Talk:UK Independence Party/Archive 20

Source on ukip having an London Assembly member
Where is the source? Last I heard all ukip london assembly members defected months ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshoii (talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There was some confusion about Kurten, who joined a group with another name but remained in UKIP. However, he has since left, best I can tell. See the discussion at Talk:2020_London_Assembly_election. Bondegezou (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep he is still in ukip, he appeared at the conference for ukip today — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshoii (talk • contribs) 11:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Source?Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Talk:2020_London_Assembly_election concluded that he remains a member of UKIP, with sourcing found. Bondegezou (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I propose to merge Leader of UKIP into UKIP. I think that the content in the Leadership article can easily be explained in the context of UKIP, there is very little significant other information on the Leader article and there is already a good enough table that shows the former UKIP leaders in the main UKIP article, do we really need another one? Theprussian (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Jeremy Corbyn security risk.jpg

Source for David Kurten leaving UKIP
Does anyone have a source for David Kurten UKIP, so far the only source is Breitbart - and I am not citing that garbage as a source in this article. Theprussian (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The most recent discussion we had was at Talk:2020_London_Assembly_election and we concluded that it's complicated, but, no, he hasn't left. Bondegezou (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This conversation is 6 months out of date unfortunatley, as I found a semi-decent source now describing him as a "former UKIP politician". He has left to run for the London Assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theprussian (talk • contribs) 15:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the source?Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, this is reliable and has him as ex-UKIP. His own website also now says he "will be standing in the London Mayor and Assembly list elections on 7th May 2020 as an Independent candidate." Bondegezou (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

"Anti-Islam" in the ideology section of the infobox
On 17 June 2019, the account Martopa added "Anti-islam" to the ideology section of the infobox on the UKIP article. They cited this French source: https://www.lepoint.fr/politique/royaume-uni-victoire-par-k-o-pour-farage-et-son-brexit-27-05-2019-2315175_20.php

The source describes UKIP as "openly anti-Muslim", and this seems to be the basis upon which Martopa added "Anti-islam" to the infobox.

Martopa made this edit without any edit comments.

On 15 August 2019, I removed "Anti-islam" from the article and commented: "Removed "Anti-Islam" from the "Ideology" section of the infobox. The source cited did not even support it, and UKIP does not have any anti-Islam policies. Batten as leader associated with anti-Islam activist Robinson, but 47% of UKIP members voted for candidates that opposed this in the recent leadership election, so unfair to label the entire party "Anti-Islam"."

I mistakenly said "the source cited did not even support it", however, despite the source referring to UKIP as "openly anti-Muslim", there is still plenty of reason not to have "anti-Islam" under UKIP's Ideology in the infobox.

On 12 September, Martopa returned to the article and added "anti-Islam" to the ideology section of the infobox, citing the same source.

I undid the edit, and used the same edit comment I wrote on 15 August to justify the undo by copying/pasting.

Soon afterwards, Martopa undid the undo, commenting: "It is explicitly said near the bottom of the article : "ouvertement antimusulman" which means "openly anti-Muslim" in English".

I reverted this back to my edit, commenting "That source does not at all justify putting "anti-Islam" as UKIP's ideology. A quick description of UKIP in one article as "anti-Muslim" doesn't cut it. Details of Batten's far-right direction/associations are clearly mentioned and prominent in the article already. UKIP as a party is not necessarily anti-Islam."

The account Snowded then reverted the article back to Martopa's edit, saying "You are edit warring - make the case on the talk page".

"Anti-Islam" does not belong in the ideology section of the infobox as it is disputed whether UKIP is an anti-Islam party, just as how "Libertarianism" does not belong in this section of the article. In fact, there is a note in the infobox telling users not to add "Libertarianism".

A short description of UKIP as "anti-Muslim" in an article doesn't justify adding anything to the infobox - especially when it is disputed.

Batten's association with the far-right is clearly documented and prominent in the article. Perhaps the source could be used elsewhere in the article? PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it best that we hold off from including "anti-Islam" in the infobox until such a time as there clearly are a number of Reliable Sources (ideally academic studies by political scientists and the like, not just free web sources) that support this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is almost as much a joke as the media. Tommy Robinson is NOT FAR RIGHT and doesnt say anything that is far right. opposing radical militant muslims or islam isnt far right its a human right. Robinson was employed by UKIP that's a complete lie and the media knows it. This country is full of sheep willing to listen to this rubbish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.74.247 (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have RS supporting any of this please provide them?Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Any rigourous definition of 'far-right' from any serious political scientists undoubtedly fits 'Tommy Robinson' and his ideology. Also for what it's worth, the Wahhabist and Salafist extremists you mention are also far-right. Devgirl (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020
Ukip aint far right 81.150.129.201 (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done - please provide a reliable source under WP:RS and describe what you want to be changed, i.e. change x to y Ed6767 (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2020
Please delete the following sentence in the introduction:

"The pressure UKIP exerted on the government was the main reason for the 2016 referendum which led to the UK's commitment to withdraw from the European Union"

This sentence is pure conjecture, rhetorical self-promotion and, as such, seriously misleading. There is no evidence that UKIP's activities were the "main reason" for the 2016 EU referendum, given there were other very significant factors at the time including the activities and parliamentary rebellions of Conservative MPs in coalition government, as well as the launch of a major cross-party campaign for an EU referendum called the 'People's Pledge'. Indeed, UKIP's main pressure point was always to try to prevent a Conservative government unless the party's leader backed leaving the EU, which flopped in 2010. In fact, UKIP's popular support in general elections only advanced by 1.6% of the vote between the 2001 and 2010 general elections. There is therefore no plausible justification for the claim that UKIP was the "main reason" that the EU referendum happened.

Thank you, 88.106.68.226 (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I've amended 'was the main reason for' to 'contributed to', as there's certainly text in the article that backs up this summary. Darren-M   talk  12:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Influence on conservative party policy
Is this a significant part of the article to have in the lede?Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is completely unsourced, and frankly WP:OR. While I've heard this bit of speculation in the past, I don't believe it's ever been confirmed (in fact, David Cameron's autobiography explicitly contradicts it). I don't believe it should be at any place in the article unless there is a clear reliable source backing it up. —  Czello  13:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So, and I want to get this quite clear, its not sourced in the body?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing the other user just reverted you on: The pressure UKIP exerted on the government contributed to the 2016 referendum which led to the UK's commitment to withdraw from the European Union. I assume that's what this thread is about? Unless I have the wrong end of the stick here. —  Czello  13:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that, I am asking where is the source for this in the article, anywhere?Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, my mistake -- I misread what you wrote. As far as I can see there is no source at all, which is why I removed it. —  Czello  13:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2020
Due to moving of HQ (cost reasons), a new, improved national website, and leadership changes yesterday (12th Sept.), please can the following changes be put in place ASAP?

1. Leadership Team as per UKIP_Frontbench_Team and https://www.ukip.org/leadership, specifics below:
 * Neil Hamilton is Interim Leader
 * Pat Mountain is no longer Deputy Leader
 * Pete Muswell is no longer Deputy Chairman
 * Tom Harrison is General Secretary
 * Donald Mackay is Party Secretary
 * Ian Garbutt is Party Treasurer

2. Address --> "Henleaze Business Centre, 13 Harbury Road, Henleaze, Bristol, BS9 4PN" as per footer on any page on the new site

Many thanks, Spon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.213.231 (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Does the party still have any elected members of local government?
I've had a look on the website sourced for the current claim for its number of elected members of local government and as far as I can find it seems as of October 2020 they no longer have any councillors. When using Open Council Data UK and searching under UK Independence Party the message appears 'No councillors found for this party. If you know otherwise, email using the link above' - seen here - http://www.opencouncildata.co.uk/councillors.php?p=353&y=0

Do we have any evidence as of October 2020 that the party still has 28 (or any) elected members of local government? Helper201 (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * PP84 is UKIP in Northern Ireland. PP85 is the GB version, with 21 councillors according to OCD, here. Ralbegen (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * are we in agreement to reduce the number in the infobox from 28 to 21 in that case? Helper201 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine by me! Ralbegen (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Leadership mess
In the hope of preventing edit wars the leadership is in a complete mess.

It was (somewhat) reported at the weekend that Freddy Vachha had been removed as leader and suspended from the party with Neil Hamilton taking over. There were also some other changes to posts such as the deputy leadership but a lot has to be divined from Twitter and the party website.

Today Vachha has issued a statement disputing the validity of his removal and also declaring that Ben Walker has not been the party chairman since 29 August (stating that his nomination of Marietta King was accepted then) but has control of the party's online presence: https://twitter.com/FreddyVachha/status/1305409374156992513

There are also conflicting reports flying about as to whether Pat Mountain has been replaced as deputy leader by Helena Windsor and just when this happened if it did. Mountain was removed without replacement from the leadership page on the party website at the weekend: https://www.ukip.org/leadership

To add to the mess it looks like the paperwork for registering Vachha as the new leader with the Electoral Commission was never processed and both Ukip's registrations (on the GB & NI registers) still list Mountain as the registered leader: http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP85 http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP84

Ukip internal matter don't get a great deal of coverage these days so we at the moment have the mess of two rival factions each declaring they are the rightful leader & chairman (and even a few on Twitter arguing that Richard Braine is still the rightful leader) without a great deal of assessment. Nation Cymru seems to be the main newssite paying attention (perhaps because Hamilton is an MS): https://nation.cymru/news/new-ukip-head-neil-hamilton-faces-tussle-as-deposed-leader-claims-he-still-has-the-top-job/

Can we please try to keep all the articles and templates consistent and not let them become edit wars or rewritten every time a new source comes along that is in accord with one side's version of events? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Well said, and thanks for the explanation. That there is a disputed leadership is beyond question. Perhaps we need to remove all the (possibly inaccurate) details of leaders, deputies, interim leaders etc and replace it with a paragraph simply saying that, currently, there is a dispute betewwen rival factions. No detail needed. Emeraude (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Mostly agree with Emeraude; this seems like the most neutral presentation. It might seem like an odd comparison, but when the band Gorgoroth split into two factions -- each claiming ownership of the name and legitimacy -- the article simply presented the controversy and mentioned it had disputed leadership. Something similar is appropriate here, as it's not for us to decide who the leader is. Where I disagree, however, is that I think we should at least mention the names of Vachha and Hamilton both claiming legitimacy in the body of the article. — Czello 17:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I wasn't suggesting we shouldn't mention the names (that would be silly!), just the detail of the faction fighting and argyments. Emeraude (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, just making sure! — Czello 21:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

RICHARD BRAINE AND THREE OTHERS: Why is there no mention that the two NEC High Court actions against the three failed with over £50k in Costs awarede to them collectively? The first Judgement on 18th December held that the procedure adopted of an Ex Parte Injunction was an abuse of the Court procedure, that there was no proof of any connection of an anonymous email with Braine et al but that it was clearly circulated by Hamilton,  who himself described it as a 'spoof' in his Witness Statement, also that there was no proof whatsoever  of Braine et al had made an intrusion of  the UKIP data base as alleged. The second hearing in June described the UKIP NEC allegations as 'fanciful' and the Application was 'Struck Out'. 79.71.164.106 (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Leader & chairman no longer disputed
A statement issued to members by the party confirm that Freddy Vachha has dropped his legal challenge to be reinstated as leader, thus the leadership and chairmanship of the party is no longer disputed: http://mailchi.mp/ukip.org/fvstatement-141190

Can someone please edit the wiki entry accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exdee42 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * When RS confirm this sure.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Would this notice of discontinuance be enough? Claim number can be cross-checked FV NotOfDisc.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exdee42 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Given I see nothing in this about his legal challenge to be reinstated as leader no as it would fail wp:v, Again why have RS not reported this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because very few pay attention to Ukip's internal affairs these days. Only a new leader seems to get any coverage. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This was the legal challenge to be reinstated as leader. His claim failed in the first instance and then the case was discontinued. Full legal citation is Vachha v Hamilton [2020] 12 WLUK 14. There are currently no active legal challenges against the party or any of its officials. Exdee42 13:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2021
There is a broken link at the end of the page which should be removed. There is no longer an MEP's website. Gillibrands (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Czello 17:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021
Add National Liberalism to their "ideology" since the party has self-described itself as "classical liberal" or "libertarian" in the past AWorldThatNeverExisted (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * We'd need substantial reliable sources that describe them as this. It would also have to be a description that defines the whole party, rather than just a couple of individuals. — Czello 08:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2021
Inset this into sources / further reading:

Dennison, James; Goodwin, Matthew (2015). "Immigration, Issue Ownership and the Rise of UKIP". Parliamentary Affairs. 68: 168–187. doi:10.1093/pa/gsv034. Dennison, James, (2018), 'The rug pulled from under them: UKIP and the Greens in 2017' in Parliamentary Affairs 71 (1), p.104.] 79.108.113.74 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you wish to use it as a source for?Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. Not necessary. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request: Membership Figures Update
The membership figures listed in this article are quite out of date, currently showing 26,447 in 2019. UKIP have periodically published membership number updates in their NEC meeting minutes. The latest set of figures is from the meeting of 09/01/21, and is recorded as "just below 4000".

Can the membership figure in the article be updated with this more accurate information? Even though its a primary source, I believe it meets the standard for using such a source as it would be taking a specific fact from the source.

SpadeParcelSmith (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Easily done. The latest UKIP return to the Electoral Commission says on page 5: "Party membership as at 31 December 2020 was 3,888 (2019:15,674)." That seems to be "just below 4000". Of course, UKIP's return to the EC is also a primary source - the Commission merely publishes the return it has been given. Use that if you like. Emeraude (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I've updated in the infobox. Emeraude (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Emeraude, I'm unable to edit due to being a new account and the article is protected. You added an extra 8 to the infobox. SpadeParcelSmith (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oops! Emeraude (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request: Vacant and non important roles, registered address
Do we need the info box to display "Deputy Leader" and "Deputy Chairman" when these roles are vacant (and likely not about to be filled)?

Also, the info box shows "General Secretary". Who is this person, does this persons name and position need to be here? I'd argue the only person of any relevance in 2021 is the current leader and founder for historical use.

I also note a new address for the party, see the website: Henleaze Business Centre, 13 Harbury Road, Henleaze, Bristol, BS9 4PN From Jack. 14:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ thanks. However I've left the General Sec there as I think it's normally appropriate to include them, though I'll see if other users feel he should be removed. — Czello 15:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Relevance today (August 2021)
According to (i.e., as captured on August 1, 2021) UKIP now has as elected representatives (only) 13 local councillors. Per it has no MPs, no members of the Lords and no members of regional assemblies or parliaments (e.g., London Assembly, Holyrood, Senedd). Posted 19:21, 1 August 2021‎ by User:Albin-Counter User talk:Albin-Counter


 * Your point being...? Emeraude (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as RS see it as relevant (though god knows why) so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We also have articles on The Whigs and the Republican Fascist Party which have even less representation. Emeraude (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A good point, I assumed he wanted to say something along these lines, not go for AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your assumption above is accurate; I thought this didn't require elucidation. Explicitly - I agree with both of you that AFD or major trimming would be wholly inappropriate. Per the earlier-referenced opencouncildata.co.uk, for some months UKIP's councillor count nationwide has further fallen from 13 to 9, and per the Wikipage listing political parties in the UK, there are now more than 40 Parties in the UK with more publicly elected representatives than UKIP. Posted 22:02, 5 February 2022 by User:Albin-Counter User talk:Albin-Counter
 * So what is your point? Is there a course of action you would like to see? --SVTCobra 22:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Logo change
Please could somebody, with reference to ukip.org/dd-logo and ukip.org/dd-colours-and-fonts update the logo and the reference to yellow (now gold)? Thanks in advance… 178.197.216.188 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Benjamin L Walker (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Benjamin L Walker: ✅! GoingBatty (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)