Response to Guardian article 'So Ukip have lost their policy chief? No problem, I’ll write the manifesto' by John Crace

Link to original article: So UKIP have lost their policy chief? No problem, I'll write the manifesto'

Okay then Mr Crace, or should I say Crazy judging by this utter bilge you have written... I will answer your article (if you can call it that).

Tim Aker was (up until a couple of months ago) writing UKIP's 2015 manifesto, added to that the responsibilities of being a Member of the European Parliament (MEP).
He was then elected by the members of Thurrock to be UKIP's Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the up-coming 2015 General Election.
Then UKIP's lovely Councillor Maggie O'Keefe-Ray died. Tim Aker was very close to Maggie and decided to, in her honour, stand for election to replace her.
So he was MEP, PPC, Councillor and writing the manifesto.
Obviously he had to much to do, and decided the best thing to do was hand over the finishing of the manifesto to Suzanne Evans so he could devote more time to his other duties.
This was the sensible thing to do, rather than taking on way too much.

As for the rest of your article I shall bite.
"In 2010 Ukip laid out its policies in a 486-page manifesto compiled by a few delinquent party activists."

No actually it was put together (poorly) by the previous Party leader Lord Pearson of Rannoch with 'Think Tank' research and hurriedly assembled research.
It was, as Nigel Farage said, "garbage", I became a UKIP supporter for the record in early 2012, when the 2010 manifesto had been disowned. I actually listened to what people are the party were saying, what they were aiming for and wanted and what was happening.

No, I didn't pay any notice to what the establishment media were saying about UKIP members, because previously as a supporter of the Liberal Democrats. I knew how the media liked to turn a blind eye at some parties members, and pour scorn on other parties members.
Take the week before last for instance. A Conservative Party Councillor in Hampshire referred to members of his constituency as "n***ers" in a full council meeting, he is until this moment still a councilor, and still a member of the Conservative Party.
This story gained minimal coverage by the media.
Meanwhile, a UKIP councilor had been removed from her position and had her membership taken away, for reasons unexplained other than she had said something in a radio interview that was unacceptable.
This UKIP story gained widespread media attention completely out of context with the other Conservative Party story.
A week later her comments were revealed which opened UKIP up to another barrage of smears. Regardless of the fact that they had taken swift and a zero tolerance attitude to what was simply unacceptable.

The 2010 manifesto policies do not matter, so their is no reason to review them, the manifesto was as Nigel Farage "torn up, and not fit for purpose".
"Ukip insists the manifesto is still fully on track; if so, Aker is the only person who knows what is in it, and is keeping it a secret. No one else in the party apparently has a clue."
Really? Well a sample of some of the policies in the 2015 Manifesto have been available on the UKIP.org website now for 3 months... http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
As for full manifestos.

It really does amaze me when people say "well UKIP haven't even got a manifesto for 2015 out yet", fully well knowing that no party in the UK has released theirs yet!
It is none of your business what is in the entire manifesto until UKIP are ready to release it, that much is to be expected of the media with regards all of the political parties. So stop acting like you can judge or have a divine right to know its contents!

"With two sitting MPs and more hoped for in May, it is proving a great deal harder than expected for Ukip to come up with something credible, fully costed and which everyone can support."
How the Hell do you know?! You haven't seen the manifesto.
For goodness sakes, UKIP are the party, who have so far managed to show where they'd cut money. They are the only party to come up with answers. But you completely ignore this fact and let your establishment bias get in your way.

"Douglas Carswell, Mark Reckless and Farage find it hard enough to agree on anything as it is: coming up with something that will appeal both to the neolibertarians and the former BNP members who make up its grassroots is a near impossibility."
...and here it comes. The accusation that UKIP are trying to appeal to former BNP members and supporters.
NEWSFLASH to the author. The Labour Party are the only party to have benefited from BNP defections.
Look up Trevor Maxfield.
But of course, everyone who is a former BNP supporter is a lost cause! Abandon them now! They are not worth the oxygen in their lungs are they?! Pathetic!
Surely it is better to offer former members of the Far Right a sensible, common sense and moderate choice on Mass Immigration as opposed to the disgusting policies that the BNP put forward such as paying people to leave the country and removing British Citizenship from people based on their heritage and skin colour.
These are policies that I would never back. Yet people like the author try and attach them to UKIP like some kind of cheap, tacky and nasty joke/smear.

The obvious point is that UKIP are a Libertarian party (as much as I am sure the author would fiercely deny it). He has all but proved it by highlighting how UKIP have a range of different policies and opinions.
Farage himself said, "their shouldn't be a left and right in politics, only a right and wrong". That is what UKIP are.
They are a party who try to come up with sensible common sense policies that will appeal to people allover the country. Not just the London-centric areas, south coast/south west, east coast and northern areas.
We want to get it right for everyone. Give everyone a second choice.

"So here’s my modest proposal.
Europe
Get out of it and stay in it. All international trade deals with EU countries will continue on exactly the same terms as if we were in the EU except we won’t be in it."
For a start, stop trying to fool people UKIP want the UK out of "Europe" (continental and island mass of 50+ nations), because we don't. We want out of the EU (political Union of 27 nations in which you have to pay a high membership fee per day to remain in).
UKIP have already said they want to continue trading with the EU. UKIP also want to reconnect properly with the Commonwealth, something you have completely missed out which is rather surprising considering it is something that UKIP have been constant on for a great many years.
UKIP also want to improve trade deals with the likes of America (away from PFI) and the likes of China. They also want to create new trade deals with the emerging powers/nations of the world. Be it the likes of India.
We also want to help poverty stricken countries build up renewable trade deals to help dig themselves out of the mires they find themselves in. Instead of just lobbing them money yearly and inviting them to sort it out themselves.
Surely it is better to give countries the tools to rebuild rather than the money for the tools, which in many instances gets redirected to more selfish means.
"Immigration
The inbound section of the Channel tunnel to the UK will be closed, apart from on Sundays so that British expats can return from Spain. This will reduce net immigration levels to about 12."
The above segment on "immigration" is so daft it is not worth replying to.
In reality UKIP have spoken of having a Global migration system that will have around 50,000 net come here, based on skills, good health and intention.
The borders will be properly managed (which they are not at the moment) which will cut down on people trafficking and the child sex trade which should be worrying more people than it currently is.
UKIP immigration spokesperson Steven Woolfe has already explained UKIP's initial immigration policy.
It would not be region/nation, ethnic background, religious background or sex biased.
In fact a person from the middle-east or Africa who is a skilled trained worker, would be put on a higher footing than an unskilled worker from Europe.
Again this is just common sense.
We have somewhere in the region of 2 million unemployed at present. Many or most of which are unskilled workers. Surely they should be afforded the chance for work. By prioritising skilled workers as outlined it would give the unskilled people of the UK a chance to find work.
Then if we have a lacking of jobs still, we could allow more people in on Visas to do that work, and then if they decide they want to stay long-term they can apply properly, instead of just disappearing into the country.
The written policies released so far are:
– UKIP recognises the benefits of limited, controlled immigration.
– UKIP will leave the EU, and take back control of our borders. Work permits will be permitted to fill skills gaps in the UK jobs market.
– We will extend to EU citizens the existing points-based system for time-limited work permits. Those coming to work in the UK must have a job to go to, must speak English, must have accommodation agreed prior to their arrival, and must have NHS-approved health insurance.
– Migrants will only be eligible for benefits (in work or out of work)  when they have been paying tax and NI for five years and will only be eligible for permanent residence after ten years.
– UKIP will reinstate the primary purpose rule for bringing foreign spouses and children to the UK. 
– UKIP will not offer an amnesty for illegal immigrants or those gaining British passports through fraud.
– UKIP will return to the principles of the UN Convention of Refugees which serves to protect the most vulnerable. 

"Tax
Excise duty on booze and fags will be abolished. We’re not sure about any of the other taxes because we don’t really understand them. Sorry. But Ukip believes it is better to tell the truth about this than lie to the electorate."
Again. UKIP have revealed some of their tax policies in 'Policies For People' and the author has deliberately ignored them.
- Increased personal allowance to the level of full-time minimum wage earnings (approx. £13,500 by next election).
- Abolish inheritance tax.
- The introduction of a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
- Setting up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax to ensure big businesses pay a minimum rate of tax as a proportion of their UK turnover.

"Foreigners
Any foreigners who are already in the country with a UK passport can stay here providing they do all the low-paid jobs that any self-respecting True Brit wouldn’t get out of bed for."
Pathetic from the Guardian journo. "Foreigners"...

Anyone who is in the country legally shall remain, regardless of treaty being signed with the EU or not.

Nobody in the UK legally shall be deported.

Anybody in the country illegally will be evaluated should they apply or hand themselves in.
Hell, Steven Woolfe has spoken about the immigration policy so frequently, I can only presume that the author is intentionally trying to mislead people.
Watch:

"Health
The NHS will remain free at the point of access providing everyone has paid enough into a new health insurance scheme. Every patient will have the right to choose the skin colour of their doctor."
The implication of ethnic bias is pathetic. Even for the Guardian.
UKIP's National Health policy has been detailed and spoken about in detail since it was announced at the Doncaster Conference last year...
- NHS shall remain free at the point of delivery at time of need for ALL UK residents.
- UKIP would stop further use of PFI which has been used to readily by the Labour Party (insurance based privatisation), and encourage local authorities to buy out their PFI contracts early where this is affordable.
- UKIP would ensure GP's surgeries are open at least one evening per week, where there is demand for it.
- UKIP opposes plans to charge patients for visiting their GP's (as proposed by a Labour Party peer and a Labour Party Lord).
- UKIP would ensure visitors to the UK, and migrants (new applicants) until they have paid National Insurance for 5 years, have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition to entry to the UK, saving the NHS £2 billion pa. UKIP has pledged that they would spend £200m of the £2bn saving to end hospital car parking charges.
- UKIP would replace Monitor and the Care Quality Commission with elected county health boards to be more responsive scrutineers of local health services. These will be able to inspect health services and take evidence from whistle-blowers.
– UKIP opposes the sale of NHS data to third parties.
– We will ensure foreign health service professionals coming to work in the NHS are properly qualified and can speak English to a standard acceptable to the profession.
– UKIP will amend working time rules to give trainee doctors, surgeons and medics the proper environment to train and practise.
– There will be a duty on all health service staff to report low standards of care. 

"Education
Each village will have its own grammar school and matron. Universities will not be funded to teach foreign languages or any other subjects – such as philosophy, sociology, art and English – that are inherently a bit cissy and therefore not very British."
In reality... Which this author seems to be further more detaching himself as this article goes on...
– UKIP will introduce an option for students to take an Apprenticeship Qualification  instead of four non-core GCSEs which can be  continued at A-Level. Students can take up apprenticeships in jobs with certified professionals qualified to grade the progress of the student.
– Subject to academic performance UKIP will remove tuition fees for students taking approved degrees in science, medicine, technology, engineering, maths on the condition that they live, work and pay tax in the UK for five years after the completion of their degrees. 
– UKIP will scrap the target of 50% of school leavers going to university.
– Students from the EU will pay the same student fee rates as International students.
– UKIP supports the principle of Free Schools that are open to the whole community and uphold British values.
– Existing schools will be allowed to apply to become grammar schools and select according to ability and aptitude. Selection ages will be flexible and determined by the school in consultation with the local authority. 
– Schools will be investigated by OFSTED on the presentation of a petition to the Department for Education signed by 25% of parents or governors.

"Crime
There will be a policeman permanently stationed on every street corner to ensure that a person’s right to intolerance is rigorously enforced."
Otherwise known as 'Law and Order'...
– UKIP will withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. 
– UKIP will reverse the government’s opt-in to EU law and justice measures, including the European Arrest Warrant and European Investigation Order. We will replace the EAW with appropriate bi-lateral agreements.
– UKIP will not give prisoners the vote.
– UKIP believes that full sentences should be served and this should be taken into account when criminals are convicted and sentenced in court. Parole should be available for good behaviour on a case-by-case basis, not systematically.
– We will repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a new British Bill of Rights. The interests of law-abiding citizens & victims will always take precedence over those of criminals. 

"Defence
Martello towers along the south coast will be restored and equipped with the latest weaponry to ward off the threat of imminent invasion."
Yawn... That moronic sarcasm is something an avid Green supporter would be proud of...
In reality...
Honouring the Military Covenant
– We will resource fully our military assets and personnel.
– UKIP will guarantee those who have served in the Armed Forces for a minimum of 12 years a job in the police force, prison service or border force
– UKIP will change the points system for social housing to give priority to ex-service men and women and those returning from active service.
– A Veterans Department will bring together all veterans services to ensure servicemen and women get the after-service care they deserve.
– Veterans are to receive a Veterans’ Service Card to ensure they are fast tracked for mental health care and services, if needed.
– All entitlements will be extended to servicemen recruited from overseas.
– UKIP supports a National Service Medal for all those who have served in the armed forces.

"Promoting cultural awareness
All British people have to put aside their differences and remember to be a bit more British. To get the ball rolling, I have invited Robert Jaroslaw Iwaszkiewicz, the Polish Nazi who so kindly came to the party’s rescue last year by enabling us to access another £1m from the EU, to give an annual lecture reminding everyone the Holocaust wasn’t as bad as all that when you really think about it."
"The Polish Nazi"... I wonder what Jaroslaw Iwaszkiewicz would think of you saying that. Considering he has never commented on World War 2 other than to say; "Hitler was an evil man".
I also wonder how the people of Poland who vote for Congress of the New Right think of a British journalist sumarising a chunk of Poles as "Nazis" for the party that they vote for.
The funny thing is I remember in the last European Parliament, The Guardian calling EFD (UKIP group's) member parties Danish People's Party and the Finns Party "Nazi's" and "Fascists". They don't anymore.

Why is that?
Could it possibly be because they joined the European Conservatives and Reformists group? (The Tory Party group).

As for Congress of the New Right.
A couple of things you and your readers should be made aware of, yes the Congress's leader made some atrocious comments about the Holocaust. The mans name is Janusz Korwin-Mikke, he quit as the parties leader 2 months ago.
The Congress of the New Right was sumarised by the National media as a "Right-Wing" party up until one single MEP joined the EFDD, then they were re-categorized as "Far-Right" to serve a purpose.
If you don't believe me, look at this article by the Huffington Post;  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/26/far-right-europe-election_n_5391873.html

The author of this article also forgot to mention that the reason UKIP had to find a new MEP, was because the President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz  breached his presidential guidelines, breaking is neutrality as a President and telling one of the UKIP group members to leave if she wanted a promotion (to be come a delegate to a new nation joining the EU).
UKIP never spoke to Janusz Korwin-Mikke, nor any of the other MEP's in the Congress's group. They put forward a proposal to the singular MEP and told him that he would have to conform to the groups written guidelines.
He talked to the party and accepted.

As for "Nazi's", I think it's a bit rich that a party that so happily supports the Labour Party, so readily forgets that the Labour Party are the only party in the country that has a serving former Nazi. Not only is she a member, she is also a councillor in Milton Keynes by the name of Margaret Burke.
You also have several BNP members who have joined the Labour Party, such as (earlier mentioned) Trevor Maxfield (councillor in Blackburn).

As for promoting cultural awareness, UKIP's actual released policies on the matter are as follows...
– UKIP recognises and values an overarching, unifying British culture, which is open and inclusive to anyone who wishes to identify with Britain and British values, regardless of their ethnic or religious background.
– Official documents will be published in English and, where appropriate Welsh and Scots Gaelic.
– UKIP will ensure that the law is rigorously enforced in relation  to ‘cultural’ practices which are illegal in Britain, such as forced marriages, FGM and so-called ‘honour killings’
– We will review the BBC Licence Fee with a view to its reduction. Prosecution of non-payments of the Licence Fee would be taken out of the criminal sphere and made a civil offence.
– UKIP will amend the smoking ban to give pubs and clubs the choice to open smoking rooms properly ventilated and separated from non-smoking areas.  
– UKIP opposes ‘plain paper packaging’ for tobacco products and minimum pricing of alcohol.

The author also forgot to mention; Protecting jobs and increasing prosperity, Repairing the UK Economy, Reducing debts we leave to our grandchildren, Foreign Aid, Energy, Agriculture and Fishing, Welfare and Childcare, Transport, Housing and planning, Democracy and the Constitution and
Employment & Small Businesses which are all categories UKIP have released policies on, in 'Policies For People'.

Response to "Ukip meeting opponents write open letter" article in Folkestone Herald

http://tinyurl.com/Folkestone-Herald-Article

Firstly before I go onto answer the open letter. I will say a few things.

We live in a democracy. UKIP are fully entitled to hold a meeting about anything, as are Tories, Lib Dems, Labour or Greens.
This opposition to this meeting from the others is nothing more than fascist behavior.

In the United Kingdom people are entitled their freedom of speech.
Rather than petulantly moaning about whether UKIP should be holding the meeting. Why not involve themselves in the meeting with reps to have their own say. That is what you do in a democracy. Not holding petitions to have democratic and lawful meetings banned.

"We look with interest at UKIP’s sudden interest in the fishing industry and their hurriedly-called meeting this Thursday."

Sudden interest in the fisheries industry? UKIP have been talking about how fisheries have been impacted by EU legislation for years. One of the main reasons the party have so much support in Hampshire and Devon.

Here is Nigel Farage discussing the Fisheries industry and the EU impact back in January 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWjG9W0KsoY

So instead of tossing out sarcastic comments in open letters how about doing a little bit of research?

"It’s fair to say that the party doesn’t have a great track record in this area."

Really? We discuss it more frequently than the other parties do. Here's a video of it being discussed in the European Parliament 8 weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gZ_RDXufjU and here is Farage discussing it in a business meeting in Thanet 5 weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NLC81radto or maybe we could go back further to 5 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUAPV67RsVo

"Nigel Farage was on the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament for three years. In that time he attended just one out of a possible 42 meetings."

Indeed. Maybe they should take the time to listen to why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7By8I9mVNas (1 minute 50 seconds)

"When huge cross-party efforts by centre-right, Socialist, Liberal and Green MEPs ensured a historic reform of the CFP, which will end overfishing and safeguard the future of the fishing industry in Europe, Mr Farage was nowhere to be found."

That isn't the main issue though is it. The big issue is that our fishery quota has been minimalized to a ridiculous level and the size of waters we can fish in has been reduced significantly harming fishers interests. But yet again. The other parties kick the problems into the long grass in favour of appealing to environmentalists and not small business which is what this problem is all about!

"He did not even bother to show up to the Fisheries Committee final vote (which was very close) and he disappeared halfway through the plenary vote."
Answered!

"The real work in Brussels is done in committee, so by skipping committee meetings UKIP miss the chance to exert any influence and help shape laws that affect their constituents. They claim that there is no point as they would be outvoted every time, which is patently ridiculous when key votes can (and often do) go one way or another with only a vote to spare."

What like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrUhhFDlQho

UKIP have 24 votes out of 751. The majority of the Parliament is pro-EU and will always vote in EU interest. As do Greens coincidentally.

"Actually the biggest issue affecting our fishing industry is over-fishing by big business. Exactly the sort of sort of big business interests that ex-banker Nigel Farage represents. Is it any wonder he’s not that interested in attending Fisheries Committee meetings?"

This is where the open letters Far Left routes come to fruition. Nigel Farage has never in his life been a banker. That is just a lie put out by people who cannot answer a simple honest question without cracking out some smear or lie.

Nigel Farage was a "commodities broker", which is about as close to banking as a Solar Farm trader. He dealt in metals not money.
Pathetic Far Left smear!

Over-fishing is an issue. But it isn't a British issue.
The fisheries industry has been in mass decline since the signing of the Lisbon Treaty: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1570441/Net-loss-The-decline-of-UK-fishing.html the fishing areas we are "allowed" to fish in have never been smaller whilst the areas in which France and Spain can fish have been dramatically increased: http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/common-fisheries-policy not to mention the number of days fisherman are allowed to fish for: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8963093/Fishermen-angry-at-European-Union-decision-to-reduce-number-of-days-at-sea.html

The simple fact is the fisheries industry is crying out to be listened to, and the only party listening to their concerns is UKIP: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/EU-quotas-mean-ll-voting-UKIP-Plymouth-fishermen/story-25712233-detail/story.html

This sort of anti-"Anyone who has been involved in business" attitude is exactly what has lead to career politicians taking absolute control of Westminster over the years and you want people with experience of Big Business or business alone to be ostracized?! Are you (Lib/Lab/Con/Greens) insane?!

You have to love the Greens arguing against people involved in business, arguing in favour of the fisheries industry. Especially someone who has a love of fishing...
 

"UKIP are now pretending to care about fishing because they know it's an issue important to the people of Folkestone. We say don't be fooled by UKIP who are 'fishing 'for your vote. Their track record on supporting the industry is terrible and to start to pretend to support it now is nothing short of blatant hypocrisy."

Well as I have shown above in countless links. UKIP are a) the ones who have shown consistent support for the fishing industry where it matters in terms of opposing the Common Fisheries Policy which impacts our fisheries industry negatively. The Fisheries industry also supports UKIP. So who is right?

The people who have been working in fisheries all their lives and know about the impact of the EU legislation and bureaucracy on their industry or people who want to reduce fishing quotas for UK fishermen in favour of French and Spanish industry or the party who says it as it is, and continues to question harmful decisions made against the fishing industry in the European Parliament and elsewhere?

I think this picture speaks a thousand words personally...

"The people of Folkestone and our local fishing industry deserve better."

Indeed they do.
We in Britain live in a democracy and encourage freedom of speech.

Anyone who signs a petition against freedom of speech is anti-democratic and in many ways leaning across the line in terms of fascism.

As the article in question highlights. Parliamentary candidates Lynne Beaumont (Lib Dem's), Claire Jeffrey (Labour) and Martin Whybrow (Greens) are among those to have signed the letter. A letter in which they claim UKIP want political gain from a meeting. Whilst these individuals don't participate in the meeting democratically. Instead putting their names to a open letter publically attacking a lawful and democratic meeting.

Surely this, if anything, is an attempt at gaining publicity. I hadn't heard of this meeting taking place until this open letter was released.

The Labour, Green and Lib Dem (not to mention other reps) who signed this letter should be bloody well ashamed of themselves!

The people of Folkestone and the fisheries industry deserve better than a dishonest, inaccurate and offensive selection of Prospective Parliamentary candidates representing the Greens, Labour and Lib Dems who are trying to prevent lawful debate about a very important issue.

Shame on them!

Response to "The Ukip Fallacy" Blog Entry

It seems another "anti-UKIP" blog is running a moderation on their comments, most probably to make sure their is no counter argument to what has been said to the author. So once again I find myself posting a response via my own blog in the hopes I can provide some answers to a pretty dreadful (it has to be said) article/blog entry.

My reply is as follows in the comments section and will be posted here as I suspect it will not be authorized by the moderation on that blog.

Please read this article and then read my response to match up answers: http://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/the-ukip-fallacy/#comment-7481

Firstly the author seems to have missed a few points which are pretty obvious in all fairness. But I shall give it a go.
A) The individual in the video is entitled to her opinion, everyone is entitled to have their own views on immigration. It seems to me that she didn't articulate her reason for this individual to be deported so it's a shame you haven't heard her full opinion
B) It might be her opinion. But it is not UKIP policy.
UKIP policy is regardless of being in the EU or not. Those who were here legally previous to theoretically leaving the EU, would be legally entitled to remain here after.
Nobody would be deported if in the country legally.
C) Those who are here illegally would be reviewed as they would be under the Labour System, Tory system or Lib Dem system.
What you have essentially done is spread a stereotype over a large number of people based on one individuals thoughts.

"It is a common view. It is also utterly misconceived."
No. It is not.
Their are a variety of views through UKIP supporters.
Mine myself is that those here legally should remain. Those here who commit particular crimes (child abuse/rape/assaults/murder) should be returned to their country of birth and never be allowed to return (after any prison sentence for initial crime).
Those here illegally should be properly reviewed. People shouldn't be fearful of announcing their presence in the country (ie: Being here illegally) and people should be properly evaluated depending on what they can offer the country.

This system under the Tories arbiterally selecting people deemed to be here illegally who have spent nigh on all their lives in the country and then just sending them back to their country of birth without their family disgusts me and UKIP and would not be supported by UKIP.

If you have spent your life here with your family you should remain.
But hey don't let that opinion prevent you from smearing a large number of people with a ridiculous stereotype expressed by few.

"A country is its people. There is no vague, mythical construct that “supports people”. People support each other. And in a service economy, numbers matter greatly*.

If only that were true.
The funny thing is people accuse UKIP of wanting to go back to the 1950's. Now whilst their were a great many things wrong with the 1950's (racism/homophobia/sexism), health was much better and inter society cohesion was better. In fact you might say that to a certain degree the above quote could apply more evenly to the 1950's.

"So, if you advocate deporting a couple of million people, it is true enough that you will have fewer people to support."

UKIP don't advocate deporting millions of people and neither do the supporters I have spoken to over the last few years so this matter is null and void.

"The result of such a move boils down to whether the people you wish to deport are overall an asset. Study after study (for instance UCL here, report here, IIEA here, OBR summary here) shows that migrants are net contributors. Not only in the UK, but more generally (OECD here). Migrants cost disproportionately less in terms of health, education or social security."

That would be the report commissioned by the EU, by the same individual who said that net migration to the UK would not be more than 30,000 a year?
Come on. Show me a review done by an Independent unbiased organisation or individual and I might believe it.

Oh right. That's right. There is none.

I have no problem with people with skills coming to the UK, I have no problem with people coming to the UK with potential. I don't care what skin colour they have, what religion they practice, what country they were born in or what sex/sexuality they are. As long as they have something to offer.

There are currently 2 million people unemployed in this country. Many of which are desperate for work. So why should we not allow them an opportunity to find employment instead of inundating the low skilled migrant market with unskilled labour?

"The fatal flaw in the typical Ukip supporter’s logic is in seeing public services as somehow fixed; they are not. They can increase as well as contract and they depend on tax take."

Have you seen the numbers recently. Lets take national debt for instance which is racing rapidly toward £1.4 trillion.
Take the NHS figures for instance, we keep having to pump in more and more money that we inevitably do not have with more and more being put into private hands by Labour, Lib Dems and Tories. It is literally only a matter of time before the NHS crumbles completely.

"The idea that getting rid of contributing migrants will magically free up spaces in schools and beds in hospitals is a nonsense in the medium and long term."

This is the third time the author has made this comment. So I shall ask again. Which written confirmed policy says that UKIP would deport anyone here legally?

Which policy says that UKIP wouldn't allow anyone here who doesn't have a skill to offer.

This entire article is flawed. It is fixated on imaginary policies, assumptions that all UKIP supporters think the same thing and is running under the impression that "if something is said often enough it will make it the absolute truth", when in reality the UKIP policies I have outlined above are neither what this offer have said they are, or would result in any of the things the author has said.

"Moreover, it could precipitate a grudge match in which Brits living elsewhere in the EU are also ‘repatriated’ – the rise of the xenophobic right wing is sadly not limited to England."

Again this argument is flawed so I shall hand over to Steven Woolfe (UKIP immigration spokesperson) who explained why this would not happen. If you want to follow this debate maturely listen to what he says and focus on how it does not line up with the fantasies posted here:

There would be no deportations of those here legally.
There would be no retaliatory deportations of Brits in France, Spain or elsewhere in the EU.

"The view of migrants into the UK as useless ‘scroungers’, but Brits living abroad as valuable ‘expats’ is nothing other than a romantic post-colonial affectation."

Really? Whilst I would not say the majority of migrants to the UK are "useless scroungers", words the author has yet again plucked out of thin air. I would remind you that the majority of those who come to the UK come so with very little money due to coming from very poor countries in Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile the majority of people who travel to Spain, France and Portugal are retirees taking their life savings, property money and pensions with them.
In quite a high number of cases their healthcare is still covered for by the NHS abroad.

So no, sorry, your argument does not tally in reality.

One thing I do find really rather confusing though is how in one breath the age of living has increased in the UK and strain on services have increased, yet the majority of people who move abroad are "elderly and inactive"?

"Now, it could be that the majority of Ukip support would still, out of cultural dysphoria, opt for a party whose policy boiled down to: we want to be more anglosaxon, even if it means being much poorer. Because, make no mistake, that is what is being proposed."

Actually no it isn't. UKIP wants a truly multi-cultural society, not what we have now, which as has been expressed by the majority in a BBC poll has been a failure:

 

Many areas have become ghettoized and segmented from society and this is not right.
UKIP have never said "be more Anglo-Saxon", again, this is a figment of the author's imagination.

I can remember Farage saying that at it's core, Britain is a Judeo-Christian society which is true for the majority, but he has never said that people who aren't should be ostracized from society.

"The Office for Budget Responsibility is under no illusion when it comes to migration. All things being equal, Cameron achieving his goal to bring migrant numbers down to the tens of thousands is a terrible scenario assumption for the national debt. Bringing the number down to zero is disaster, not utopia. The chart below is fairly self-explanatory."

Again. A figment of the authors imagination.

Cameron said (along with Labour previously) that migration figures should be brought down to the tens of thousands. They have never talked about ending immigration, neither have UKIP.

What UKIP want is global net immigration of around 50,000 a year which is a sensible number similar to pre-Lisbon treaty times.

It is a net increase the country can absorb.
If people apply to come to the UK above that number then as has been said previously they would be evaluated sensibly.

"Zero migration means either unprecedented cuts in public spending or debt at 150% of GDP in fifty years."

No party other than the BNP has proposed their being "zero migration" so this is an utterly pointless point.

"Ukip not only dislike migrants, but they also dislike systems that financially facilitate maternity."

Nonsense. UKIP have foreign-born PPC's, a Polish individual in south London and numerous
Commonwealth candidates in London as well.

They also have a Pakistani born MEP for goodness sakes.

UKIP have no problem with migrants, they are not xenophobic or racist, they just believe in sensible sustainable numbers. As do the majority of society whether they disagree or not.

"With the current absolute reliance on growth and the population bulge of baby-boom pensioners living longer, the UK needs young people desperately to work and contribute."

Well it was recently revealed that 80,000 people who applied to train in the field of medicine and nursing had been turned away due to a lack of spaces. However I see no mention of increasing the number of teaching facilities in your article.

Only the age old pathetic argument of; "people are getting older, we don't have enough trained professionals, quick bring in more migrants that can do the jobs".

Let's start training people to do jobs instead of passing people who cannot find employment off as people who just "can't be bothered".

It's genuinely ironic that this author started off the article by accusing UKIP supporters of calling migrants "scroungers and lazy" when what he/she is effectively doing is doing exactly the same to those who are out of work or desperate to step into the jobs they are trained for in the UK.

"They can either be birthed the old-fashioned way or they can be invited over. Pick one. ‘Neither’ is not an answer. We can’t all be pensioners."
Guess what?! MIGRANTS GET OLD AS WELL.

It is a self defeating concept in many ways. The more people you bring into a country the higher the number of people who will need care in the generations to come.

The emphasis needs to be put onto training people we have in the country now. Not increasing the net population to a level that guarantees high unemployment, another factor that the author seems to have completely omitted from the article.

"Economic activity flows from people, not from nostalgia and St George’s flags. There is no land of milk and honey waiting on the other side of xenophobia. There is only a dystopia of suspicion, hate, isolationism and abject poverty."

Again... Nonsense.
Yes economic activity flows from people. We already have people here who can be trained. Instead we absorb other countries talent in the name of "our needs".

Where do you think trained specialists are needed more? Countries where they are needed such as the disease hit countries of Africa, poor and impoverished nations of Eastern Europe or here because we cannot be bothered to train our own citizens and open more affordable educational facilities?

I am not doubting that there are some Xenophobic and racist people out there. But as the author of this article has done, labelling a huge group of people as that, is both cowardly and disgusting.

You can scaremonger all you like with big bold hateful words. But the fact of the matter is a great number of people in this country have genuine concerns that are not bigoted in the slightest.

The authors attitude that all that question immigration numbers are bigoted, made up policies attributed to UKIP and scaremongering nonsense about politicians cutting immigration numbers is a further example that some are prepared to tell great big whopping lies if it suits their agenda.

The reality is the big issues that UKIP have belatedly (admittedly) started raising for example like educating those in the country to do advanced jobs, is something that needs to be talked about.

But the reality is people like the author and establishment political parties are unwilling to talk about it because it treads on the toes of the argument that we rely on immigration to run public services.
In a sensible system where people are training if they have the abilities to do roles, we wouldn't rely on migration to run our National Health Service and other public services.

Response to "Coalition formed in Portsmouth to fight against the rise of Ukip" article in Portsmouth News

Coalition formed in Portsmouth to fight against the rise of Ukip

"You're not welcome here" - Words that people gleefully attempt to attribute the "supposed" rhetoric from UKIP, but in reality as we have seen from the 'Stand Up To UKIP Portsmouth coalition' and other supposed "anti-fascist" groups, are seemingly more likely to come from the latter these days.

As a 30 year old UKIP member and activist, I spend a large portion of my day speaking to supporters, members and activists from other parties. It literally depresses me to see just how poorly and misinformed these people are as a result of rhetoric put out by their own political parties and passed around in a type of "Chinese whispers" that seems to get more and more ridiculous as it gets passed around.

All I can do as one person fighting my corner is try to properly inform people, when they are willing to listen and almost as it would seem these days, keep my head above water at the volume of attack being thrown at UKIP activists allover the country.

Words like "fascist" and "Nazi" casually tossed about like they are words that can be used in some kind of casual word play and, "you aren't allowed an opinion because you are UKIP" rhetoric is incredibly worrying. Indeed preventing a democratically elected party its freedom of speech is exactly the kind of thing that comes to mind when "fascism" is thrust out into the light of day.

When it comes to accusations of racism against UKIP members, I have no defence. Neither would I have any defence against those accusations if they were thrust upon the countless racist members of the Conservative party, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats etc. One of the unfortunate things in politics and life in general is that racism and other questionable views exist in general. Not exclusively at UKIP.

What I can assure people of though is that UKIP have a strict sign-up policy. In fact if you are a former member of the Far Right, be it National Front, BNP, Britain First, EDL or any other extreme party. You are not welcome as a member at the UK Independence Party.
UKIP are currently the only political party in British Politics that has a ban on former members of the Far Right joining the party in the UK since Nigel Farage was re-elected as leader of the party in 2010.

When questionable individuals are un-earthed often gleefully by the National media, a right and proper investigation is carried out, and if that individual is found to have made unacceptable comments as a UKIP member, a zero tolerance policy is taken and their future status at the party is considered.

I see from some comments in the comments section beneath the article that claims of "Neo-Nazi" and "BNP" former members has been made. I encourage anyone with any names of these individuals to come forward, because in reality, their are no former Neo Nazi's or BNP members at UKIP. Unlike other parties such as the Labour Party who have a former Second in Command of the Neo Nazi League of Milton Keynes as councillor, and a former BNP member, activist and Councillor amongst its ranks in Blackburn.



Having concerns about the volume of open-door immigration is not a "racist" thing, or when people say that those concerns about open-door immigration are racist do they apply those views to members of their own parties who thinks the immigration system needs addressing.

Nobody is calling for immigration to end. In fact UKIP want a Global points based immigration system similar to Canada or Australia to come into effect.

Having a open door system across varying countries of different economic strength was a experiment of sorts that was always doomed to failure.
If you have a country with higher living standards and a better living wage, of course people are going to want to come, nor would anyone blame them for doing so.
But how is it going to improve those poorer countries if the Euro-zone if people start upping routes and rushing off to different areas of the EU.

The reality is those countries need to be helped away from what in many cases is a former Communist rule that resulted in generations of suffering.
Unemployment across the Euro-zone is as high in many areas at 60%, as we have seen by the large numbers of young Spanish migrants who have moved over to the south of England in the hopes of work. Again- I don't blame them for doing so, but when it comes to sheer numbers of migrants there is reason for concern in many people's opinion.

Wage compression is a fact, jobs are taken in bulk by foreign workers, whilst we have a estimated 2 million unemployed in the UK.

In many instances Big Business have specifically advertised jobs only in foreign countries. I am very sorry, I do not believe that their are jobs in the UK the local populas are unwilling to do.
When you go out and about like me and talk to homeless people, and 'buskers' out on the street who tell you they would take "any job going", no-matter what it is, how can these politicians claiming we need Eastern European labour to pick the fields of Essex live with themselves knowing their are people suffering on streets when they espouse this highly offensive and one-sided thinking.

I state again for the record, migration is a good thing, in reasonable numbers. I have no problem with people from other countries living in my area. In fact my area in particular has a percentage of Polish and Bangladeshi migrants who complement brilliantly to our community.

UKIP don't want an end to immigration as some people have claimed, we are not biased to people from specific regions, who have specific skin colours, or follow a specific religion. This claim is both offensive and nonsense.

The reality of the matter is, if UKIP had the choice between a skilled "brain surgeon" was was a Muslim from Pakistan or a Latvian unskilled labourer, the preference would go to that individual in Pakistan.

This is not how the system currently operates however. With current Rest of the World migrants prioritised against in favour of EU migrants for the sake of a lower Net immigration number.



When it comes to organisations and political parties coming together to prevent democratically elected political parties from functioning. This is what I get worried about, and this is what reminds me of "fascism".

In the last 24 hours I have had to confront an utter lie espoused by a prominent comedian on National television about UKIP, another individual who has created fake UKIP accounts and has posted deeply offensive racist/homophobic comments in an attempt to frame the party and another prominent individual at a political party who has point-blank lied about UKIP policies.

People quite frequently claim that UKIP are full of "rhetoric", when in reality the use of "rhetoric" is what is often used to try and either denounce UKIP or lessen their message.

What happened to politics and humanitarianism in general where this was considered acceptable.

The people who have been concerned about UKIP, that have come together to form this coalition, prominent members of the community for instance, why didn't they come to UKIP, people like me and speak with regards to their concerns?

Claims have been made in this meeting and UKIP have had absolutely no right to reply. This is why I have felt so eager to write this response.



I am not doubting that their are major issues "recession, austerity, a lack of social housing and poverty", but UKIP have never solely blamed these things on "immigrants, and I must say this claim is both dishonest and complete and utter nonsense!

There is absolutely no doubt that migration at a rate of one city the size of Hull in populas per year net has an impact on the infrastructure of this country. School places are low, NHS capacity is struggling and housing is at an all time low in terms of capacity for populas. It is an element of a larger problem, a problem that UKIP seek to address.

Referring to a leader of a political party as a "con artist" as Jon Woods, chairman of Portsmouth Trades’ Council, has done is incredibly low, especially when you considering that neither Farage or anyone from UKIP had the right to reply. It smacks of a bully in a school playground mocking someone who isn't present in the intention to get them bulled later.

Zuber Hatia, said that mosques in Portsmouth had been subjected to racist abuse and attacks.

Are UKIP responsible for what organisations and parties like the EDL, BNP and BP?
No of course they are not. I suppose in the absence of actual UKIP members attacking mosques, a thing I am 100% certain would never happen, you have to claim that UKIP have someone stoked tension in the absence of any justifiable evidence?

UKIP have never singled out the Muslim community for ridicule so this claim is also utter nonsense, and I find it shameful that this individual has tried to latch onto an anti-democratic campaign in such a manner.

　

As for the Labour Portsmouth South candidate Sue Castillon, of course she would lower herself to the standard of smears against UKIP, I see this daily from Labour Party PPC's trying to win back the working class votes they have lost over the years. The reality of the matter is UKIP speak for the working class now, and Labour have lost that vote with antics such as the white van fiasco in Rochester and Strood regards Emily Thornberry.

UKIP are no-more racist than any other party as I highlighted above, but it is awfully convenient for those other parties who have former BNP members and former Neo-Nazis to claim that UKIP encourage racial intolerance. When in reality UKIP have a multitude of ethnic members in South London for instance where we have numerous members of the Commonwealth standing for UKIP, and even a Polish gentleman who frequently writes articles for the National press to counter-balance the claims made by some sections of the media and political establishment.

I go out often, and speak to people from a wide range of ethnic, religious and National backgrounds, and it is being made more and more difficult to reveal myself as being UKIP due to this false rhetoric that is being put out by other political parties such as the instance given here by Miss Castillon.

If anything, people like her, other political parties and the National media are the ones stoking the rhetoric that increases tension in the country.

It's like the first person who throws the brick at a riot who then runs away as the violence unfolds. It is utterly cowardly and dishonest.

　

What the vast majority of the political establishment are concerned about is a party they know they cannot control, a party who doesn't tow a whip system, that introduces new ideas, gives people the right to recall those politicians they elected who have let the electorate down. A party that doesn't tow the same 'Pro-EU' party line that seems to exist across the political spectrum of Great Britain.

What they are scared about is a true alternative party.

Claims that UKIP are a racist objectionable party is a lie.

Should the political establishment be concerned about UKIP? Yes of course they should be, because we are coming for you, we will hold YOU accountable for the countless let-downs you have inflicted on this country over the years.

If people accept the rhetoric that is put out against UKIP by these 'other' political parties, then you really have been fooled.

The reality is UKIP are growing, UKIP are made up of people from different political backgrounds, we are taking votes from all political parties across the country, and the thing that frightens the political establishment most of all, is that we are encouraging former non-voters back into politics and are the only party that has managed to do so.

Before you make a decision on UKIP, consult your local UKIP candidate, councillors and representatives before you make a choice.

At the very least, listen to the response to such accusations before you make a carefully considered decision on where you stand when it comes to UKIP.

Response to the "My response to a 'Kipper" article done by Matthew Wicks ‏AKA @MRWicks94

This article is a response to an article written by Matthew Wicks in reply to discussion I was having with him on Twitter.The original article can be found here: http://orangecrushmatt.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/my-response-to-kipper.html?spref=tw

"Opposition to the EU is always usually along the lines of either democratic or national struggle; these differ in terms of positive and negative. The EU top brass is becoming increasingly complicated and is showing signs of wanting to completely override national sovereignty. That is fine to campaign against; but when Eurosceptic parties across Europe rally against immigration more than anti-democratic elements that permit mass movement across the continent then priorities are wrong."
In a democratic Nation we would have been given a choice as to whether we should sign the Lisbon Treaty and open the doors up to mass uncontrolled immigration from the EU.
When Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty we didn't have a Referendum. We didn't even have a National debate on the subject. Labour and Brown just went ahead and did it anyway.
So when you start off by saying that it is anti-democratic, I think you should take your train of thought back to when we signed the Treaty in the first place.

Here's the point though. The people haven't been heard on Open Door Immigration and we are at least 5 years away from a formal departure from the Union. The longer we leave it before departing the worse the situation is going to get.
We have David Cameron "bigging up" Turkey as a possible addition to the EU (population 77 million) not to mention the chance that Turkey will give people from other Nations Turkish ID and passports (Iraq, Iran, Syria etc...) in the same fashion that Bulgaria and Romania have been giving people from Moldova and other Nationalities not in the EU Passports and ID cards.

Let's not forget Turkey is a nation that currently borders and isn't a million miles away from countries that ISIS call home.
None of the parties predicted how many migrants would come, indeed most of the parties would admit nobody really knows the exact number that have come and where they are. Both legally and illegally.

"The article you sent me from the Huffington Post seemed to more point out groups worse than Ukip rather than highlight the far-right elements that they have flirted with recently (even if I can hand it to them for shunning Le Pen's Vichy rabble)."
Worse than UKIP?
May I suggest when you write an article you don't presume UKIP are "bad" or "worse" or on par with Far Right groups. UKIP are defined as a Right Wing party and have pretty moderate views on most things when people aren't flinging their arms in the air and claiming offence.

The article in question that I sent you was written about the most frightening Far Right parties in the EU.
The discussion in question wasn't so much about UKIP, as you well know it was about the Polish Party Congress of the New Right.
So this segment of your article is disingenuous to say the least.
You accused UKIP of making a deal with a "Nazi type racist party", I pointed out we had done a deal with 1 individual to bring the number of Nationalities up to the appropriate number.
In a perfect World we wouldn't have had to.
But in a perfect World we wouldn't have the President of the European Parliament breaking his neutrality rules and blackmailing someone into leaving UKIP's EFDD group. Something I talked about here if you are interested: http://thomasevansukip.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/pathetic-opportunism-from-eu-and.html

If you took a look at the non-inscrits pool you would know our choice was impossible.
If you had read the article you would have realised the point I was trying to make.
Namely nobody defined the Congress of the New Right as a Far Right party until after UKIP took a MEP from the group.
Whilst the person in question made a pretty poor joke about slapping women, something I would never support, he is happily married and his wife apparently laughed off the accusation that was levelled at him by the Polish media.
The guy in question has never made a racist or homophobic comment as far as I am aware whilst a member of the Congress of the New Right.

Now whilst his Party leader has made repugnant comments that I wholeheartedly deplore. It is worth reminding people that both Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttall have said that he and other members of his Party are not welcome. There is no "deal" with the Congress of the New Right.
We (UKIP) approached the MEP in question, and he spoke to his Party and it's leader and joined the EFDD.
There is no "deal" and there never has been one.
"Would I ever lend my support to Ukip? No. I am a left-winger with mixed views on the EU."
For the record I respect where you stand from.
I used to be center-left Lib Dem. They let me down badly and I couldn't continue to support a party of lies as Nick Clegg has turned the Lib Dems into.
"I feel I do not completely wish to leave but I do know that this country, if in the right hands, could make it as a completely autonomous nation not unlike Norway or Switzerland."
As a left winger? Who do you suggest?
Labour don't want to leave the EU.
Greens don't want to leave the EU.

You admit there needs to be change if we are going to stay in the EU. Yet change is not on offer.
Do you afford your vote to the Lib Dems?
No. They don't want to leave the EU.
Do you afford your vote to the Tories?
Whilst I am sure you are fighting back the bile in the back of your throat at the prospect. It is again worth mentioning that it's questionable whether the Tories will keep their promises with David Cameron going on record as saying he is pro-EU.
Even with the current mess, it worries me that he will claim compromise with the EU and do a "Harold Wilson", namely say he's got the EU to make a huge concession and that we no-longer need a referendum, or a vote to leave because the deal is "so much better", when in reality it won't be.

Along with the Tories plans for new souped up watching powers on the public, we seem to be taking the same route as Sweden did, which lead to discussing things like immigration being made against the law.
Whilst you might like that? I like my freedom of speech.
I also deplore suggestions made by the Tories that they will begin heavily taxing disabled persons allowances.
For me that is unforgivable.

"Are Ukip the right hands to leave it in? No."
Again you have made the mistake of making a statement of fact.
In your opinion they are not right hands.
Who are the right hands may I ask you?
Under the Tories and Labour our national debt has increased to nearly £1.4 trillion. That will go up a further £2 billion to £1.6 trillion if we pay the EU what they have demanded.

"Ukip is a jumble of right-wing ideas and a minority of its supporters hold very dangerous ideas"
I suggest you read their policies for people.
Hardly any of them are of a right wing nature. With ideas like Direct Democracy, Right to Recall, local/regional/national referendums for key decision making, local trusts controlling healthcare and many other things. Even the Right Wing tagline is becoming hard to sell.
"some racist" - Name me a party that hasn't had someone guilty of racism?
"some homophobic" - Name me a party that hasn't had someone guilty of homophobia?
"and some plain right bigoted" - Name me a party that hasn't had someone guilty of bigotry? Hell some might say this whole article and people's attitudes to concerned people who support UKIP is bigoted.
The simple fact is people who have made comments that are unacceptable have been removed.
There are obviously citable examples of people who have been swiftly removed by UKIP for making unacceptable comments. That much I am pleased by.
We also try to stop former Far Right members joining the party and are as such the only political party in the country that do so.

"These ideas are usually built on a level of misunderstanding rather than outright hate but would still prove difficult if they made up the mandate given to our country's politics."
What ideas?
Policies of UKIP or comments made by members/supporters.
If you are referring to UKIP policies.
The only one that was released in "Policies For People" (UKIP's sample of its manifesto, that has courted debate was the one about refusing entry to the UK of people on a permanent status who have HIV.
The Jury is out on that one still with many supporting it and many against it.
I don't think you can label any of the policies as being "unacceptable to this country or its politics".

"And how exactly is Ukip representing our tolerant nation on the world stage when it saves itself through allying with a party whose top brass member debates the intelligence of women and the legitimacy of Holocaust evidence?"
I think I answered this above but I shall repeat.
Robert Iwaszkiewicz joined the Group only. Not his party and certainly not his leader who made those disgraceful comments.

"I'd rather my homeland not be represented by people grouping together with that lot!"
Really?
Well as referenced in the above Huffington Post article you have 2 parties who when members of the EFD were deemed as Far Right, and then when they joined the European Conservatives and Reformists they mysteriously went back to being Right Wing and not worth mentioning.
Feel free to look up True Fins:
With its MP James Hirvisaari who was fined in 2011 for comments made on his blog about Muslims, another party members turned down an invite to the Independence Day ball because he didn't want to see gay people, and the party is linked to racism and homophobia.
Meanwhile the The Danish People's party founder Pia Kjærsgaard thinks that Denmark is not a country where immigration is welcome at all. "If they want to turn Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmö into a Scandinavian Beirut, with clan wars, honour killings and gang rapes, let them do it. We can always put a barrier on the Øresund Bridge."
This is what UKIP rejected at the end of the last European Parliament and what the Tories have teemed up with.
That doesn't get mentioned though does it?

"Even if I did want to leave the EU I wouldn't vote for Farage (or soon to be Carswell) to be our PM."
UKIP had an election for leadership a couple of months ago. Farage has been re-elected unopposed for a second full length term.
Granted I can see this article is rapidly devolving to rhetoric.

"They are a continuance of Tory politics; low levels of economic interference with heightened levels of conservative social attitudes."
Sorry. That is utter nonsense.
Look at the policies I spoke of above. Look at Policies For People. Only someone completely ignorant would think that?

"For a left-winger to support them just to spite the three main parties would be a betrayal of his/her beliefs."
Why would he/she need to choose to support UKIP only because he didn't think the other 3 weren't viable.
I personally came to believe long ago that had the Lib Dems kept their promises I would have probably found myself going over to UKIP anyway.
If you remove the rhetoric and ignore the media smears you find a pretty decent party which has come a long way!

"I would never support a party that shunned the non-EU ECHR"
The European Court of Human Rights has done more harm than good?
Besides why can't we keep track of our own human rights with our own human right laws.
Most people would admit that the ECHR is massively flawed. Hell it issued the European Arrest warrant on that poor cancer stricken boy recently.
"increased privatisation of the NHS (Paul Nuttall's words, not mine)"
UKIP policy is to keep the NHS free at the point of treatment and to NOT privatise the NHS:
http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zZbv0gfCIw
In the article on his website Nuttall was talking about the positives that the possible pressure of impending privatisation would bring in streamlining the NHS.
The truth is it is not financially viable at present and the middle management layer needs reducing. It needs to become more cost efficient.
As for his video interview he was talking about lessening the burden on the NHS that should be carried by external institutions and units such as nursing homes.
See if you don't explain the detail you get what is so often portrayed falsely by the Labour Party.
A dishonest messing up of the truth!

"and is so committed to empty promises of democracy that it hasn't mentioned several anti-democratic institutions that we'd remain with if we were to leave the EU!"
How can you even say that?
That is such an empty line with absolutely no evidence of substance to back it up?!
All the parties have lied and been proved liars.
Only UKIP is a mainstream party that is yet to be given a chance.

"P.S. In no way have I labelled Ukip 'far right'. In no way would I label the Conservatives or Ukip far-right in terms of their policies or manifesto pledges (whatever Ukip's may hold come next May)."

You called UKIP a "Nationalist Party"
I suggest you look up the term "Nationalism. Because it doesn't line up with a party that has on several occasions said that this country is flawed and could learn from other parties.
As for "far right", I think we can all see the implication of what you think we all the rhetoric about "homophobia", "racism" and "bigotry"...

"But we must acknowledge that Ukip are certainly to the right of the Conservative Party."
Maybe on paper. But I think that's up for debate.
Many Tory MP's opposed the right to recall bill brought forward with the help of Douglas Carswell.

They negated on a "Cast Iron guarantee" to give people a referendum.
They plan to tax disabled allowances.
They have been prioritising EU migrants over rest of the world migrants, and have even been chucking decent people out of the country to counter those net numbers.

An utterly despicable act that UKIP would not tolerate. I know that for a fact as spoke to a senior UKIP rep about it a while back!
These are all traits of a pretty right wing party, meanwhile UKIP support all I listed above not to mention a points based global immigration system supported by both left and right wing parties around the world.

"In order to gain more electoral success (if you can name the position of being in coalition that) the Tories have moved closer to the middle-ground and championed the EU and liberal acts such as gay marriage; this has been at the expense of alienating a core vote whom now feel more at home with Farage's tweed shirts."
Again this statement is a bit confusing.
Do you mean middle-ground in the sense that they have moved leftward and more centralised or are you implying they have moved right to counter UKIP?
In my opinion they have moved Right of UKIP in the last 6 months.
Their attitude toward Rest of the World migrants both domestically and coming to the UK is astounding.
As is their attitude toward the disabled and the public having a choice on their MP's and the big decisions happening that face our country and the people who live in it.