Talk:UK Independence Party

Change to minor party status

At the local elections 2023, UKIP has lost its remaining elected representation. The party is quickly waning in relevance and has become something of a quagmire or niggling hangover in British politics. Likewise, its invariably timed crises in leadership means it is unstable. We should note it is now a minor political party. 143.167.206.38 (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Your analysis is accurate.

Notwithstanding its claims to the contrary, relying on the public not distinguishing parish and town councillors from the rest. UKIP has, since 8-9 May 2023 when the terms of office of its last 4 councillors expired, no county, borough or local authority councillors, no Assembly Members, no Members of the Scottish Parliament, no members of the Houses of Commons or Lords, etc.

According to the 27 March 2023 article at [1]Nation.Cymru, insider sources, including a whistleblower director and National Executive member who resigned in February 2023, total worldwide membership at the end of 2022 was about 1,000, including "members either deceased or with no interest in the current defunct party [being five-year members serving out their membership period, and] lapsed members automatically granted 3-month extensions, or even much longer so as to bolster the count." Therein, active membership is estimated to be in the range of 50 to 100.

However, while with one exception those responsible for the party's past fame or notoriety have years ago abandoned it, UKIP has considerable historical importance. Any call to reduce the article length should be resisted. Thomson-archiving (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Need to change general Secretary

According to the party website the general secretary is Donald MacKay 81.101.64.255 (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, see above for the more general discussion. There appear to have been at least six UKIP General Secretaries since June 2020. See Historic list of National Executive membership since May 2021 for the most recent four. Thomson-archiving (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: UKIP's Political position should now be 'Far-right', not 'Right-wing to far-right'

This is topical; it has recently been brought to my attention that UKIP is contesting two parliamentary by-elections today ( July 20, 2023).

Proposal: UKIP's Political position should be 'Far-right', not 'Right-wing to far-right'. The change is overdue; it is not a short- or medium-term change in emphasis, but a shift that was premeditated, deeply entrenched and, by its nature, irreversible. For those familiar with the power structure in UKIP, no change to its several controllers is likely for a very long time, at least not until funding dries up, e.g., https://caseboard.io/cases/3593a34d-cb9b-4b20-aa1e-47710f1c42c3 (April 27, 2022).

Since 2012, UKIP has actively resisted, allegedly with at least one threat of litigation, being denominated 'Far-right', relying on what it claimed to be its unique, "permanent" bar on those who have ever belonged to a far-right or extremist organisation or party from even applying for UKIP membership.

This was held by editors to sufficiently blur the issue, and despite its track record for periodic extremism, UKIP's political position was instead stated to be 'Right-wing to far-right'.

Since Wikipedia sensibly prefers not to alter a party's political positioning principally based on its current leader (for example, we didn't shift Labour further to the hard-left while Corbyn ruled), the infobox should represent the party, broadly top-to-bottom, over a period of time and based more on its policies, actions and membership.

This was notwithstanding the records of recent former leaders Gerard Batten (2018-19) and his close involvement with the far-right convicted criminal Tommy Robinson (activist), former member of the far-right British National Party and founder of the far-right English Defence League, Batten's endorsed successor, Richard Braine (politician) (2019-2019), who apparently compared Muslims to Nazis https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/22/leaked-emails-show-ukip-leader-richard-braine-comparing-muslims-nazis and the incumbent Neil Hamilton (politician) (2020-), whose Wikipedia page provides evidence of far-right and extremist beliefs.

However, there was a major change to UKIP's ethos and direction on April 18, 2023 when it published that it had removed that long-term ban on extremists and replaced it with one on those who had belonged to left-wing organisations. https://www.searchlightmagazine.com/2023/06/ukip-throws-open-its-doors-to-fascists-and-neo-nazis "UKIP throws open its doors to Fascists and Neo-Nazis .... UKIP has provision in its Rule Book which allows for former members of certain proscribed parties or organisations to be barred from membership. In the past, organisations specified under this rule included Britain First, the British National Party, the English Defence League and the National Front. Former party leader Nigel Farage frequently cited this ban as evidence that UKIP was not an extremist party. However, at a meeting of the UKIP National Executive Committee on 15 April, this all changed. By an unanimous vote, the list of banned extreme right groups was removed completely, and replaced with a list of proscribed left-wing groups, including Antifa, Hope Not Hate, Left Unity, Extinction Rebellion and Stop The Oil (sic)... UKIP has thus flung open its doors to fascist and neo-Nazis" https://www.ukip.org/national-executive-committee-update https://archive.today/ALtVT The unanimity in an executive committee with many members (https://archive.today/https://www.ukip.org/nec) is evidence that any moderating influences have exited the party or at least its higher rungs.

On the same day, UKIP welcomed back the founder of the far-right For Britain Movement, appointing her Justice Spokesman immediately. https://www.ukip.org/anne-marie-waters-announces-her-return-to-politics-ukip https://archive.today/mwcrn "Anne Marie Waters has returned to politics as UKIP’s justice spokeswoman in a move that campaigners say 'shows how extreme the party has become'. Ms Waters, formerly leader of the defunct far-right For Britain Movement, returning to UKIP shows how extreme the party has become since it has found itself more and more politically irrelevant. When Waters stood for UKIP leader in 2017 she was rejected for being too extreme, now they’ve welcomed her back with open arms." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-politics-election-waters-b2322607.html

In https://www.searchlightmagazine.com/2023/06/ukip-fallout-starts-after-nazi-ban-scrapped the article records an exodus away from UKIP, with the more reasonable and moderate members having left or being about to leave .. "there are probably more than a few members who will take exception to being lumped in with “like-minded” members of the BNP, EDL, NF or Britain First – openly fascist groups banned under the earlier policy which has now been abandoned."

This year appeared disturbing and inflammatory material from the party's two seniormost officers:

https://twitter.com/NeilUKIP/status/1638231499399897090 https://web.archive.org/web/20230323102647/https://twitter.com/NeilUKIP/status/1638231499399897090 where the Party Leader asserts that Sunak is a "snake" and "Theresa May with a sun-tan" (March 21, 2023), undeleted at present date.

In https://twitter.com/Searchlight_mag/status/1667905364514185220 the Party Chairman wrote "Migrants ... breed like rabbits" (11:29 PM May 25, 2023), also undeleted at present date.

https://twitter.com/Searchlight_mag/status/1667905367525695488 Official UKIP Berkshire, which appears to be the same as UKIP Thames Valley and UKIP South East, published "truly vile ... racist" white supremacist material (April 30, 2023), also undeleted at present date. The image used, which is shown in the tweet, carries the obvious implication that immigrants or refugees choose to come to the U.K. in order to rape attractive young white women.

Further analysis is at https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/how-ukip-came-crashing-down-to-earth "A day ahead of the announcement Steve Unwin, the party’s spokesman for home affairs, political reform and local government [also, member of the Ukip's five-strong Policy Team https://archive.today/HoGlX and seniormost Ukip officer in Ukip's South West region https://archive.today/NiVEB, but Ukip has since blocked public access to the list of "regional contacts"], retweeted a Ukip message saying there was “Big news coming tomorrow” and included the handle of National Housing Party UK. National Housing Party UK is a fringe organisation that shares extreme right-wing material on social media... At Ukip’s spring conference in Winchester this year, during a Q&A with [Deputy Ukip Leader Rebecca Jane, at present date the party's most prominent parliamentary by-election candidate], one delegate rose to speak. “It’s not a question, it’s just a statement,” she said. “I think I have an idea how we can stop these boats. Just simply announce that everyone crossing illegally will be shot. Actually shoot the bastards, that’s how.” The reaction was a mixture of applause and laughter. Jane responded: “For the sake of this being recorded, no comment.'" (June 2023) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEcaBlEUlMs (Conference on April 22, 2023) https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22UKIP+Spring+Conference%22&sp=EgIIBQ%253D%253D

https://www.ukip.org/national-executive-committee-update https://archive.today/ALtVT “This move is a swing to now exclude the “Extreme Left” as opposed to like-minded, free-thinking people of the right…” The unanimous NEC vote to establish this occurred on Saturday April 15, 2023, according to the link.

https://archive.today/0UTxa "I fancy a road trip to London. Take a couple of fire extinguishers with me. Specific reason: find some ‘Just Stop Oil’ protestors…. If you know what I mean… Who is coming with me?!" - Deputy Ukip Leader, October 29, 2022

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-politics-election-waters-b2322607.html "For Britain founder returns to UKIP after leaving to form breakaway Far-Right party. Anne Marie Waters has rejoined UKIP as the party’s justice spokeswoman"

https://nation.cymru/news/former-ukip-officers-accuse-party-of-grossly-exaggerating-membership-numbers "Former UKIP officers accuse party of ‘grossly exaggerating’ membership numbers" Insiders cited and in the Readers Comments section speculate active membership could be down to a hundred, which is consistent with their having entered only 48 candidates in the May 4, 2023 local elections throughout England. (March 27, 2023, before the move described above as welcoming in "neo-Nazis and fascist")

The New European claim is evidently based on https://twitter.com/SteveUnwin01/status/1648077832252170252 https://archive.today/0MwTf Mr Unwin, UKIP's Home Affairs, Political Reform & Local Government Spokesperson, South-West Regional Officer and National Policy Team member, tags in, on April 17 & 18, 2023 the far-right National Housing Party into UKIP's announcement it has lifted the ban on neo-Nazis, fascists etc. joining as members, and "welcomes applications from any individual to join the party as long as you aren't a 'Left Winger' nutter!"

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/could-the-election-herald-the-rise-of-the-small-party "Ukip trundles on, rumour has it on the back of bequests from little old ladies who drew up their wills when it was in its pomp a decade ago. Once in a while recordable support for it shows up in an opinion poll, more I suspect as an inchoate yell of pain from voters on the right than as an expression of any actual firm intention to vote for it. In actual elections it performs notably terribly for a party with high brand recognition."

https://www.searchlightmagazine.com/2023/04/searchlight-analysis-fascist-and-far-right-candidates-in-local-elections-may-2023/ provides further objective data (I ignore its subjective observations/conclusions, due to [NPOV]).

Subjectively, UKIP has for some months now been strongly associated in the public mind as a far-right movement, with very little disagreement, e.g., see https://twitter.com/NeilUKIP/status/1674349458056953856 https://archive.today/6gST2 While all the earlier points are objective, how the public subjectively views UKIP now may be assessed from this tweet on June 29, 2023 tweet by the UKIP Party Leader calling for the UK to "urgently withdraw from the undemocratic UN Refugee Convention, exit the European Convention of Human Rights and repeal the Human Rights Act." Of the 465 original replies (reported as 440 tweets and 25 quoting tweets) at present, fewer than 5% are neutral or approving. The rest associated UKIP and/or its leader with fascism and far-right ideology, or with graft, corruption, dishonesty and sleaze, or both.

I have searched extensively for any online material to contradict the above, but have been unsuccessful. There is much more online to support this proposal, including that UKIP's overtures for mergers or pacts have been ignored or rejected by parties considered centre-right to right-wing, most notably Reform and Reclaim, with online speculation this was to avoid "contamination". However, parties like For Britain, Patriotic Alternative and the National Housing Party, all classified as Far Right, were receptive.

This proposal is already too long for Talk, so it is up to other editors to research further should they find my arguments insufficiently convincing. I thus propose that UKIP's classification is changed to "Far Right", and would be keen to hear either supportive or reasoned opposing arguments. I will refrain from making the edit myself. Thomson-archiving (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam on this Talk. See Archives. UKIP doesn't even get close to actual far-right parties, such as National Rally or Golden Dawn. Instead, UKIP are a typical European right-wing populist party with a boring programme full of same slogans as we see with most European parties right of centre: sovereignty, patriotism, anti-immigration, free market. Contrary to most far-right parties, UKIP does not prominently push for persecution of ethnic minorities; does not appeal to a religious base; and does not actively oppose LGBT rights. Even though some of their more chauvinistic statements may be shocking or repulsive in the relatively toned, even dull British politics, UKIP compared to the rest of Europe are a far cry from far right. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I was fully aware of the history of this issue in Talk, which is why I provided many citations to evidence the sea change starting at the beginning of 2023. I note you have not addressed even one of them.

Once it became known (and then published - cited above) that UKIP's total true membership was 1,000 and active membership about 100, major changes occurred, arguably due to desperation. You do not address the radical reversal of UKIP policy that occurred in April 2023 (once again, URL above).

Certain things are opinions, and are, of course, subjective.

When the Deputy Leader calls for joining her in using fire extinguishers against peaceful protestors (referenced above), which could be expected to result in serious injuries or deaths, and instead of disciplinary sanctions against her she is made the party's most prominent political candidate (Uxbridge and South Ruislip, today), you may not interpret this as I do.

When at the most recent "Spring" Party Conference, the mooted treatment of refugees is "Actually shoot the bastards, that’s how" (video referenced above - note this is not a clandestinely obtained video, but is publicly viewable even today as published on the party's official youtube channel), and does not rebuke the person or distance herself from the sentiment (which met with laughter and applause, as cited before), the same leader jokes that she can't say more because the event is being recorded, again without sanction and indeed followed by a reward, you may see it as insignificant in determining the evolved nature of UKIP.

Could you tell me if any of the non-miniscule parties which you classify as "far right" have published or associated themselves with such violent sentiments from a leader, without subsequent retraction, apology or internal disciplinary consequences?

Also, the For Britain Movement, now closed and merged into UKIP, is classified on Wikipedia as Far Right. But it did not do any of the things you present as requirements of a Far Right party. From its Wikipedia page (cited above by me), the furthest that party went was to call for a ban on Muslim migration and its leader saying, when clandestinely recorded, that some group would need to be sent back (i.e., repatriated). There's a big difference between that and calling for the injuring, killing or shooting of preotestors or refugees. So why is For Britain Far Right, but not UKIP? [NPOV]

To clarify, until 2023 I would have agreed with the extant classification. And I do not think that the majority of UKIP's relatively few remaining members endorse, or are even aware of, its increasingly intolerant or extremist views, which may have to do with the demographics, including their average age and internet familiarity/use. Unanimity of rank-and-file members' views will never be found, except for the micro-parties.

I welcome the views of other editors too.

Thomson-archiving (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Do any of these say UKIP is far-right (read wp:or and wp:v), as (as I recall) for example Wlaters is no longer in UKIP. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, several of the articles cited do exactly that. None of this is my original research, but theirs.

And you are out-of-date about Waters. You have evidently not (fully?) read the extensive body of evidential material which I provided above. While she left UKIP in 2018, she was invited to speak at their October 2022 Conference, and in April 2023 was appointed UKIP's Justice Spokesperson. The link to the UKIP webpage with the announcement is above, as are the links to the articles in The Independent and Searchlight discussing this move to readmit Waters and its implications to the party's Far Right status.

All URLs already provided...... Thomson-archiving (talk) 10:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Then be so kind as to present one of the sources here (again), please (that say they are far-right), note it has to be an wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I realised that the sheer volume of the evidence may make it easier to overlook than otherwise. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=UKIP+%22Far+Right%22&biw=990&bih=915&tbm=nws provides ample material.

Specifically, and following the approximate ordering in the original proposal -

Neil Hamilton (politician)

https://www.searchlightmagazine.com/2023/06/ukip-throws-open-its-doors-to-fascists-and-neo-nazis

https://www.ukip.org/national-executive-committee-update (https://archive.today/ALtVT https://archive.today/https://www.ukip.org/nec)

For Britain Movement Anne Marie Waters

https://www.ukip.org/anne-marie-waters-announces-her-return-to-politics-ukip (https://archive.today/mwcrn)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-politics-election-waters-b2322607.html

https://www.searchlightmagazine.com/2023/06/ukip-fallout-starts-after-nazi-ban-scrapped

https://twitter.com/NeilUKIP/status/1638231499399897090 https://web.archive.org/web/20230323102647/https://twitter.com/NeilUKIP/status/1638231499399897090

https://twitter.com/Searchlight_mag/status/1667905364514185220

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/how-ukip-came-crashing-down-to-earth (https://archive.today/HoGlX https://archive.today/NiVEB https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22UKIP+Spring+Conference%22&sp=EgIIBQ%253D%253D https://twitter.com/SteveUnwin01/status/1648077832252170252 https://archive.today/0MwTf)

https://twitter.com/Searchlight_mag/status/1667905367525695488

https://www.ukip.org/national-executive-committee-update (https://archive.today/ALtVT)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-politics-election-waters-b2322607.html

https://archive.today/0UTxa

https://nation.cymru/news/former-ukip-officers-accuse-party-of-grossly-exaggerating-membership-numbers

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/could-the-election-herald-the-rise-of-the-small-party

https://www.searchlightmagazine.com/2023/04/searchlight-analysis-fascist-and-far-right-candidates-in-local-elections-may-2023

https://twitter.com/NeilUKIP/status/1674349458056953856 https://archive.today/6gST2

https://www.youtube.com/@ukipofficial

Archived URLs are provided only where the original has already been deleted or is considered, on the historical record, liable to be deleted.

Thomson-archiving (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I asked for one source not wp:linkspam, the fact that you are still just providing walls of links is not a good sign that any of those say "UKIP is far right". So provide ONE link that says they are. For example, the Indpetant's only use of Far-right is in relation to for Britain not UKIP. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Except that the very first external (i.e., non-Wikipedia) link just provided by me above was:

https://www.searchlightmagazine.com/2023/06/ukip-fallout-starts-after-nazi-ban-scrapped

Cite, in respect of a party already Wiki-classified as 'Right-wing to Far-Right': "The move is part of a further rightwards shift by a party desperately trying to avoid collapse"

What does "further rightwards" from what was previously 'Right-wing to Far-Right' connote? How explicit does one have to be?

The google link I provided above at 11:43 lists dozens of contemporaneous articles classifying or considering UKIP to be "Far Right".

Several lines lower appeared https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/how-ukip-came-crashing-down-to-earth

Cite: "Perhaps to aid any amalgamations, in April this year, the party updated its rule book. Previously it had banned any former members of the BNP, National Front, English Defence League and Britain First from joining the party. This exclusion of the far right had been an important tool in Farage’s defence that Ukip had “no truck with extremist organisations”. Now it proscribes “anyone who is or has previously been a member of Hope not Hate, Antifa, Communist League, Left Unity, Extinction Rebellion, Stop the Oil [sic]”. Walker described this change as “a swing to now exclude the ‘Extreme Left’ as opposed to like-minded, free-thinking people of the right”.

I accept that UKIP is taken by most experienced and respected editors interested in politics to now be irrelevant and too unimportant to justify or merit the long Wikicoverage it already has acquired. I do not share that view, if only because of historical significance, and in this very Talk opposed a downsizing of the article.

A consequence of the perceived unimportance is that such editors naturally allocate their time elsewhere. However, perhaps they will eventually notice this proposal, and have the time and evaluative skill to examine the evidence provided (rather than demonstrate ignorance of post-2018 developments by saying that Waters had quit the party, while part of the point was she is now at the heart of UKIP) and reach the appropriate conclusion. Or not.

Either way, I have no iron in this fire, whether it is UKIP or any other political movement that is concerned.

But, thanks for your time. Thomson-archiving (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We do not source anything to Twitter or "clandestine videos" and so I did not feel like discussing claims sourced entirely to social media. Your response exemplifies this very British concept of politics that I wrote about above: for you, emptying a fire extinguisher on a crowd "would be expected to result in serious injuries or deaths". Ever seen protests in France? How on earth would this sort of advice be indicative of a far-right political position, and not for instance of a far-left one or simply of being a thug? Also, was this an official party position or a personal view of one of party members?

I understand you might have personal reasons to dislike UKIP, but here we need to be WP:BALANCED in how we present legally operating entities. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Please, do not imply anything about my "personal motives", about which you have no knowledge, only speculation. Besides being insulting, it is against Wikipolicy. :)

You wrote "statements may be shocking or repulsive in the relatively toned, even dull British politics", used European parties as a benchmark, and then referred to "this very British concept of politics". Surely, a British (United Kingdom, rather, I do not disenfranchise Northern Ireland) political party is classified according to its peers, other UK political parties. I am certain that UKIP-2023 would not have registered as Far Right in the spectrum of late 1920s and 1930s German parties.

You wrote "We do not source anything to Twitter or "clandestine videos"" - precisely, nor do I. Are you misreading what was written (puzzled)? I reference the official UKIP video feed at https://www.youtube.com/@ukipofficial

When "one of its members" happens to be the present Party Leader, Chairman or Deputy Leader, and there is evident approval and absence of adverse consequences, that carries rather more weight than were it merely a rank-and-file member. Thomson-archiving (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This article tries to describe a political party and its programme, not the personal views of its leaders. If we start quoting tweets of party leaders, then we'll end up with having to brand the US Conservative Party as far right, e.g. because its erstwhile leader spoke against immigration. Alternatively, as far left because he tweeted against corporations.

The infobox parameter is: "political position". It's about where the party positions itself on the vaguely defined political spectrum. It's a fairly complex matter, and UKIP for instance has also adopted positions typical to a left-leaning party – e.g., calls to scrap the unelected (privileged) House of Lords, to carry out a voting reform (introduce proportional representation) or to reduce financial burdens on the population (abolishing the TV licence fee).

As I wrote – I see no reason whatsoever to call UKIP a far-right party, and neither do reliable sources (excluding sources affiliated with political competitors). — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I accepted from the onset that a degree of subjectivity is inevitable in such a sphere of classification.

Thank you for your views. Thomson-archiving (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"Far right parties humiliated in by elections" (21 July 2023) affords pride of place among Far Right parties to UKIP - https://www.searchlightmagazine.com/2023/07/far-right-parties-humiliated-in-by-elections/ While UKIP's lead candidate managed to finish only 14th, the micro-party's history and the level of brand recognition makes it arguably the most prominent of all the UK's Far Right parties, and presumably wanted to advertise this having "recently lifted its ban on fascists and nazis joining the party."

That is more like it. But as it is one source we can't say it in our voice. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and I do appreciate that infobox material is in "our voice", as distinct from supplied citations within the body text of an article, which, definitionally, are speaking in someone else's voice (and providing their objective or other opinion). The membership count in the infobox does, in any event, need a revisit, and probably Ralbegen, a veteran of this wikipage, is best-placed to do it. Thomson-archiving (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Until autumn 2011 Searchlight worked [...] to help bring about the defeat of almost all the British National Party’s local councillors.[2] Because of their political agenda (they term right-wing parties as "opponents"), and given they are not an academic publisher, I don't support any use of this magazine as a credible source on the classification of any UK political party. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit of a shame that Searchlight are the only outlet to have covered these recent developments with Ukip in much detail. If there's coverage from academic or more media sources that explicitly labels the party as far-right now, I think it'd be something definitely worth revisiting—but as ever, starting from the body of the article and not being led from the infobox! Ralbegen (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping you might appear, as the other two lack familiarity with the subject (I provide evidence of this in my reply to kashmiri of 14:47), while you, from your wikihistory, definitely do know your stuff about UKIP.

Yes, it is a shame, but surely not a surprise that the media ignores UKIP, which to those of us familiar with its trajectory now meets the Far Right criteria.

It is quite natural they don't bother to cover UKIP at all since it is electorally non-existent, which is not Wikipedia's criteria as it looks to the party's considerable historical significance as well.

In the 2023 local elections, its 48 candidates secured a total of only 6,294 votes in 48 wards and 50 contests, coming last in 88% of them. In the other six, it came 5th in one, 6th in two (in one of these two, second last), 8th in a third and 10th in two of them. Only approximately 0.04% of the estimated total votes cast (in 1-, 2- and 3- Councillor wards) on 4 May 2023 were cast for a UKIP candidate. Of the approximately 8,560 local election seats contested on that date, UKIP found candidates for only 0.58% of them. No UKIP councillors at all were elected and all earlier UKIP councillors, ignoring town/parish ones, either lost their seats, failed to defend them or had already lost them in earlier elections, or already defected or resigned. As a result, UKIP has no such councillors any more, anywhere.

Moving on to the 16 parliamentary by-elections since the 2019 General Election, UKIP failed to field candidates in six of them. In the ten it did contest, it lost its deposit in every one of them. It got 2.5% in the by-electon boycotted by all the major parties (Southend West, 3 February 2022, vacancy arising due to the murder of the incumbent Conservative MP). In the other nine, UKIP averaged 0.55%, a tenth of what is needed to retain the deposit.

In the most recent of these, the 2023 Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election four days ago, in a constituency where UKIP managed to get 6,348 votes when standing in a crowded field against Boris Johnson several elections ago, the UKIP candidate got only 61 votes (0.197%) in a 46.3% turnout (i.e., high) by-election, a hundred-fold reduction in number.

Is it any surprise that almost no one bothers to cover UKIP, and so it Wiki won't amend its classification because there's only fringe coverage that explicitly uses the term "Far Right"? I have cited mainstream, broadly neutral, sites, which have, but only by implication without employing that exact phrase as at least kashmiri seems to believe is Wiki-mandated. Further, in a party which makes many declarations only on its official Twitter channel, claiming to cite such is invalid is, well, just nonsense!

However, Ralbegen, you do raise an important point. Perhaps you have both the admin rights and the inclination to edit the main body of article text to include the electoral and political-spectrum material provided, while leaving the infobox intact?

Also, please, consider amending the way outdated infobox claim of 3,000 members, while the (AFAIK) unchallenged estimate in the Nation.Cymru press expose (again, cited above, March 27, 2023) puts the number at 1,000 as at January 2023 (after which the penultimate resigner from the UKIP Executive Committee spilled the beans) including sleepers and automatic renewals. Active national membership is speculated therein as being fewer than 100, which is consistent with recent campaigning efforts, annual conferences' attendance and the party's ability to find candidates even where there is no location bar. Thomson-archiving (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The claim that UKIP recently lifted its ban on fascists and nazis joining the party, as well as branding any living person as a "fascist" or "Nazi", needs to be extremely well sourced; certainly not to a mud-slinging website aligned with political opponents. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that this particular source (SL) is not neutral. In my original post in this Talk thread, I had stated this "(I ignore its subjective observations/conclusions, due to [NPOV])".

However, in the article referenced I observe there are two images, in the top corner of each appears an archival link to versions of the UKIP's official "Join UKIP" membership webpage, documenting the change in membership criteria. Since former members of the British National Party, the National Front, etc are classified elsewhere within Wikipedia as meeting the criteria for inclusion as fascists, etc., and UKIP has lifted the ban on their joining it, I think your implication that the article is false is getting a little tenuous, maybe?

Please see my reply to Ralbegen, who unlike the two of you is very familiar with the subject of the article. On what do I base this? Wikihistories. But also Slatersteven suggesting I was out of date in referencing Anne Marie Waters, while the fact, proof both above and in her Wikipedia page edited by others, is that she rejoined UKIP in October 2022, was immediately made Justice Spokesperson and, in the following month, the official UKIP parliamentary candidate for Hartlepool. In your own case, statements above suggesting no political party in the UK met YOUR criteria for being Far Right, "UKIP are a typical European right-wing populist party with a boring programme full of same slogans as we see with most European parties right of centre", "dull British politics", etc. Does this meet objectivity criteria? kashmiri, IMO you are, with respect, rather more judgemental, opinionated and subjective than I am. :-) Thomson-archiving (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Labels are always subjective, that's why we try our best to identify reliable sources; and best reliable sources in politics are ones that are not politically aligned – which is mostly academic publications.

What you, however, want Wikipedia to do is to change subject descriptors based on: the syllogism: "person X known for views Y has joined the party Z, therefore entire party Z holds views Y"; top-right corner of a photograph; and a niche website whose sole purpose of existence is to attack the right side of the political spectrum.

It doesn't work this way.

As I wrote - I understand if someone could run a personal crusade against UKIP, but when looking at the official UKIP agenda, it looks nothing like, say, that of the Patriotic Alternative. To put it straight: UKIP agenda contains not a single item characteristic of the political far right. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly removed "right-wing" from the infobox before I checked the talk and now notice this discussion. The lone existing source is far too flimsy to establish that this is a defining trait, especially in contrast to the many sources which describe it as far right. The source specifically mentions Farage's "xenophobic manifesto" in the same a paragraph where it mentions that UKIP is "right-wing", but that paragraph is provided as context for the interview with Farage that follows, and is not presented as stand-alone commentary on UKIP. So in context, the source is both too flimsy for this point, and indirectly supports "far right" in addition to directly supporting "right-wing". Any attempt to present this as a spectrum must use sources which also present it as a spectrum. Alternately, sources must disagree with "far-right" in some way that can be summarized. It is WP:OR to claim that right-wing and far right are mutually exclusive. If "right-wing" is restored, it should be supported with more substantial sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Czello: Hello. Regarding this edit, per above please find better sources for this. Grayfell (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Aside from the existing source: There's not really a shortage of them; ultimately I think as there's a mix of sources that describe them either as right-wing or far-right, the status quo labelling is best to go with. — Czello ^(music) 12:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sensible. The trend for several years, though, as evidenced by the mass of citations above, is clearly towards "Far-Right". Now that experienced editors knowledgeable about this topic are contributing, rather than ones who are out of date (e.g., re the returned status of Anne Marie Waters above), it is best left to them. Thank you. Thomson-archiving (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

References

So the lead sections sure do contain a lot of unsourced / unhinged claims

Who on earth is overseeing the editing of these pages, they're flat out untrue, unsourced, and actively incendiary. Statements that UKIP made breakthroughs in the general election because the white working class were concerned about immigration is incorrect on at least 4 counts, but people reading this page will think that the UK electorate (or certain races anyway) support Farage's policies on immigration. Which has literally caused race riots in the UK.

How do we have such a vast wall of text about a controversial topic without a single source, surely this is against policy?

By way of example, it's minority opinion at best to suggest, never mind flat out state, that UKIP "capitalised on concerns about rising immigration, in particular among the white British working class." A tiny minority of Britain have these concerns, hence why a tiny minority voted for UKIP, and this should not have been allowed to pass unchecked without a source.

Next sentence - "This resulted in significant breakthroughs at the 2013 local elections, 2014 European parliamentary elections, and 2015 general election" - again, they did not and have never won a single seat in any local or general elections. This is, quite explicitly, not a breakthrough.

And I haven't even read the rest of the page. Is Wikipedia really ok with allowing, and edit protectinh, sweeping unfounded racial statements about elections? Moubliezpas (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Evertyhing in the lede is sourced in the body (per wp:lede). Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No, no it isn't 145.40.156.147 (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

OK "Lynch, Philip; Whitaker, Richard; Loomes, Gemma (2012). "The UK Independence Party: Understanding a Niche Party's Strategy, Candidates and Supporters". Parliamentary Affairs. 65 (" \"Goodwin, Matthew; Milazzo, Caitlin (2015). UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics.", that is two to start with. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're claiming. UKIP have never won a single seat in a domestic election and that won't change because people keep writing that they have. Moubliezpas (talk) 09:54, 13 ugust 2024 (UTC)

I am saying the sources are inn the body, I just gave an example of one. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)