Talk:UK Independence Party

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2014

ideology anti-Federalism 80.229.149.63 (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Far-right

Why are the several scholarly sources which label this party as "far-right" completely ignored in this article? It seems the UKIP followers have won again, through veto-ing rather than the following the guidelines and through creating ad hoc rules for this specific article. Zozs (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Namely:

• Dr Ashley Lavelle (28 March 2013). The Death of Social Democracy: Political Consequences in the 21st Century. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 104–. ISBN 978-1-4094-9872-8.
• Arthur B. Gunlicks (25 October 2011). Comparing Liberal Democracies: The United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the European Union. iUniverse. pp. 121–. ISBN 978-1-4620-5725-2.
• Helen Margetts, "Single Seat" in Josep M. Colomer (ed) Personal Representation: The Neglected Dimension of Electoral Systems, 1 August 2013, ECPR Press, ISBN 978-1-907301-57-5, pages 51

Zozs (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You do know that iUniverse is a print on demand publisher? So fails SPS. And as this has been done to death just recently one might think you ought to drop the stick. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's far right, but as suggested above, the UKIP followers have managed to veto this. Never mind - "right-wing" lumps them in with everyone from the Tories to the BNP to Hitler!! Emeraude (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the mass of literature that deals with UKIP (or political parties in the UK in general, or Eurosceptic parties) these references look rather "cherry-picked" as none of them deals with UKIP in detail, they only mention the party in passing. Therefore, it does not look like they were representative of the mainstream literature opinion about UKIP's place in the political spectrum. Why should we choose a book about "the Death of Social Democracy" or a chapter about "Single Seats" when trying to determine UKIP's political position? --RJFF (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I personally think UKIP contains far right elements, attracts far right support and has some policies/positions that are farther to the right. However, I don't think it is accurate to broadly call the party "far right" and I think most reliable sources back that up. As per RJFF, the citations offered above are not ideal and we have to consider the range of what different sources say. (I would rather call UKIP populist, anti-modernist or even Poujadist.) Bondegezou (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because an article or book is by an academic doesn't mean it doesn't have a political bias, you know. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Just because some academics have called UKIP a far-right party doesn't mean it is. Does it attract some far-right supporters? Yes. Does the Conservative Party? Yes. Does the Labour Party still attract some far-left supporters? Yes. Does that make any of them extremist parties? No, of course it doesn't. UKIP's opponents attempt to label it pejoratively in order to discourage people from voting for it. It's a common political tactic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

On p. 43, Lavelle explains that there are different terms used to mean the same same thing and why she uses the term "Far Right."[1] We call UKIP "right-wing populist" in the article, which conveys the same meaning as Lavelle's description. It would be wrong to call it "Far Right" without explaining what we mean by that term. In most sources, the term "far right" is used exclusively to refer to neo-fascist groups, and it would be wrong to imply that UKIP is neo-fascist when sources do not say that. It occupies the ideological space between the Conservatives (moderate right) and the BNP (far right). TFD (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again it needs to be pointed out that "I personally think..." and "I don't think it is accurate..." are not the way we do things in Wikipedia. We go with the reliable sources, and the gold standard of such is peer-reviewed academic journals. Of course academics have personal views - they are human beings and entitled to them - but the whole process of peer-review is to ensure that these are not included, as if any academic would need reminding.

The key issue about UKIP's political position (or any other party for that matter) is not what support it attracts, but what its programme/policies/philosophy are. Thus, UKIP is undoubtedly on the right, but it is not far right because it has attracted ex-BNP voters. (Which is not to say it not far right.) Neither are any of the other parties mentioned "extremist" just because some extremists vote for them. Besides, there is nothing pejorative about being right or far right.

I can't fully agree with TFD that "In most sources, the term "far right" is used exclusively to refer to neo-fascist groups", simply because there is no evidence that most sources actually do that. Neither is far right synonymous with fascist ("extreme right"). [Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin in their work on UKIP, Revolt on the Right, distinguish UKIP from "the extreme right-wing BNP". (p.13)]

Regardless, the sources above (which, generally, are reliable) do not reflect the mainstream of academic opinion at this time and we have already decided (see archive, ad nauseam) that they are not sufficient to justify the use of "far right" at this time. Emeraude (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

See Clive Webb, Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era, p. 10. " [T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists."[2] Or do a google search. "far right" returns mostly books about neo-fascists, while "right-wing populism" returns books mostly about parties like UKIP and neo-fascists. Although I have no problem with saying both UKIP and the BNP are to the right of the mainstream parties, it is misleading to say that the BNP and UKIP are generally seen as the same. Or do you not notice any difference, superficial or otherwise between the two? Would you rather find youself in a pub full of BNP or UKIP? TFD (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Who's buying? You're right, of course, that it is misleading to say that BNP and UKIP are generally seen as the same - they clearly are not - and I hope that nothing I have written here suggests I think otherwise.Emeraude (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It would also be quite easy to select acceptable sources that describe UKIP as centre right. For this reason "right wing" is the best description. It is the most accurate way, although not the most precise way, of describing the position of UKIP on the political spectrum. Atshal (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I very much doubt that there are sufficient reliable sources describing UKIP as centre right for our purposes, just as there do not seem to be sufficient for far right. However, as I suggested earlier, simply calling them right wing lumps them with everyone from Cameron to Hitler; it is certainly not precise and I would suggest not at all accurate. It's the political equivalent of having only two colours in the electromagnetic spectrum, say yellow and blue, to cover everything from radio waves, infrared, ultra violet and gamma rays. Emeraude (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point. It is easy to cherry pick sources - Phillip Lynch of Leicester University, for example, repeatedly describes UKIP as centre right. Rightfully, nobody is suggesting we describe UKIP as centre right and, for similar reasons, it would be wrong to describe UKIP as far right. Also - you need to learn the difference between 'precise' and 'accurate'. 'Right wing' is highly accurate, but not precise. Atshal (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. Here's one for you: something is either accurate or it is not; it cannot be 'highly accurate'. My point is - and I don't think we seriously disagree here - that it is so accurate as to be totally meaningless within the context. Whatever, this discussion is really all rather pointless, since previous archived efforts have already ruled on this and nothing has changed since to materially alter that decision. Emeraude (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that we do not agree - you said that calling UKIP right wing is "not at all accurate", when it clearly is highly accurate. By the way, highly accurate means there is a high probability of the description being correct - the addition of the word "highly" is a comment on the likelihood of the term "accurate" being appropriate. And no need to thank me for the vocabulary lesson - always happy to inform and educate! Atshal (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary:

accurate, adj.

2. Of a person: careful, precise; tending not to make mistakes or errors; correct.
3. Esp. of information, measurements, or predictions: exact, precise; conforming exactly with the truth or with a given standard; free from error.
4. Of an instrument or method: producing, or capable of producing, precise or correct results.

Emeraude (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

First MP overkill?

Election of first MP by UKIP obviously significant, but so significant that the story has to be told three times in the text in almost identical wording? Once is enough, surely, but where? Emeraude (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Is anti-immigration not their core policy?

Strange how the opening lines of the page and the infobox does not say that this is a party that is against mass immigration? 58.178.104.178 (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Not strange because their primary goal is for the UK to leave the EU. TFD (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TFD above - UKIP are certainly, at least until recently, a one issue party concerned with leaving the EU. Immigration policy is one facet of this, and UKIP definitely want to cut immigration - but I imagine this is better dealt with by inserting cited material in the appropriate policy section in the body of the article. Please feel free to do so. Atshal (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

UKIP is not anti immigration. It believes in controlled immigration. Zenostar (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"UKIP proposes to allow EU citizens who have been domiciled in the UK for seven years to apply for citizenship"

That would be actually an increase from the current 5 years actually.It would also mean immigrants from EU would have to wait longer than non-EU immigrants for citizenship. Which seems to be in line with UKIP policies. Overall, the line probably needs a short note that this is an increase from the current limit.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The infobox should read centre-right, not right wing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should Libertarianism be added to the ideology section in the infobox

• support I believe it should. Zenostar (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not vote on contents. You need to provide arguments for your idea, namely reliable sources that would establish that UKIP is usually described as a libertarian party by third-party analysts (preferably political scientists). We have had this discussion before (e.g. Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 12#Libertarianism/Classical Libertarianism, Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 8#Libertarianism, Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 5#Ideology, Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 5#Not Libertarianism, Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 3#UKIP is a Libertarian Party not right wing) The necessary references have never been provided. --RJFF (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support There are plenty sources, from UKIP's own descriptions of itself, to political scientists. From UKIP's own webpage: 2.5 The Party is a democratic, libertarian Party and will espouse policies which:

• promote and encourage those who aspire to improve their personal situation and those who seek to be self-reliant, whilst providing protection for those genuinely in need;
• favour the ability of individuals to make decisions in respect of themselves;
• seek to diminish the role of the State;
• lower the burden of taxation on individuals and businesses;
• ensure proper control over the United Kingdom’s borders;
• strengthen and guarantee the essential, traditional freedoms and liberties of all people in the United Kingdom.

Ed Rooksby teaches politics at Ruskin College, Oxford. Here is his Guardian article that cannot really be much clearer in its title; UKIP are true Libetarians. Perhaps it makes some uncomfortable that UKIP is Libertarian, but it shouldn't really. Reaper7 (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm with RJFF on this. The issue has been discussed before and evidence for describing UKIP as libertarian has been found lacking. True, UKIP described itself as libertarian, but the Nazis called themselves socialist and most major fascist groups in post-war Britain (eg, NF, BNP) have described themselves as democratic. Self-description doesn't count for much. We do not and should not accept something is so, just because the subject says it is. Besides, much of what you have quoted from UKIP above is nothing to do with libertarianism so much as simple right wing policy and dogma. I notice you have given just one source from an academic, which is a newspaper comment piece and not an academic paper, so no deal there. (But, as an aside, interesting to note that Rooksby comments that "libertarianism and fascism have long been bedfellows" and describes UKIP in his conclusion as far right.) Emeraude (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The purpose of info-boxes is not to list every possible beleif system a supporter of a party can have, or all the possible ideologies that influence them, but to provide a concise, uncontroversial description of the party type. TFD (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "The party describes itself in its constitution as a 'democratic, libertarian party'." is in the opening paragraph and in my opinion is sufficient. I don't think UKIP are widely described as libertarian. Atshal (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Atshal and Emeraude. Bondegezou (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Membership section

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

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

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