That seems completely arbitrary to me.

Why is UKIP not a protest but, say, Green or Monster Loony is?

UKIP is not a "major" party. Based on its size, support and media coverage, it is a fringe party. Until very recently it was a tiny, single issue party.

I support it on that single issue (I would support Britain leaving the EU). I refuse to vote for the other three, mainly because I think they are all run by an elite political class who govern for themselves, not for the country. I would quite like to see the Tory party split after being beaten by Ukip. I neither want nor hope for a ukip majority. That makes me a protest ukip voter.

So what are these "same-ish" views I therefore - according to your deduction - must hold? Pray do tell.

Come again?

I don't think I said anything about UKIP donors. We are talking about UKIP voters.

Are you trying to say you think UKIP is a party machine similar to the 'major' parties? I strongly disagree.

Fascist tendencies...
1. They want to revoke human rights legislation.
This means they want to revoke (among other things): Right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, freedom from discrimination, freedom of association, freedom of thought, freedom from torture, right to liberty, protection from retrospective punishment and right to privacy. All of these are contained in the European convention of human rights.

2. Workfare. Or in simple terms, forcing people to work for nothing rather than a decent wage. [Link]

3. When a case against workfare was lost in court, the DWP brought in retrospective legislation to avoid compensating people who were illegally sanctioned for refusing to comply with point 2. This contravenes Article 7 of the European convention on human right (ECHR) [Link]

4. Secret courts. The justice and security bill that was recently pushed through parliament means that there could be trials in which the defendant cannot even enter the courtroom, can't be represented by their own lawyer, neither they nor their lawyer can know crime they have been charged with, nor the evidence against them. Imagine that, you could be tried in court, without being allowed to be there, nor be told what it is that you are charged with. This violates article 5 of the ECHR. [Link]

5. Cuts to legal aid, meaning tens thousands of people are unable to afford to the right to a fair trial. Only this week a case was thrown out of court because the judge realised that the defendants didn't have fair representation. [Link] A violation of article 6 of the ECHR.

6. Theresa May wants to introduce an 'internet snoopers' charter which would allow the government to access emails and internet history- a contravention of the right of privacy-article 8 of the ECHR [Link]

7. Also contravening article 8 is the fact that pupils' confidential information has been put up for sale! [Link] We've all heard about our medical details being up for grabs.

8. Academies and free schools. The government says that schools can become academies after consultation. On many occasions, there has been widespread opposition for all areas against schools being changed but these have been ignored. Hardly democracy! [Link]

I could go on...illegal kettling, media manipulation and censorship (The Snowden affair, lack of opposition to austerity, the fact that you have to dig a bit to find out the sort of information I've included here(which-be honest-the vast majority of people won't do etc ), use of water cannon, backdoor privatisation of public assets.

...shockingly, but unsurprisingly, when talking about a courts rejection of the workfare scheme, Mark Hoban (a tory who regularly removes criticism from his facebook page)clearly believes in the government's right to dictate in a statement in which he said, "The court has backed our right to require people to take part in programmes which will help them get into work"
It seems Hoban sees governance in terms of ministerial rights to dictate. In his view, the ministerial right to dictate clearly supersedes the labour rights of the ordinary person (the right to earn the minimum wage, the right to quit if you are being bullied or exploited, the right to paid holidays and paid sick leave...)It's not beyond the realms of possibility that he isn't the only mp to have this mindset.

It is quite clear from this, that the Tory definition of a "right" is actually something that belongs to the government, not to members of the public. It is the classic Tory principle, "the right to rule".

This lot clearly believe in their own rights, but not the rights of the people they 'govern'. To me this is a stance akin to totalitarianism or fascism, which was my point in my previous post this is linked to.

Now bearing in mind that most would agree with me that UKIP are to the right of the current lot, does it not seem a little dangerous to be voting for them as a form of protest. When protesting one usually veers towards something to the opposite of what is happening, not towards something/someone that would further exacerbate what they are protesting about.

Now I've said that I understand that people are veering towards UKIP because of the immigration issue. Fair enough it's an important and emotive issue that is complex. But UKIP are a party bankrolled by people who think the Tories aren't right wing enough. People who want to take away our rights and liberties even more for their own financial gain. I think the immigration issue is being used by UKIP as a smokescreen because they know it pushes peoples buttons and will help them garner support.

It's a shame it's an issue that cannot be discussed without people of all political views becoming hysterical about it. The fault lies with the current lot in parliament.

Edited by nickgusset (03 May 2014 11.10pm)

Farage speaks a plain truth that resonates with the general public

Labour and Lib Dems don't want a referendum about our EU membership. The Tories have promised one for 2017, over 3 years away!

Codswallop.

Cameron has specifically stated that if he is Prime Minister after the election, he will negotiate
a new settlement for Britain in Europe and then ask the British people whether they wish to stay in the EU on this basis or leave, in other words an "In/Out referendum". Absolutely nothing about changing minds etc etc.It is quite unequivocal.

He cannot do so IF he is not re-elected of course (Which seems damn obvious) so I really don't know why the argument has taken this course !