two seats in the London Assembly (Damian Hockney and Peter Hulme-Cross, both of whom later defected, Hockney via Veritas, to One London), and 10 in the European Parliament.

I have amended it to take account of the fact that Hulme Cross did not defect to Veritas. Also does anyone have any source for the "35 local councillors" claim? I suspect this includes independents who happen to be UKIP members plus town/parish councillors Sceptic 16:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sceptic - I'm pleased to make your acquaintance! I do seem to remember reading a claim somewhere that Hulme-Cross never formally joined Veritas, and never formally resigned from UKIP, either. Nonetheless, I also remember reading that he was the Veritas spokesman for small business, and he definitely was a member of (OK, he was 50% of) the Veritas group on the London Assembly. Therefore I would have thought it was fair to say that he had defected to Veritas, but you may have better info on this point than my own hazy recollections of vague rumours. Regarding UKIP local councillors, I had a discussion board conversation some months ago with Mark Croucher, who is UKIP press officer and was formerly the party's local government coordinator. He said that even when he was in that post, the party had only a rough idea of how many local councillors it had. There was no central list, and there still is no central organisation for UKIP councillors. I was provoked by this to try to assemble an unofficial list myself, with the help of fellow members of the ukipforum discussion board. The list is here: [5] At present, it contains 19 councillors. Some of these are indeed town councillors, though I did specifically exclude councillors at any level who sit as independents but happen to be UKIP members. I think I also saw mentions of another three or four town councillors whom I haven't listed, though from the point of view of consistency I should have done. I found it very difficult to locate info on UKIP councillors (the info I did find came mostly from UKIP press releases, local newspaper reports and messages from other forum users.) I think there may still be one or two councillors I don't know about. My informed estimate would therefore be a total of about 25 including town councillors. I shall therefore revise the figure you mention from 35 to 25. [Twilde 6/1/06]

Oops - misread my own list! I forgot that the entry for Market Drayton Town Council is for five UKIP councillors. This means that the estimated grand total should be about 30 rather than 25. [Twilde 6/1/06]

It's been a while, but my recollection is that the rules for the Greater London Assembly require any party group to have at least two members before it's formally recognised and can access party funds, speaking rights or whatever. One-person parties, which both UKIP and Veritas would have been following Hockney's defection, are seriously disadvantaged. I vaguely recall reference to a "UKIP-Veritas group" which, given the bad blood between them, sounds like an alliance of convenience to be able to access the benefits of being in a party group. Timrollpickering 15:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Keith Smith

I've taken out this text from The UKIP and the far right section:

[[Michael Keith Smith]], founder of the [[Conservative Democratic Alliance]] was the UKIP candidate for [[Portsmouth North (UK Parliament constituency)|Portsmouth North]] in the 2005 election. It should be noted that he recently won a libel case [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2096902,00.html] against a fellow bulletin board member, Tracy Williams (going under the [[pseudonym]] "Gos"), due to her allegations that he was a "Nazi", "Nonce" (child molester) and a "Pimp".

My previous edit had been to take out some allegations of far right links which I'd asked for a citation on in January.

Unless the CDA is shown to have far right links I think this should be removed as it refers to a living person.

JASpencer 21:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists

Is it true, as the article implies, that UKIP sought only to have the 'closet racist' bit of this allegation revoked? If so, does that mean they recognise that they are Fruitcakes and Loonies?? Marcus22 20:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, believe it or not. Arawn 00:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Political Ideology and Political Position

I think it is probably about time we amended the Party's political position and ideology description on the page.

The status quo is that of Euroscepticism and Libertarianism, which I think is fair enough as a description, but I think that I would like to add Conservatism and Neoliberalism to the ideology descriptions as well. UKIP has some tangibly conservative outlooks, especially on constitutional matters, such as the monarchy, the House of Lords, and the electoral system and also it's view of education, in a restoration of a more traditional approach through its committment to selective education again - which I do not think is particularly well covered in the existing descriptions. UKIP does have libertarian overtones in perhaps a distinctly populist sense, for example claiming to be the party of common sense at the "centre-ground of British public opinion" as Nigel Farage MEP said recently to the UKIP conference in Telford; but I think it has conservative ones as well. This term might appear to be problematic because of the hotly contested assertion that UKIP is a mere breakaway pressure group from the Conservative Party, but I think it is conservative in places. Therefore I would like to add the term Conservatism to its ideology section. Would anyone like to comment on this?

Additionally, in light of the Leader's comments in Telford, Shropshire, I would like to add the term Neoliberalism as well, as I think in an economic sense UKIP is a neoliberal party, especially with its current committment to a 33% flat rate of taxation, and the removal of people earning under £9000 from tax altogether. Would anyone like to comment on this?

Finally, I think that the Political Position description could benefit from having Right Wing placed there. Although the status quo is that is it "contested", I think that for the above reasons, it can safely be regarded as Right Wing. I am also aware that many in UKIP are critical of the positioning of their party within what they would deem the unhelpful pigeon-holing of Left and Right, but I think it is definitely a Right Wing political party, especially with its stances on Law and Order and the willingness to embrace an emergency prison building programme, its stance on immigration in the sense that it is firm but fair, and its stances on not only the European Union [which isn't the monopoly of the right wing it should be added] but also its economic outlook, which isn't centrist or left wing in any tangible way, and finally its criticism of the three major political parties as all being "social democratic" in nature and policy.

What are other people's thoughts on this alteration?--Jason Hughes 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Difficult to respond to your addition of the term "Neoliberal" without an agreed definition of that term. I looked at the Wikipedia entry for Neoliberalism and while there seem to be some overlaps with UKIP policy there are also obvious areas of disagreement. I have myself used the term 'neoliberal' to describe UKIP in the past, but have found most UKIP members object to the description, so have stopped using it. As to "conservative", I simply think it is a term which has acquired too many contradictory meanings to be particularly useful. Still, as UKIP's new leader has gone out of his way to woo disaffected Tories, I undrstand why you use it.

As to "right wing", I think it fails to take into account (for example) UKIP's opposition to the invasion of Iraq, its opposition to identity cards and other recent 'security' legislation, or its history of support for the NHS. Its key policy of EU withdrawal can hardly be seen as rightwing, given that it was official Labour Party policy under Michael Foot. To summarize, I think you'd be better off leaving political position as 'disputed', though I think you may have a point about cconservatism and neoliberalism. What about prefacing the growing list of ideologies with the words "Aspects of..."? twilde

Thanks. In regards to UKIP's inherent Right Wing status, I wouldn't necessarily attribute its opposition to Iraq, ID cards and historic support for the NHS as indicative or a non-right wing political perspective, if anything these might be populist policies. I think it is possible to have held all of the above views whilst justifying them in a Right Wing way, for example a Libertarian outlook on ID cards, a conservative attitude to the NHS, and a traditional non-intervention stance on Iraq.

I definitely agree with in regards to EU withdrawal which is not by any means a policy that can be attributed to left, right, or centre.

I definitely agree with your suggestion of prefacing "Aspects of", which will provide much guidance on UKIP's political ideology. Thank you.--Jason Hughes 07:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the 'aspects of' but have moved it to a slightly different position. (ie. after the 'euroscepticism' tag but before the others). They certainly are a pick-and-mix party when it comes to policies. All the same, I have taken away the 'disputed' tag from right-wing. Why? Because, apart from the aforementioned scepticism, almost every single one of their actual policies are centre-right or right-wing. (On the exceptions mentioned, although I am baffled by the Iraq way, elsewhere NHS support is not currently a right/left issue in the UK, one must support the NHS or have no hope of electoral success. Likewise ID Card etc.. opposition is the current view of the centre-right Conservative Party).

The point, in any case, is not perhaps are they right wing but the simpler one of where else could one say their ideology lies? Specifically, where else could one say that the greater part of their ideology lies - and what would be their inclination in government? Are they on the left? In the centre as one might currently define it? In each case the answer is no. Thus if one has to classify UKIP, they are - at least in greatest part - a right-wing party. Marcus22 08:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair comments, I broadly agree. I think that there is scope to argue UKIP has some distinctly populist overtones, but the present ideological descriptions fit the party well.--Jason Hughes 13:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is really basic. There are two scales; social and economic. Social = authoritarian (right) vs libertarian (left). Economic = 100% State-Run (left) vs 100% Free Market (right). The correct labelling of UKIP is socially libertarian (left)+ economically free market (right)= Libertarian-Right or Libertarian Free-Market. This is consistent with the discussions above about UKIP's opposition to the Iraq War, ID cards etc as they are socially left, but economically right.Poprischin 16:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What? UKIP socially left? Where on earth do you get that idea from? With the exception of the NHS - which it would be political suicide to oppose - they oppose the welfare state. Many in the party are opposed to gay rights. They are not openly friendly to single parent families as far as I can tell. A good few are even for 'repatriation' of immigrants. Need I go on? UKIP is, quite simply, a broad-based but essentially right wing party who adopt populist policies to suit their economic ideology and electoral ambition. Marcus22 17:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Marcus - you're talking crap basically. You could be describing the Tory Party.

A party definition should be based on the stated public beliefs of the party, not the views of a narrow group of rank-and-file members, otherwise the Tory Party would be described as *the* racist party because it has the most officials convicted of racism etc. Have a read of this: http://politicalcompass.org/extremeright

Then place UKIP, a party with a leader and deputy leader who are espousing a libertarian, free-market agenda. UKIP's official site description is: "Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union"

UKIP's head of policy and deputy leader has endorsed a "no preference, no prejudice" approach to equality that pledges real equality with no pref or prej based on sex, sexuality, race, religion or age. That seems a far more important person to base the party on than some unpleasant homophobe who you could obviously find in any party.

Yes, they actually go in the bottom right square on that page near the LibDems, which is why there are a lot of ex-LibDem ukippers. I know it is not how people want to pigeon-hole them, but we should deal with the party's stated aims, not any personal prejudice.

You can also see from the politicalcompass analysis exactly why the BNP are picking up so much support from disgruntled 'old' Labour as they sit econmically where Labour used to.

If you still believe that a party seeking a state-run economy is right-wing, then that means China and Cuba are right wing.

Marcus, you've shown a consistent inability to seperate or understand the difference between economic and social policy, or work from UKIP's clearly stated aims instead throwing in any hearsay that fits your chosen view. Perhaps you will stick to the facts going forward? Poprischin 20:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, check out the excellent graphic here: http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2

UKIP's stated aims are: libertarian socially, and economically free market. Based on the chart above, you can clearly see that makes them Libertarian-Right, and the BNP Authoritarian-Left. I'm sorry it doesn't fit the UKIP and BNP are 'both right-wing' smear, as based on the parties own stated aims, where the BNP is left, UKIP is right, and where the BNP is right, UKIP is left. No wonder the BNP want to destroy UKIP.

So, for the record, I have provided UKIP's own definition of their aims, and politicalcompass as an independent measure of where this places them on the political spectrum based on those state aims. If another editor seeks to change UKIP's political position from Libertarian-Right will you please discuss it here first providing some independent analysis to back up your decision to change this. Poprischin 21:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Marcus - I have explicitly asked you to provide some independent analysis to support your continued changed to the political position and to place it here BEFORE changing the text again, but you have completely ignored my request and simply changed the text again. Unless you can provide some analysis to back up both your change, you should not be applying your own personal unspported bias in this way. Please grow up, and simply provide some analysis to support your claim as I have done to support Libertarian-Right.Poprischin 22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Marcus - You have done it again. What are you playing at? Are you deliberately seeking to smear UKIP? If you have nothing to support your changes and completely refuse to discuss or support the changes then you should NOT be making them. I have politely asked you three times now not to change the political position without discussing it here. Your refusal to discuss or support your changes is looking increasingly like partisan sabotage.

I have fully supported the Libertarian-Right description and am simply asking you to stop your current changes without first supporting them. Poprischin 22:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Marcus - you are being a complete prick. Will you please grow up and support your change instead of continuing this childish cat and mouse? I guess you are either a BNP or Tory support and simply cannot respond to the independent analysis I have provided. Your IP should be banned from editing this page and you are clearly refusing to respond to simple requests to back up your edits. Poprischin 22:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Marcus - you complete prick, it is you imposing your POV not me. I provided links to politicalcompass, ukip's own aims and the Daily Telegraph to support my description and you have provided not one single link to support either your 'right-wing' or 'disputed' claim. Now please either support your change or stop editing the text in this unsupported way. Your refusal to provide a single source to support your text suggests partisan bias. Poprischin 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. Poprischin has provided evidence to show that UKIP are on the Libertarian right. Marcus22 is clearly trying to smear this article with POV, he seems to have a financial and political interest in smearing the subject of this article as he "supports the EU" and works in Strasbourg. UKIP *are* on the Libertarian right.

There are anti UKIP attack edit's going on. Anti-Immigration is NPOV and has to be stopped. STOP PUTTING IT BACK UP!!! Fry2000

Party Election Broadcast

In the UKIP party election broadcast of a few years ago, they spoof "The Eve of the War"(from The War of the Worlds), substituting MEPs for Martians... Should this article make reference to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORjeusUuPbU Popher 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

BNP - far left or far right?

This is not the palce to sort out the BNP's ideology. there has been considerable discussion at Talk:British National Party. The BNP article identifies the BNP as far right. Ground Zero | t 14:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is vital to the discussion as the misrepresentation of the BNP as right rather than Fascist-Left or Authoritarian-Left is used to place it "close" to UKIP to smear them. This was indeed evident in the previous version of the text which claimed that the BNP wanted to destroy UKIP because the two were working in similar areas, when in fact the BNP's stated aim (please read their manifesto!) is anti-globalisation and state-run economy - the exact opposite to UKIP.

It is a conflict of opposing ideologies that causes conflict between the two parties, not as implied, similarities.

The respected political site PoliticalCompass has clearly shown why the description of the BNP as "right" is wrong and now other media like the Telegraph correctly label the BNP as Fascist Left. Only left-wing commentators bill the BNP as "right wing" as it fits their aims to hide how close they are to the BNP in policy terms. This is a simple fact based on manifestos, with 100% state-run being "far left" and 100% free-market economy being "far right". (unsigned)

• This is not the place for this discussion. Discussion of the BNP's ideology belongs on the Talk:British National Party page. And please sign your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~. thanks. Ground Zero | t 15:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect - you have allowed a deliberate misrepresentation to appear that has been widely used by the left. It is a simple fact that supporters of a state-run economy are left-wing, and that is the BNP's stated aim.

Considering your aim not to discuss the BNP's ideology here, it would therefore make sense to remove contentious references to their position on the political spectrum from this article about another political party, which I have now doen. (unsigned by anon editor)

• Your opinions are not facts. Your edits to remove reference to far-left/far-right are a reasonable way of ending this discussion here. It was not sustainable to have this article call the BNP "far-left" while the British National Party article calls it "far-right". And please sign your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 15:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ground Zero is absolutely right. This is NOT the place to discuss the BNP. But, as an aside, anyone who think the BNP anything other than Far Right needs to go back to school! Marcus22 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Marcus please don't embarass yourself. BNP are 'far right' as they are authoritarian, but equally economically they are 'far left' as they support a state-run economy. Again, have a read of this: http://politicalcompass.org/extremeright

Most commentators label a party on its economic bias making the BNP left-wing, or Fascist-Left as the Daily Telegraph now accurately refers to them. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/12/27/dl2701.xml

the Left-fascist BNP, whose core voters are ex-Labour; and the anti-EU, free market Ukip,

Or perhaps you might take the word of Friedrich Hayek who charted the way socialism leads into fascism.

So, rather than throw cheap but rather ignorant insults around, perhaps you should think for yourself for a change and understand why the Nazi was short for National Socialist, ie authoritarian-left wing.Poprischin 20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

please note : although the name Nazi was short for National Socialist, ie authoritarian-left wing it ( and it's stated polices ) preexisted Hitler ( who joined it originally to spy on it ) who later took it over as a personal vehicle, and carefully dropped many of the left wing policies to win elections. in other words it may have started with a name implying a left wing party, but it certainly wasn't by the time it took power. I certainly accept that far left and far right are very close ( in any practical way ) but the BNP is almost always called far right in the UK and that assumption should remain. 217.7.209.108 13:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

UKIP political position (Debate resurrected as of May 22 2008)

Just for form's sake I will add, here, a note. Firstly, I will not enter into "debate" with you because you have been an abusive and (very) impatient and agressive editor thus far. Secondly I will merely add that although your ideas are interesting and there is indeed dispute over the exact position of UKIP, your ideas are but one person's ideas and far from being the 'norm'. So please refain from imposing them on this article without first getting a consensus. The current consensus is that UKIP are centre-right OR right-wing. Hope that clears things up a little. Oh, and please try to refrain from vandalising users pages in future. Marcus22 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Marcus - I only had a go at you because you have refused to support your edit with any analysis away from your own POV. Far from imposing my view, I have provided UKIP's own description, the Daily Telegraph description and the politicalcompass placement of these views, but you have provided nothing to support your supposed 'right wing disputed' POV. I have requested some proof of your claim and yet you resist supporting the POV that you have in this article. That is simple bias.

I am not seeking to impose my view in any way. I provided the link to politicalcompass that supported the description. Would you now care to provide any independent link to the description you keep imposing on this site?

Considering your insistence that the BNP are right-wing, and that you started the insults by saying anyone who believes the BNP to be left-wing, (ie me, the Telegraph, PoliticalCompass etc etc) needs to go back to school, perhaps you should think before attacking others if you start whining when you do not like their response.

I will not stop correcting your clear partisan bias until such time you support your 'correction' with some source independent of your own bias. Poprischin 23:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The article has been edited by scores of editors before you. Indeed before me. None of them have considered 'Liberterian-Right' to be the political position of UKIP. For you to argue it is so, is fine and right. For you to insist that others have to accept your POV (point of view) is wrong. This is not how Wikipedia works. Thus your POV edit is inappropriate. Neither, may I add, is this the place to vent your spleen on all and sundry who have no care to enter into a slanging match with you. Please try to refrain in future. Marcus22 23:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Marcus - Why do you refuse to read the independent evidence I have supplied? Libertarian-Right is not my POV, it is a statement of fact based on UKIP's declared values.

I'll say it slowly for your benefit: UKIP changed its political approach over a year ago!

Your insistence on using an out-dated definition for UKIP is bizarre and as illogicial as describing the current Tory Party position on its pre-Cameron aims. Parties change, and as I show below, UKIP's opponents recognise UKIP's change even if you personally do not, which makes your edit a crude POV imposition that you accuse me of.

Here are even more source for you from respected non-UKIP affiliated sources (ie not my POV but the POV of UKIP opponents who unlike yourself have seen the change post 2005):

"UKIP prepare to attack Tories from libertarian right" Source: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/01/ukip_prepare_to.html

"UKIP to go libertarian" http://cigars-chocolateale.blogspot.com/2006/01/ukip-to-go-libertarian.html

So you see, my edit is based on the *current* political position of UKIP which has changed since 2005, making the old edits you refer to out of date.

This is NOT my POV it is the current stated position of UKIP. Go to Google type 'ukip'. What is the first what the party uses to describe itself? Yes, Libertarian. No-one has ever sought to define libertarian as right-wing except you.

So it is vital the Wikipedia is updated to reflect a party's changing position. Do you not agree or will you continue to label UKIP in some outdated way that has no bearing on its current position? Poprischin 07:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find a single source online that disputes UKIP's move to the Libertarian-Right after the 2005 general election. As shown above, I can find many, from sites that do not like UKIP that acknowledge their shift. It would seem the only dispute is in Marcus22's head as he has refused every opportunity to support his continued vandalism of UKIP's current political position. Poprischin 11:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• In order to try to placate you I have offered a compromise. May I suggest you accept it so that the matter may be left? And may I once again ask that you stop vandalising articles, sections and headings. It would be unfortunate to have to go to arbitration or to request that you are blocked from editing this article which, I can see, you can bring a lot of knowledge and pertinent information to. regards Marcus22 12:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Marcus - you cannotimpose POV in this way. You are the one vandalising this article by seeking to impose your unsupported POV. Since UKIP changed its political position after the 2005 general election, it has taken a clear libertarian-stance that as shown above, has clearly been acknowledged by rival parties.

I know of no such dispute regarding UKIP's political stance since this change and as such, you have offered nothing but your own POV to support your continual edits. If you can just provide some support beyonf your own pov, that there is a dispute over UKIP's position since its shift (ie something newer than 01/01/2006) then clearly it would be valid to note some dispute.

So discarding your own POV, as you should, can you provide ANY source top support your claim that there is a dispute about UKIP's *current* (ie since 1/1/2006) political position?

If you continue to edit this site without anything to support your claim, this would appear to be clear vandalism.

I can only repeat for the record, if you can provide some authoritative source to show that since 1.1.2006 there is a current dispute to UKIP's political position, then of course I will accept a compromise, but without any evidence to support your claim, your edits are simply an imposition of your unsupported POV.

Poprischin 12:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Poprischin -- both of the sources that you provided are blogs, which are not a reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes, especially not for making a change that is proving to be controversial. Could you provide a reference from a news media website? I would think that someone would have picked up this significant change. Alternatively, we could wait until the news media pick this up, and then change the description at that point. Wikipedia should not be out ahead of credible sources because of the No original research policy. Regards, Ground Zero | t 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I've taken a look at a couple of UKIP's recent policy papers. My conclusion is that they are right wing, yes, but not libertarian.

From the UKIP Education Policy September 2006:

Page 7: "It is right and proper that the state should provide the bulk of funding for education, but should not, in a democracy, have a monopoly on delivering that education."

A libertarian would say that the state has no role in education -- drop taxes and let parents choose and pay for the education of their children in the way they see fit.

Page 10: "The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority must therefore be replaced by an independent body which will monitor educational content and standards."

Again, in a libertarian world, parents decide about education content and standards by choosing schools for their children, not an independent authority.

From the UKIP Flat Tax Policy August 2006:

Page 2: "UKIP thus proposes to freeze government spending in real terms. Firstly, we do not accept the argument that improvements in services require ever-increasing government expenditure."

Freeze government spending? Libertarians would demand that it be dramatically reduced! An wouldn't be looking for improvements in services, but a massive retreat from the provision of services.

Page 7: "To restore incentives, UKIP envisages a large reduction in the range of existing means-tested benefits which together cause the ludicrously high marginal deduction rates for low income families. We would consider replacing them with an income-related ‘basic cash benefit’ payable to all unemployed and low-income adults13 (transferable between spouses) and would aim for a maximum marginal deduction rate of, say, 50% after accounting for tax and the withdrawal of benefits."

A sensible policy, yes, but not a libertarian one. What is the state doing providing benefits to people who don't work? In a libertarian world, people either work or are taken care of by charities who rely on voluntary donations, not on taxes.

I don't see much true libertarianism in these policies. Ground Zero | t 16:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Regarding politicalcompass in particular: I think the Political compass "two-dimensional" method of analysing party positions is interesting, and maybe it's the future for the way we discuss political positions, but it's not anywhere near a common approach, which is why I don't think it's a suitable source for the fact-box in this article. For comparison: the article on Labour party (UK) calls Labour a "centre-left" party, which is indeed how they're typically referred to, despite the politicalcompass assessment of them as right-of-centre. --mcld 18:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? What you are saying is that because you have not heard of something it can't be included? PoliticalCompass has been around for years and well-informed politicos, those who know that the BNP is actually Fascist-Left or Authoritarian-Left have been arguing this case for years.

You are simply regurgitating old beliefs without actually doing what politicalcompass and others have done and actually studied the manifestos to gain a true picture. Is wikipedia looking to propagate spin or look for the truth?

UKIP are the only mainstream party to have opposed the extension to state-funding of political parties because it is an anti-libertarian big government proposal.

UKIP oppose ID cards on libertarian grounds.

Nigel Farage's stated aim is less government interference in our lives and more self-responsibilty , all libertarian-minded goals.

Again, UKIP are socially-left, economically right. There simply is no single axis for the political spectrum and this has been known for years. We should not dumb down the truth because you personally are ignorant to the debate.

So GZ, are you now going to dismiss all these UKIP proposals as authoritarian? Poprischin 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed known PoliticalCompass for a few years; and even if I hadn't heard of it, no, that's not my reason for not using it to guide the labelling. However, I'm not fanatic about this decision and will be happy to abide by whatever seems the majority view among people editing wikipedia. --mcld 19:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not authoritarian. Nor are they libertarian. There is a wide political spectrum in between these positions. Please be careful of the wikipedia policy on no personal attacks. Throwing around statements like "you personally are ignorant to the debate" can get you blocked from editing. Ground Zero | t 19:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not attack it was straight-forward criticism and all editors should be thick-skinned enough to have their views challenged. And what about Marcus22 who threw a cheap insult about people questioning his view of the BNP as needing to go back to school? - if that is not comment about the contributor and not the content, I don't know what is. Please be consistent with the application of the rules and avoid prejudice against new contributors. This is not a clique but an association of equal contributors no matter how long and short they have been editing.

Anyway - mcld's compromise seemed acceptable but now MArcus has vandalised the page again so I have reverted to the text to MCLD's edit not mine!

Regarding Marcus22 - surely he should now be banned from editing this page following a clear breach of the rules regarding consensus by editing the text after MCLD had stepped in with a compromise? I have provided sources (no matter how you personally question their authority) to support the shift in UKIP's position post 2005 to provide some consensus to my edit, but Marcus22, despite repeated requests has provided nothing, and appears to be on a unilateral mission to impose his POV. Poprischin 09:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My replacement of the "disputed" note was not a compromise on "Libertarian right {disputed}". I simply replaced the "disputed" note, without modifying whatever the previous editor had left, which happened to be Poprischin. No, of course Marcus22 should not be banned from editing this page.

I think "Libertarian right" should not be used. There seems to be only one user who is keen on using this term. The term "libertarian" is used in the article text, which for me is fine, but it's unneccessary to also include it in that infobox. If you look at other political parties you'll find similar simplified statements in their infoboxes, which are of course given more detail in the actual article. My preferred option would simply to be to state "Right" in the infobox, largely because that's a term which we all seem to be able to agree on. --mcld 13:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

UKIP opposed the Iraq war, the Tories supported it. UKIP opposes state funding, the Tories support it. UKIP opposes black-box monitoring systems in cars, the Tories support it etc. Just how can that possibly make UKIP to the *right* of the Tories?

Using the last word of 'libertarian-right', ie 'right' is as misleading and damaging as saying that you are going to just use the last one in the term 'not racist'. The lazy and out-dated attempt across wikipedia to present Labour as c-l, the Tories as c-r and UKIP as right is so misleading. On many issues Labour is to the right of the tories and UKIP to the left, the out-dated flat-earther attempt to shoe-horn the parties into a single 'left-right' axis is unhelpful because it does not work.

The political spectrum like the world is not flat.

Using the politicalcompass quad approach or even replacing the whole left-right approach with something more descriptive like 'libertarian free-market' is more helpful. Why? Well what is our aim? To give the public an idea of what the party stands for, or to damage a party with an outdated approach? 'Right-wing' is a completely abused term used to smear parties.

Consider that UKIP's official primary description of itself is 'libertarian' and thus simply putting 'right' even qualified with 'disputed' completely masks UKIP self-declared libertarians *AIMS*. When an edit masks a party's declared aims it clearly should not be used as it is dishonest.

Putting 'Right {disputed}' is as unacceptable to me as I am sure me putting 'libertarian {disputed}' would be to others.

The only point that we *ALL* agree on is that the position is disputed, so simply that description without any 'libertarian-right' or 'right' prefix is the fairest way to end this round of cat-and-mouse edits.

It is clear that no-one is prepared to accept any other's person's compromise description whether suffixed with 'disputed' or not because it still contains the description that others object to. Therefore, I am sure it will be acceptable to all but those seeking to smear UKIP to remove any actual positional description but to note that its position is disputed.

Anyway - at least we all agree that the position is disputed so that without any editors POV prefixed to it is the fairest solution.

So yes I am challenging the flat-earth use of c-l,c-r and right etc used on wikipedia because I believe it inaccurate and misleads the public to a party's real aims and I feel I have the experience to challenge the flat-earthers. That is not flaming, it is seeking to ensure the public are presented with accurate information. Challenging the status-quo is not flaming, it is seeking to advance the debate. Poprischin 10:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Goodness. Where's the rolleyes? Wikipedia could certainly use them! Marcus22 15:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I would just like to add another voice to the calls for UKIP's political position to be changed to 'Libertarian Conservatism', or something of the equivalent nature.

There are indeed many reasons why this is a more appropriate classification for UKIP, many of which have already been stated. I would argue that UKIP's persistent objection to increased state-powers is a fundamental libertarian principle. Its recently published (28th April 2008) 'Policy on Criminal Justice Policy' which can be found on the party's website offers further evidence for this case. Take the following excerpts for example:

"14.1 UKIP believes in freedom of speech as being one of the best guardians of a liberal-democracy, as well as one of the British people’s most precious fundamental rights and freedoms."

"14.2 ... UKIP believes that private citizens are perfectly capable of using their speech, and expressing their thoughts and beliefs without interference and threats from the authorities."

"15.1 UKIP believes that Magna Carta is a document of tremendous significance for the political and legal foundations of the English speaking world."

"15.1 ... Several copies of the original document remain intact, and UKIP would place a copy on prominent display within the Houses of Westminster to remind elected officials from all parties and all parts of the UK the legal and political tradition upon which this country and British democracy has been founded."

SteveThePhysicist (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• • But what UKIP do - or do not - claim is not at issue: where are the reliable, third party sources which support their claim to be Libertarian? 90.231.2.252 (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• UKIP are not Libertarian. Here [6] is an example of what Libertarian parties argue about and, at a fundamental level, what Libertarians believe in. Have a read. And then ask yourself if UKIP advocate the free and ready supply of drugs? Child pornography (or, at least, child sex where the child consents? A permanent state of non-aggression? Home-schooling for anyone who wants it? Ready access to gambling? I dont think so. Nothing in their literature suggests as much. UKIP are Conservative in outlook not Libertarian. Setwisohi (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I understand that the UKIP may not take the libertarian stance on all issues, but many of their policies and indeed their general attitude towards government and state-power have a libertarian edge. Nobody is suggesting that the political position should be replaced simply with 'Libertarian', because that would of course be false. The proposition is for a prefix to be added to 'conservatism' to more accurately highlight the species of conservatism which is advocated by the party.

I would also argue that the defining characteristic of 'Libertarianism' is the limitation of state-power. Read Wikipedia's own definition of 'Libertarianism':

Libertarianism is a broad spectrum of political philosophies, each sharing the common overall priority of maximum limitation of government combined with optimum possible individual liberty. Its goals, though often varied in detail, prioritize freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of association, freedom to bear arms, freedom of and from state imposition of religion, Press freedom, economic freedom, and freedom of ownership.

Libertarianism, just like conservatism, is a very general term and I think it is absurd to falsify an entire doctrine of thought because of several minor exceptions. (I would suspect that very few acclaimed libertarians support the solicitation of child sex.) SteveThePhysicist (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Exceptions to Libertarian thought are too widespread and thoroughgoing within UKIP to allow the tag to stand. This is NOT a Libertarian party. (The first paragraph, for example, states that UKIP want to limit immigration. That's not a Libertarian idea. Nor is it a "minor exception" to Libertarin thought. It is quite the opposite. Limiting immigration is directly counter to the very spirit of Libertarianism).

As I see it - and, from what you have said, as you see it too - UKIP want to limit state-power? OK, fine. The Conservative party want to limit state-power too. Does that make the Conservative party Libertarian? By your argument it must do.

Setwisohi (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think limited immigration is necessarily an un-libertarian policy. Uncontrolled immigration may well be a policy advocated by one of the many branches of libertarianism, but as I have already said, libertarianism is a very broad term which is mainly defined by its attitude towards state-power and freedom. It is then from this founding principle that the more specific branches of libertarianism manifest, some of which may preach support for immigration others which may not. I do not see any direct links between libertarian-thought and mass-immigration. The 'UK Libertarian Party' for instance currently opposes the system of uncontrolled immigration.

For the sake of the debate I will re-present the case for why UKIP's political position would be more accurately described as 'Libertarian Conservatism':

• Strong support for British liberal-democracy and its preservation through individual freedoms. UKIP policy papers stress the sacrosanctity of freedom of speech in particular.
• Opposition to ID cards on the grounds of their invasiveness to liberty.
• Opposition to the smoking ban on the grounds of its invasiveness to liberty.
• Support for both tax-reduction and a flat tax-rate. (Both of which are forms of economic liberalism, an integral facet of Libertarianism; and neither of which are supported by the Conservative party or inherently advocated by the philosophy of 'conservatism'.)
• The full restoration of power to the elected-Parliament of Britain, and subsequently to the British electorate, through withdrawal from the EU. (A policy supported by both the British 'Liberal Party' and the 'UK Libertarian Party'.)
• Fewer state powers, coupled with greater autonomy for local authorities.
• Directly elected police Chief Constables to reduce the power that the state has over the police force. (A policy supported by the 'UK Libertarian Party'.)
• The abolition of needless bureaucracy which it views as the delegation of power into in the hands of unelected bodies. (A policy supported by the 'UK Libertarian Party')

I will finish by once again stressing that I am not suggesting that the UKIP is wholly Libertarian, but that its branch of conservatism would be more appropriately classified on the Wikipedia page as 'Libertarian Conservatism'. SteveThePhysicist (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless anybody can refute the examples I have raised, then surely there is sufficient justification to make the proposed alteration? The third-party sources for the case include the manifestos of the 'The Liberal Party' and the 'UK Libertarian Party' and the Wikipedia articles on 'Libertarianism' and 'Libertarian Conservatism' combined with an application of common sense (insofar as, 'libertarian conservatism' or simply 'libertarianism' advocates X, UKIP advocates X, therefore UKIP is 'libertarian conservative' - with a similar logic being applied to the content of the manifesto of the 'UK Libertarian Party'). SteveThePhysicist (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation info for "UKIP"

May i ask why someone has changed the pronunciation of UKIP to 'ju.kip'?, the vandalism of any article on Wikipedia in this manor is simply pointless and moronic.

I agree anonymous - I'll edit. Poprischin 10:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever did this was correct - I have reverted to 'ju.kɪp. The reason is that the phonetic spelling in Wikipedia uses the International Phonetic Alphabet for English. And I'd be grateful if you'd avoid overusing the word "vandal"/"vandalism": vandalism is an attempt to ruin something, not a genuine attempt to improve it - even if you don't agree with the result of that attempt. --mcld 13:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Just found this nice page which is quite a clear listing of how to apply the International Phonetic Alphabet to English pronounciations: IPA chart for English --mcld 13:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mcld. Again I was only responding in the language already used by Marcus22 for my edits when I changed the political position. Please keep your criticism consistent with all editors, not just new ones. If you keep on top of the original insults or misuse of descriptions then others would not have to respond. Poprischin 16:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks Poprischin. --mcld 16:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

UKIP is Libertarian?

"The United Kingdom Independence Party (commonly known as UKIP, pronounced /'ju.kɪp/ ) is a libertarian free market British political party"

They do appear to have certain free market leanings however, the idea of a national health service is irreconcileable with libertarian ideology while UKIP are in support of the NHS, in light of this can it be proper to call them Libertarian?

Thefranzkafkafront 13:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, on the whole, I think a lot of users might agree with you. (But at this point in time it's just not worth the hassle of going there... trust me!!!) Marcus22 21:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling s.o. Libertarian seems to be very zeitgeisty right now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.240.26 (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm, just because you support the NHS, doesn't make you not libertarian. The Libertarian Party of the UK supports the Private Finance Initiative and Mike Gravel of the US Libertarian Party advocates a government-funded health care system in the US. The UKIP has already branded itself as libertarian, so it should be mentioned that this is one of their policies. 71.106.183.124 (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• By your logic, if I claim to be a millionaire then I am one! Sadly the world isn't like that. In fact there is a lot of dispute over the libertarian tag (google it for example), so it has been removed. As mentioned before, why not add a section about the dispute rather than just endlessly add 'Libertarian' to the info box? That would be more constructive would it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.2.252 (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? That's the biggest straw man argument I've ever heard. Sadly, making a proper argument isn't like that. In fact, to properly demonstrate that there is a lot of dispute over the libertarian tag, you must first cite it instead of using original research to support your claim, so it has been restored. As mentioned before, why not first cite that it is disputed rather than just endlessly remove the link from the info box without verifying such a dubious claim? That would be much more constructive, would it not? 71.106.183.124 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• You're a total arse arent you? And not worth talking to.

Their opposition to further immigration - which is pointed out in the intro. - clearly runs contrary to the fundamentals of Libertarianism doesn't it? Likewise, several other 'key' Libertarian policies are not in their manifesto as far as I know. (eg. They are not advocating the legalisation of all drugs are they?) So whilst it may be true to say they have elements of Libertarianism in their policies - as do other parties - can it really be correct to call them Libertarian? Perhaps a more accurate solution would be to add "elements of Libertarianism"? That would fit the reality. Setwisohi (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You're a total scumbag, aren't you? And not worth the air you breathe.

Most libertarians, including the US Libertarian Party and UK Libertarian Party are proponents of tighter immigration standards. UKIP is not opposed to further immigration as you have so blatantly fabricated. UKIP wants to freeze immigration for five years until a massive amount of illegals are deported. And neither do all Libertarians support the decriminalisation of all drugs! Do you even know what the precepts of libertarianism are? Obviously not. The platform they run on is exactly that of economic libertarianism and since they have claimed this, it is exactly correct to call them libertarian. That would fit the reality. 71.106.183.124 (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Conservatives/BNP

I have put its links with the conservatives before its links with the BNP as its links with the conservatives are FAR more significant, whereas its links with the BNP are grosly exaderated in an attempt to discredit them (the BNP hate their guts)--Boris Johnson VC 17:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "libertarianism" on front page list

I've removed the libertarianism tag on the front page list because it's woefully inaccurate in this instance. UKIP possess few, if any, policies that a principled libertarian would agree with. Welfare, NHS, state education are all things that a libertarian would NOT advocate. I think "New Right" is a fair label for UKIP, since many of their policies mimmick Thatcherite beliefs. But libertarian? Heck no. Lapafrax 00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Some ones put it back up again, frankly this is getting stupid, i cannot imagine what motive some one would have but it simply cannot remain. Even in its currents 'elements of incarnation', you might as well argue that any party that fits into the classical (abiet critically flawed) right side of the left-right paradim as libertarian, for example you might as well claim that every party that wants to lower taxes is libertarian. To define something as part of an ideology it must openly accsept and embrace that ideology, only with the slightest of deviations can some thing be considered to be part of that ideology.

Im sorry but it must be removed in all respects and remain removed, from a political philosophical analysis it is not a logical conclusion Thefranzkafkafront 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You may not think UKIP are libertarian, but UKIP themselves do! Here is a quote from "The Business" newspaper, reproduced on the Samizdata (Libertarian) blog: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/008490.html

"With all this talk of tyrrany, the following might bring at least a hint of sunhsine. It's about the UKIP and it's from The Business, dated 15th January: "The party has appointed David Campbell-Bannerman, great nephew of the former Liberal Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, as its new chairman with a remit of conducting a radical libertarian policy review. "It aims to recast itself as a party campaigning for independence from government “whether in Brussels or in Westminster” and believes it can win funding from disgruntled Conservative donors."

That's the underlying UKIP political philosophy - maximising independence at all levels. This cashes out in practical policy terms as opposition to the EU (independence for the UK), increased powers for local councils (independence from Whitehall) and opposition to the security state/ID cards etc (independence for the individual). This is in a respectable sense a libertarian agenda. The party's libertarianism also shows up in small ways in things like its opposition to the smoking ban in pubs. However, I agree that UKIP doesn't display a thorough, full-on libertarianism, for instance it does indeed support the NHS. Therefore I think the description which you deleted ('elements of libertarianism') is accurate and I'll restore it pending your response to the above. Twilde 22 March 07

OK, I think the "elements of libertarianism" tag can stay, for now. I'm willing to compromise on the issue. Still, libertarian philosophy is deeper than simply opposing ID cards or smoking bans in pubs. The party cannot be considered a wholly libertarian party as yet, since they are committed to a government which is large in size and scope. Lapafrax 11:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've allready made this argument, just because it has elements of libertarianism dose not make it libertaraian, nor do self made claims of libertarianism make something libertarian. As i've allready said, if you going to make this case, logically you'll also have to trawl the entire of wikipedia adding 'elements of libertaraianism' to any party that event vaugely holds some aspects of negative rights. Or becuase it dosent appose the NHS you might as well have 'elements of social democracy'. Its ridiculas.

Its been a very long standing precedent that 'conservative' parties embrace certain elements of negative liberty, dose that make them libertarain. No. UKIP is exaclty this.

It dosent embrace libertarian philosophy, so in name of god please stop posting 'libertarian' back up them, no matter what your sticking infront of it. Thefranzkafkafront 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be using a very narrow definition of libertarianism - one which would exclude many strands of libertarian opinion such as left libertarianism, green libertarianism and so forth. There is certainly an argument to be made that such views are self-contradictory - but is it the place of a dictionary to pronounce on this? I would suggest that the core of libertarianism is the view that "sane adults should be allowed to do whatever they like so long as they don't harm other people." This is certainly a view widely held within UKIP and frequently promoted by the party's spokespeople. It is difficult for me to respond further to your objections unless you can state them more explicitly. Is your objection, (like Lapafrax?), that UKIP aren't libertarina because they support the NHS and other forms of government spending, (hence they must support compulsory taxation, hence they disregard the right of adults to freely choose not to pay taxes?) If so, I don't think the objection is sound. Libertarian minimum statists ('minarchists') say that the only valid role for the state is to provide security against external enemies and internal crime aagaint individuals. However, such protection needs to be paid for, hence requires taxation. Therefore even libertarian minimum statists support taxation. Therefore the mere support of (low) levels of taxation should not prevent a party from being called libertarian, unless you lso want to deny that term to the minimum statists too. I look forward to your reasoned response and in the meantime have reinstated 'elements of libertarianism' as that seems acceptabe to everyone except you. :-) Twilde 9 April 07

No, my principal objection is not taxation. But rather that a libertarian generally doesn't believe in state health care or "socialised medicine". To libertarians, positive rights like welfare, education, healthcare, etc. undermine individual freedom since someone else must provide them. As such negative rights can be defended without compulsion. This is my central objection. Lapafrax 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could accuse me of a 'narrow defintion of libertarianism', but in a sense you have to realise that several theories throught history have used the term libertarianism, namely a philosophy that is closely related with collectivist anarchism. It dosent take a doctor of political philosophy to point out that the only thing these two theories now share is a similar entomology.

Libertarianism as I use it, refers to an ideology in which negative liberty (see Isiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty) is the only concern of goverment. Its not quite a simple as the 'harm principle' which you've esposed as the 'core' but its fairly close. However it is a far more complex philosophy than simply this, namely as a idea of postive rights can (allthough erronously) be held to be within the harm principle.

As for my main concention, yes in part is it what Lapafax is contesting however, as i've allready said (you must have missed it becuase I was quite explicit).

If you are intent on stating that a party has elements of ideology x, then you cannot be muttally exclusive to libertarianism. Namley as UKIP supports several things such as the NHS or protectionist measures you must then conclude that they have elements of social democracy or protectionism. Hell It might take an entire page to list all the elements of various ideologies they have. Thats quite simply becuase all the political parites in the uk are very materialistic as opposed to idealitic and share a mash of ideologies.

However this dose not actually make them true to the ideology itself, which despite your protest is actually a very rigid grouping.

Let us take an example of a party that for example calls themselves a democratic socialist party, but infact proposes a completely flat tax system and incresed privitisation (labour party springs to mind), dose this infact still make them democratic socialists while they in fact are going against core principles of the ideology they supposedly imbrace, quite simply the only logical answer is no.

That as I have said again to summate, if a party dose not embrace and ideology fully, it is not of that ideology. Futhermore if you are intent of listing every ideology that UKIP (in this case) has elements of, you very well might be here all day.

UKIP are not a libertarian party, they do not embrace libertarian philosophy, egro saying they are 'libertarian' if only that they have 'elements' only serves to confuse and muddle their description. Thefranzkafkafront 20:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this recent quote from The Guardian will help? "Launching Ukip's local election campaign at Westminster yesterday, leader Nigel Farage promoted the party as a libertarian band of bureaucracy-busters that would slash council tax, put power back in the hands of local leaders and give people more control over their lives. 'If you want to hunt foxes, smoke cigarettes or ride fast motorbikes, that should be your decision,' he said." [7] Anyway, on these grounds (and also on the grounds that you are applying a much narrower definition of Libertarianism than that used int he rest of Wikipedia), I am going to reinstate 'elements of libertarianism'. I consider this as being pretty generous towards your position - I think it would be quite fair in the light of the above to simply describe UKIP as 'libertarian' full stop. Incidentally, you are wrong to suggest that UKIP are protectionists - they have always been supporters of free trade. Twilde 2 May 2007

Christ man are you reading all of my argument, if your putting elements of libertarianism up, im putting elements of social democracy up, so untill you concede to that im taking it down again. Saying 'im a libertarian' and then acting to the contary dose not make you a libertarian, untill they actually embrace libertarian ideology, they are not a libertarian party.

If you really want to shut me up, please explain how a party can be libertarian while embracing a welfare state.

Thefranzkafkafront 01:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I did indeed (with some difficulty) manage to read all of your argument - though there is no need to call me Christ, 'Tom' will do. Yes, I do understand the point you are making - I simply think you are applying a far narrower definition of Libertarian than is used elsewhere in this encyclopedia. Or are you going to start deleting all those entries for forms of libertarian which don't meet your criteria? Anyway, I'm going to accept your point simply so that I don't grow old continually reverting your edits. In any case, fortunately there is a universally used label for political movements which combine strong support for personal liberty with support for a welfare state. They are called 'liberal'. I will therefore alter the description of UKIP's ideology to Euroscepticism and Liberalism, and confidently expect you and all other contributors to be happy with this solution to our disagreement. Twilde 21 June 2007

Ahh sorry pal, you've been civil enough and I should return the favour. But regardless im sticking to my guns, Libertarianism as is now (as oposed to 200 years ago) is essentially classical liberal individualism, and while other theories such as conservatism do have elements of individualism, ukip espeically cannot qualify for libertarianism as it supports interventionism in the economy to a level of whole sale wealth redistribution. I woulnt see my own defintion as narrow in comparison to the rest of wikipedia, but rather the rest of wikipedia being rather confused as to what libertarianism is. Its not helped very much as we can see in the recent edits of this page with one person refering to the harm principle as "swing your first untill its in my face" by a lot of negative attitude being displayed towards libertarianism, to the point that people would even use it as a slur. Thefranzkafkafront 18:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• UKIP Libertarian? What a lot of dressed up balderdash! The only sense in which UKIP are Libertarian is in the same sense that the squires of C18th England were Libertarian. If you have money, you should be able to do what you want. Otherwise you should not be so able. Rehashed Thatcherism, no more no less. Not Libertarianism; but hypocrisy. Marcus22 13:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi 'Frantz'. I doubt that anyone was using the word Libertarianism 200 years ago. Classical liberal individualism is indeed exactly what UKIP is about. UKIP certainly isn't in the business of 'wholesale wealth distribution', and in fact has discussed plans for a flat rate tax policy. As I've already said, I've given up reverting the description of UKIP to 'libertarian'. Still, the description of them as 'conservative' is very unsatisfactory - it is a term so broad as to be very uninformative. I'm not saying it is meaningless - I'm saying it has a very wide variety of meanings, many of which certainly don't apply to UKIP. I still think 'liberalism' is reasonbly good as a description of UKIP's actual policies but I can see there will be no consensus around the use of any of these slightly nebulous "isms'. I therefore propose that we avoid them in favour of labels which usefully describe UKIP's actual policies: 'euroscepticism', 'free market economics' and 'individual liberty'. What say you? Hi Marcus - thanks for sharing your feelings with us, but this page is for discussing improvements to the article rather than for simply venting bile about the article's subject. Hope you appreciate the distinction Twilde 22:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hello Twilde, you Pettyfogger. No I dont get the distinction. Perhaps you could explain it to me?

Marcus22 22:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no, can't be bothered. Twilde 11:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Conservatism is a very broad term, as anyone can see from Wikipedia's entry on the subject. Therefore while it may be true that UKIP are 'conservative' (with a small c, natch), this may not be the most helpful description possible. If we can come up with a more precise description, surely we should use it? For that reason, surely the terms 'free trade' and 'individual liberty' are more informative here than 'conservatism'? Dodo64 2nd October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodo64 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• • 'Free trade' and 'Individual liberty' are, pretty obviously, POV terms. Can we also put 'Xenophobic'? As you yourself say, conservatism allows a broad interpretation. It is accurate in this case. So leave it at that. And let people make up their own mind. Marcus22 12:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll revert your edit until you can explain why 'pro-Free Trade' and 'pro-Individual liberty' are more POV terms than 'Conservatism'. I'm strongly in favour of letting "people make up their own mind", but can't see what that comment of yours has to do with the discussion we are having here. Twilde 21:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

UKIP are describing themselves as libertarian, "Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union." The leader has called the party Libertarian on several instances. The policies are not principled libertarianism, but practical libertarianism. See www.libertarianuk.net (A compromise between principle and something that most people would support) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.23.188 (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. The liberal democrat page claims they are liberal with a link to an article about individual liberty, this could not be further from the truth. The UK Independence Party are libertarian. They are calling themselves so and all policies being created are thought of with personal liberty at the core. Furthermore, they are not Conservative, that they are a Conservative pressure group is a myth. The party is nowhere near what could be considered Conservatism in Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito2502 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

UKIP could easily be considered a party of "national conservatism" (see the wikipedia entry for that ideology).--Free Socialist 04:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Socialist (talk • contribs)

• • Plenty of stuff exists to dispute the view that UKIP are Libertarian; i suppose a paragraph could be added about this debate? but it doesnt belong as a "fact" in the info box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.2.252 (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree but Somebody has put Libertarian as a fact in the infobox again!!! without reaching consensus quite frankly this is getting ridiculous. I believe Euroscepticism, and National Conservatism should certainly be in the infobox as this is what the party clearly adheres to. just look at the National conservatism wiki article and just compare it to the beliefs of UKIP and you see that they clearly adhere to this trail of thought. As for libertarianism i believe adding a paragraph about this debate would be the most appropriate thing to do because then people can be aware of the arguments for and against them being libertarian and can make up their own minds themselves about whether they are or not libertarian. this would be the most appropriate cause of action to follow and would adhere most to a Neautral point of view. for now though i believe libertarianism should stay out of the infobox because it is just pushing someones point of view and is not a certain fact. Gr8opinionater Thursday 29th may 2008 11:15AM (GMT)

If you read the the latest additions to the section 'UKIP political position (Debate resurrected as of May 22 2008)' on this discussion page, I have provided several examples of policies advocated by the UKIP which are of a Libertarian nature. In that section I was calling for 'Conservatism' to be replaced with 'Libertarian Conservatism' but I would equally support the simple addition of 'Libertarianism' alongside 'Conservatism'. SteveThePhysicist Sunday 1st June2008 12:03AM (GMT)

It is I whomb first inserted 'Libertarian' label in UKIP's 'political position' bar (I'm not responsible for ALL, the subseaquent re-edits though). I understand that there is some debate about wheather or not this label is accurete or not. Though interesting, this is really besides the point. Libertarianism is UKIP's stated position ergo, the correct label to list in this context. Euroscepticism dosn't really do their position on the EU justice, they are not 'sceptical' of the EU, they are hostile towards it and want to withdraw from it compleatly! Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

2007 Local Elections

UKIP gained 3 seats in Carrick, Newcastle under Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands. Held 2 seats in Kennet and Newcastle under lyme. Lost 4 seats in Dudley, North Wiltshire and South Gloucs. Details can be found on the BBC or Council websites Whiteabbey

Fair use rationale for Image:Ukiplogo.png

Image:Ukiplogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Devolution and Unionism

I should have made this a discussion topic before my previous edit, but presumed that the point about UKIP and Unionism was an anti-UKIP (or anti-Unionist) attack edit, and removed it without raising it for debate.

I accept that it is not necessarily an attack on UKIP to note down UKIP policy on Unionism and devolution; but UKIP's support for the United Kingdom is implicit in their name (for the time being, at least). UKIP believes that the United Kingdom is an association the British peoples should be part of (like NATO, or the UN), wheras it does not believe we should be part of the EU at all. It would remain anti-EU even if the EU was more devolved. It is not a pro- or anti- centralisation party - it's an anti-EU party.

As for the current wording about UKIP "not seeing a contradiction", this may be an intelligent point for a comment article in a newspaper, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia in my opinion.

I won't propose a reword here - I'd rather find agreement on the principle of what should be written under the heading of Devolution and Unionism first. I should note that their policy here is worth noting because it distinguishes them from parties like the English Democrats (for example).(RJ Gordon (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

• I think you were right to draw attention to the topic - it was very badly expressed and yet the fact UKIP do not want an English parliament should be noted. So I think we need this section in some form or another. On the issue of rewording though, I think we disagree: for many Scots, UKIP's view is anglo-centric, not UK wide in sentiment. They do indeed see a contradiction in what UKIP wants. (On Sovereignity, for example, UKIP does not want this diluted to the EU. But for many Scots sovereignity is diluted by attachment to Westminster. To remove the power of the Scottish parliament to Westminster is exactly akin to removing the powers of Westminster to Brussels). So it reads fairly as it stands to my mind and I would be hard to convince to see it significantly reworded. On your other point, however, I think you are perhaps correct re: the matter of Centralization. It is, perhaps, more an issue of Sovereignity rather than Centralization - and perhaps that could be reworded without much debate? Marcus22 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• One point I meant to make above is - would you point this out in an article on the BNP? They too are in favour of a united UK state, and opposed to membership of the EU. I might think there are contradictions at the heart of Labour's policies on race relations, for example - but I wouldn't point it out as such. I could state their policies on race relations. I might hope that others reading would see the inherent contradictions in these policies, but I don't think that a wikipedia article on a political party is a place to highlight defects in its ideas. (RJ Gordon (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

• • Well yes, in the first case, if one of the BNP's major policy planks advocated immigration then I feel it would be highlighted in the article on them - and the contradiction would be indicated. The same would not be true of contradictions in Labour race policy, however, as they are not, first and foremost, an anti-racist party. (But were, say, the Anti-Facist league to advocate facist policies, I think that too would be well worth noting in much the same manner). Marcus22 (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• • If the BNP advocated immigration in their manifesto, I would still not phrase it using the word contradiction, although it should certainly be noted in the article (I should note that my point here was made in error though - I thought that the BNP opposed devolution, but upon checking their manifesto I find that they advocate an English parliament).

The point is that UKIP sees the UK as one country, which should be sovereign over itself. One nation, one parliament - not numerous devolved parliaments, not run by a parliament of assorted foreigners. I feel that the wording of this section should explain UKIP's standpoint in this respect. I don't see how that can be seen as a contradiction, since, as I argued earlier, UKIP is an anti-EU party, rather than an anti-centralization party as such.

Meanwhile, in UKIP's 2005 manifesto, it says that "The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament with their unlimited power, uncontrolled costs and growing bureaucracy, have both caused deep disappointment. Another source of discontent is the pending reduction in EU funding for Wales and Scotland. UKIP believes that the future of these institutions should be a matter for their respective populations."

Whilst UKIP are obviously opposed to the devolved assemblies, they officially oppose them on the grounds that they add an unnecessary extra tier of government. Moreover, they support a strengthening of local councils later in the same manifesto. The position they have adopted is clear - a traditional and (small c) conservative belief in established institutions. This is a clear position, and instead it is being presented as an unsupportable position based on inability to "see" a contradiction.

I think something like this would be more accurate: "UKIP's approach to constitutional affairs is traditionalist and conservative, supporting institutions like the House of Lords and local councils, and opposing newer assemblies like the Scottish Parliament and regional assemblies. Although the party has little or no presence in Scotland, it is a Unionist party, unlike some other euro-secessionist political parties (like the English Democrats)." I don't mean that as a definite proposal, but as an illustration of the sort of points it is necessary to make in explaining UKIP's position on UK-internal governance. I also don't see where UKIP have supported abolishing the three devolved assemblies - I may have missed a post-2005 document in which they have adovcated that policy, but if so it should be referenced in the article (the Devolution and Unionism section is currently unreferenced - if I accidentally deleted a link there when I first edited it, I apologise). (RJ Gordon (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

• Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. UKIP cant see the contradiction, lots of others can. In any case, I've removed the word 'contradiction' and slightly rephrased it and we can leave it at that. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus22 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • It reads OK to me now. I've added that the loss of Sovereignity is 'perceived' - this is normal on Wikipedia where such a point is a debatable issue. And the rest just states the hard facts of the matter; namely that UKIP support the Union and do want power in Westminster. (And any contradiction in their policy here now remains implicit - rather than intimated at - for the discerning reader to see (or not) as is their inclination). regards Marcus22 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm content with it now. Thanks. (RJ Gordon (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC))

Smoking Ban

Hi, I'm not very good with wiki, but I was wondering if it's worth adding this to the bit about policies? The refference is at the bottom. Sorry I dont know how to do all this *looks embarassed* - Scaeme

In UKIP's April 2008 Policy statement titled "Rebalancing Justice", UKIP expressed thier hopes for a relaxing of the public smoking ban in the UK

"3:12 UKIP is deeply concerned at the number of local pubs, a national institution, that are closing. UKIP would replace the smoking ban with legislation requiring premises owners to provide smoke free areas and/or dedicated internal smoking areas. If not possible, the premises would have to be designated all ‘non smoking’ or ‘all smoking’ and advertise this prominently outside." http://www.ukip.org/ukip/images/stories/pdf/law_final.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.89.238 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ideology

I actually agree with the anonymous user: UKIP is more a liberal conservative party than a national conservative one. The latter is hardy a correct classification for UKIP. --Checco (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian?

The 'Libertarian?' has been removed. Why?! Ther is clearly some dispute as to wheather or not UKIP is Libertarian Party (as demonstrated by the debate on these very pages):so surely including a page on this dispute, outlining both sides, is a reasnable measure? Pherhapes my page was not Perfect, but this in anargument far editing, not deletion. Unless & until somebody can provide a good reason for it not being there I will put it back! Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.215.74 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not just re-add the section. That could lead to an edit war and, quite possibly, to your being blocked from editing. Looking at the section itself: apart from poor grammar, spelling and incorrect positioning of the section within the article, I should say the main reason it has been removed is because it is incorrect to have such speculation in an article. Any dispute over UKIP's position belongs here, on the talk page, not in the article itself. JaneVannin (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the "dubious" tag as Bob Spink's vote for the government, along with the Democratic Unionist Party, on 42 days detention without charge clearly shows that UKIP is not a libertarian party. UKIP's ideology is very similar to that of the DUP (apart from the religious aspect). --90.242.69.139 (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bob Spink is a member of UKIP - just because he votes one way doesn't mean that represents the policy of the party. I believe that the party's policy is to be against 42 day detention without trial. For my part, I believe that UKIP are to some extent a libertarian party. I think that if you look at their policies, elements of libertarianism run through them. ^Tom_Phil 11:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you scroll upwards and look at the 'political position' section. I have already provided a substantial list of documented UKIP beliefs which are of a libertarian nature. SteveThePhysicist 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • The Magna Carta is not really a Libertarian document: can you clarify it's relevance here? JaneVannin (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

From the party's website today regarding 42 days detention for "terrorist suspects" [an ill defined category that could cover all manner of groups - even anti-EU protesters]: "UKIP respects individual liberties and is wary of big and intrusive government," Dr Spink said, "but we are also tough on crime and the fight against terrorism, to make society safer for everyone." [8]

So UKIP is clearly more authoritarian than the Conservative Party, which does not specifically claim to be a libertarian party. Political parties can claim to be all sorts of things that don't hold up to scrutiny. The BNP calls itself a "conservative party" for example. --84.66.30.121 (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than everyone digging out their personal definitions of ideology and arguing over whether the UKIP position is what the leadership declares or how Spink votes I think it would be better to look to what political scientists say. The way a lot of parties' ideologies currently get handled on their pages is classic Original Research. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --84.66.30.121 (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• How can they be both Anti-Immigration and Libertarian? The two ideas are directly contrary to one another. Just a thought.... JaneVannin (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I've removed the claim from the non-third party source. --84.69.84.14 (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Many if not most libertarians hold an anti-immigration stance. The two have nothing to do with each other. One of the major points in UKIP's libertarianism is their ardent support for a referendum in regards to the Treaty of Lisbon. 71.106.183.124 (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean, the two have nothing to do with each other? Do you know what the word Libertarian means? Have you looked up a definition of it? I suspect the answer is no in both cases...90.231.2.252 (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Conservatives also argue for a referendum; I dont think that that qualifies them to be called Libertarian. Also, a strong Anti-Immigration stand is directly contrary to the philosophy of Libertarian thought. It's very hard to see anything Libertarian in any UKIP policy. Setwisohi (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Empowerment of the people is a major point in the Libertarian philosophy. Besides that, the party is very limited government which is reflected in the Eurosceptic policy. They adopt this policy not only for the constitutional purposes (i.e. Bill of Rights) but because of the restrictions it places on business, more so than the Conservatives. Anti-immigration is a common policy held with libertarians and it most properly follows the philosophy. Most libertarians are decisively anti-immigration including both the British and American Libertarian Party support strict immigration regulation. I don't know where you get the idea that libertarians cannot have a strong anti-immigration stance; it sounds unfounded. 71.106.183.124 (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a political discussion forum. As Timrollpickering said earlier, please find a neutral and scientific third-party source to back up your claims. --90.240.47.127 (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how you feel I am treating this like a political discussion forum. The user has asked how UKIP's policies relate to libertarianism and I have answered that. 71.106.183.124 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Can I intercede here? Thanks for taking the time out to say how you think UKIP's policies relate to Libertarianism. (I don't agree. But thanks anyway!) But please dont get involved in a long drawn out thing on my account. I think this -> "please find a neutral and scientific third-party source to back up your claims" is the real issue. And it's probably best if we all stick to it. Apologies for leading us/you/myself astray! Setwisohi (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

UKIP's stated position is 'Libertarian', so not mentioning this would be absurd, to mention it and state it as not being true would not be effectivly Anti-UKIP. So what to those whomb are opposed to mentioning the Libertarian Label propose? I wanted to solve the problem by outlining both arguments in the article, but this has been rejected. Consensus on this issue must be achived, but it in a consensus that must include the Libertarian tag in one form or another. Setwisohi insists on Labeling the party 'Anti-Immigrant' & 'Populist', people can agree or disagree about weather or not these are accurete or, but regardless they do not belong in any Ideology bar, as far as I'm concerned this is brazen attack editing and has to stop! Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.215.74 (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your intentions are fine. But please try to understand some basic tenets upon which Wikipedia has to be founded: i. UKIP's calling themselves X does not make them X. In order to establish that they are indeed X, independent and reliable 3rd party sources have to be added. ii. The article itself is not the place to outline a dispute. A dispute is settled here - on the talk page - before the facts are added to an article. iii. Until a dispute is resolved, there is no point keep re-adding material to the article only for someone else to revert it. Hope that helps make it clearer! (By the way, it was not me who added Anti-Immigrant and Populist). Setwisohi (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

All these policies are taken from UKIP's own policy papers and manifestos, they demonstrate that Libertarianism plays a major role in UKIP's policies:

• Strong support for British liberal-democracy and its preservation through individual freedoms. UKIP policy papers stress the sanctity of freedom of speech in particular.
• Opposition to ID cards on the grounds of their invasiveness to liberty.
• Opposition to the smoking ban on the grounds of its invasiveness to liberty.
• Support for both tax-reduction and a flat tax-rate. (Both of which are forms of economic liberalism, an integral facet of Libertarianism; and neither of which are supported by the Conservative party or inherently advocated by the philosophy of 'conservatism'.)
• The full restoration of power to the elected-Parliament of Britain, and subsequently to the British electorate, through withdrawal from the EU. (A policy supported by both the British 'Liberal Party' and the 'UK Libertarian Party'.)
• Greater autonomy for local authorities. (A policy supported by the 'UK Libertarian Party'.)
• Directly elected police Chief Constables to reduce the power that the state has over the police force. (A policy supported by the 'UK Libertarian Party'.)
• The abolition of needless bureaucracy which it views as the delegation of power into in the hands of unelected bodies. (A policy supported by the 'UK Libertarian Party')

Unless anybody can refute these examples, then surely there is sufficient justification to make the proposed alteration? The third-party sources for the case include the manifestos of the 'The Liberal Party' and the 'UK Libertarian Party' and the Wikipedia articles on 'Libertarianism' and 'Libertarian Conservatism' combined with an application of common sense (insofar as 'libertarianism' advocates X, UKIP advocates X, therefore UKIP is 'libertarian'). SteveThePhysicist (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• With respect, you are not just paying attention to what it is that Wikipedia requires: namely, indepdentent reliable 3rd party sources. (Why does it have to be so? For example, you say "Greater autonomy for local authorities" is proof of Libertarianism. It isn't. You are interpreting it as such. Someone else could interpret it otherwise). But look, in short, I really don't see a problem: if UKIP are indeed Libertarian, there must be reliable 3rd party sources out there which state as much. Mustn't there?

So let's see them! (Not blogs, not a UKIP members view). Then the debate can end. (Hopefully!) Setwisohi (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is very little 3rd party literature written about UKIP, so it is difficult to find a credible source which ascribes any ideology to the party. Do Wikipedia's own articles not classify as reliable? The opening line on Wikipedia's Libertarianism article reads makes a direct reference to minimal state power,

"Libertarianism is a label used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which prioritize individual liberty and minimize the role of the state."

Can you not see the direct link between minimal state power and local autonomy? It is also worth noting the word 'broad'.

I argued on the previous discussion page that 'Libertarian Conservatism' or 'Right-Libertarianism' could also be an accurate classification. SteveThePhysicist (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia's own articles do not - most definitely do not - count as reliable. (Odd but true). Without 3rd party sources, it's not correct to state, in the infobox, that UKIP are Libertarian. But surely, there must be such sources? If, as you say, UKIP are Libertarian? By all means find them and let's get this wrangling to an end. (By the way, I should say I'm currently finding sources which state that UKIP are populist, so expect that label to return). But, in any case, the thing is to find those sources. Setwisohi (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Glass already states in the source that UKIP is populist. --84.68.126.84 (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2004/issue4/0404p32.html also describes UKIP are a populist party. As indeed do very many pieces one can find on Google. But, I'm not sure that any of them (or Glass) are sufficient. Setwisohi (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• A political science paper is the perfect source for an encyclopedia. --84.68.126.84 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't insult me Setwisohi, I understand Wiki's basic tenent's just fine. I am now going to repeat my previous point, UKIP's stated position is Libertarian. To have a situation where a Parties stated position is not mentioned in the section is compleatly untenable. Go to the page on the UK Labour Party and you will find that 'Democratic Socialism' is one of several Ideologies that it is said to adhere to, clearly plenty of people would agree or disagree with that, but Labour's stating that it is a 'Democratic Socialist' is enough to have it mentioned in some form or another. Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.215.74 (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's really no more to be said. What UKIP (or Labour, or anyone else) claim to be - or not to be - is not sufficient. Reliable, 3rd party sources have to be found which support such a claim. And that's that. Sorry to see you have taken offence at this. It's not personal. It's just a fact of Wikipedia life. Setwisohi (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Then go to the Labour Party Page and delete the references to it being a Socialist party! Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

See the Fryguy just wont be told. I should nae bother to try. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "The party describes itself as a 'Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawl from the European Union". I think that that is well done. Much better to put it like that than to keep changing the info-box. Let's hope others see it the same way and now leave the thing alone! Setwisohi (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ps. But can we have the reference? ie. Where the party describes itself as that. That would look better. Setwisohi (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

At it's Website Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well add it to the article. Setwisohi (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you like ignoring evidence, and those who have first hand experience of the party. As a long term member of the party, it is clear that it is Libertarian.

• Increased personal freedom.
• Greater Democracy and an end to Bureaucracy (small government).
• Increased Economic freedom through Laissez-faire.
• Directly electable local figure heads.
• Opposition to a political class.
• Lower taxes by taking 4.5 million people out of tax with a simple Flat Tax.

So explain to me how:

A. You know better than a party member and election candidate. B. How the above is not Libertarianism. C. How you can ignore the contradicting evidence, and UKIP's own statement that it is Libertatian and its support of Libertarian parties around the world.

Lastly, those who are removing 'Libertarianism' are pro EU*. This therefore is not a neutral viewpoint. Afterall Libertarianism is the biggest enemy of the EU. The last thing it wants is for the people to see through them and demand an end to their elite club.

• Quite how anyone can support an organisation that is a huge Bureaucracy, is eroding personal liberties across Europe, is damaging the UK economy to the tune of £200 billion each year, rips off European taxpayers every single year and has not had it's accounts signed off is beyond me. The list is endless... You people had might as well let the EU into your homes and take everything you have... but don't complain.

UKIP Havant

Eurosceptic Libertarian (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian conservatism

If your well informed on Libertarian and Conservative ideas, which our Socialist europhiles seem not to be, then you will see the clear resemblance that UKIP has with regards to Libertarian conservatism. The parties policies are both Libertarian and Conservative in nature. There should be a general consensus that under idelogy it should either be Conservative followed by Libertarian or the two combined into Libertarian conservatism. Eitherway, to deny that UKIP is not Libertarian is pointless as it's policies show otherwise.

Eurosceptic Libertarian (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Conservative... LOGIC, they are smart, they are combining into one! lol... the name itself defies the meaning of the two.--Jakezing (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Theres quite a big difference between the ideals of a Liberal and those of a Libertarian in the UK. But both terms can be used as one. Take the Free Democratic Party of Germany. It's stated poistion is Conservative liberalism. In the UK the word Liberal in terms of politics has a different meanings. And Jakezing I would say your addition to this debate is less than smart. Hence your adherence to the European Union. Wow! You sure must be smart to allow a political elite to dictate to you, for a corrupt few to do what they like, for taxpayers money to throw around and for Europe to turn into a police state. Logic, something you clearly lack. Eurosceptic Libertarian (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Heres a fairly reputable article from the Libertarian Alliance that says that the UKIP is not a libertarian party: [9] I believe that should be enough to reliably remove libertarian from the partys ideology unless more reliable references can be found to say that it is a libertarian party or a party with largely libertarian values.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)