UKIP uncovered: More hidden policies revealed (part one of a possible series)



Yesterday’s article (UKIP: They don’t like it up ’em) delved into the facts behind a controversial meme that has been doing the rounds on the social media.

The image claims to be publicising UKIP policies, and seven out of the 10 policies claimed for the party have been verified, as demonstrated in the VP article.

Vox Political has been doing a little digging into the others.

The claim that UKIP wants to cancel all planned house-building on Green Belt land appears to have been based on the party’s 2010 general election and 2013 local election manifestos, which are no longer available to the public. Party members have stated many times, recently, that Nigel Farage has rubbished the 2010 document and its contents are not to be taken as UKIP policy. The party’s attitude to its manifesto from last year is less clear.

The relevant line, as quoted in this Property Newshound blog, is: “by controlling immigration, large areas of British countryside will not need to be destroyed by house building.” The rest of the article is well worth reading too.

UKIP’s South Buckinghamshire website discusses plans to build on the Green Belt, with a reply to a summary document by the Conservative Party:

“Conservatives say: ‘So we need to find places to build more homes…’ (page 2)

“UKIP reply: Not on green belt land!”

The strange thing is that preventing development of Green Belt land should not be a controversial issue, yet I have just – as I have been writing this blog – received a comment from a UKIP supporter stating: “Every bullet point [on the meme] is a fiction, written by a Green Party activist.”

Where does that leave UKIP policy? Does the party now want to build on Green Belt land, because the Green Party (apparently) opposes it?

Personally, I’m against that. My former home in Bristol was on the edge of the city, next to Green Belt land which became threatened by the South Western regional assembly (whatever it was called). Residents had a terrible time fighting off the proposed development, which seemed to be motivated solely by a desire to build a new road to Bristol Airport, enabling faster journeys from it to the city and back.

Building on the Green Belt – of any kind other than what is absolutely necessary for agricultural purposes – should be banned, in the opinion of this writer. It is land that has been set aside in the national interest, and proposals to develop it should be seen for what they are – money-grubbing by disinterested corporates who live in mansions on estates that will never be disturbed by such environmentally-damaging raids.

The claim that UKIP wants to cancel bank regulations “to make banks safer” was a commitment on the party’s policy website, according to this article in The Yorker (which is simply the first I found in a Google search). The Yorker is a student-run media site, based at the University of York, which claims no political affiliations at all.

It states: “According to their policy website UKIP… wants [to] further de-regulate the city… Indeed their primary reasons for leaving the EU relate to the need to cut such rights and regulations in the name of The City and big business.”

This would appear to be corroborated by Nigel Farage himself, who wrote in an Independent article in January this year: “And let’s look closer to home for where the fault lies with the banking crisis. I know it might still be trendy to “bash the bankers” but this crash was entirely predictable. It was Gordon Brown handing over regulation of the banking industry from the Bank of England who, since 1694 has done a pretty good job, and handed it over to the tick-box bureaucrats in Canary Wharf.”

It seems the case for UKIP wanting bank deregulation is also proven.

Unlike the Green Belt issue, bank deregulation would be a huge mistake for the UK. Farage is wrong in his claim that Gordon Brown was at fault for re-introducing regulation to the banking sector; it is the fact that he didn’t introduce enough regulation that let us down. The banks all told him that they were perfectly capable of policing themselves, and he took them at face value. Meanwhile the Conservatives, who have been blaming Labour for being too loose with regulation ever since they got back into office, despite doing nothing about the issue themselves, were calling for even less regulation at the time of the banking crash.

The UK requires more banking regulation, not less. Less regulation would encourage further abuses of the banking system and would inevitably lead to another disaster. This time the consequences could be appalling, for millions of low-paid British citizens. Farage does not clarify why he wants to court this.

More revelations may follow.

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

Vox Political needs your help!
This independent blog’s only funding comes from readers’ contributions.
Without YOUR help, we cannot keep going.
You can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Alternatively, you can buy the first Vox Political book,
Strong Words and Hard Times
in either print or eBook format here:


26 thoughts on “UKIP uncovered: More hidden policies revealed (part one of a possible series)

  1. Pingback: UKIP uncovered: More hidden policies revealed (part one of a possible series) | SLATUKIP (Still Laughing At UKIP)

  2. beastrabban

    Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
    Mike here examines two of the three Tory policies mentioned by the Green party campaigner in his spoof UKIP poster, which had no positive references to back them up. However, both were articulated as UKIP policies, in their 2010 and 2013 manifesto and policy statements, or in statements by Farage himself. Where UKIP now lie regarding the building of homes on green belt land is unclear. They do, however, stand for complete deregulation of the banks. Mike is absolutely correct in that, contra to what Farage says, Labour pursued a policy of light regulation, aimed at allowing the financial sector to police itself. Which it manifestly didn’t, with disastrous consequences for everyone not a squillionaire. As for the reasons why UKIP should wish to pursue this failed policy, my guess is because UKIP, for all its populism, is primarily a party for the rich, and like the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour determined to win over rich donors.

    1. Jonathan Wilson

      Actually I’m not entirely sure that the original (no links to references) was created by the Green Party campaigner. It’s been doing the rounds on FB for some time, its original source, I believe, has been lost due to the fact that a lot of people save the image and then post it anew (something I regularly do when people post it to “friends only” or its on some other site… I realise that its not strictly “good form” but if its non-attributed on the image its hard to find its original author to allow a “by xx”).

      Its amazing how angry UKIP’ers are at the post using everything from “malicious communication” to “illegal misrepresentation” to “using a trademark” while missing the very point of the correctness of the facts.

      Its also funny to see websites edited to remove the original references… and the biggest hilarity of all is that had the UKIP’ers done nothing the post wouldn’t have gained such a huge audience in the MSM and huge up tick on social media, instead it would have just passed around between people who think UKIP are a quite dangerous joke and are anything but “anti-establishment”.

      1. Barry Davies

        Well it does not reflect UKIP policy and was made to look as if it was official, I wonder if the people on here if they had actually read the lisbon treaty would find it so funny it’s the europhiles again bunch of liars the lot of them.

    1. Mike Sivier

      Here’s a person who seems unaware of how blogs work. Presumably he became a blog follower at some point in the past and now either can’t be bothered or doesn’t know how to press the ‘Unfollow’ button.

      One thing’s for sure – I’m certainly not going out of my way to email him.

  3. Pingback: One Rule for UKIP and Another for the Rest of Us! | jaynelinney

  4. moondancer_by_night

    Thank you for your hard work digging all this up. I do wish we had a fully independant news paper in this country, one that actually investigated each parties policies in detail. Sadly we dont, so its up to us to find out and dig the dirt ourselves. I sent that poster to my mum who I think is now not going to vote UKIP, (thank God at last!) B ut as she said we still need an alternative vote here or she isnt bothering. We only have one truly alternative here and I am going to get her the leaflets for that. Sadly the only crap we have had through the door is condemlabukipbnpiieu and nothing else. I only know there is others out there because I have the net and can dig around. Mother and I imagine others of her age doesnt have or want a pc, so unless the parties put out how is she going to know beyond the press whats out there?
    So thanks again, for all your work and happy digging 🙂

  5. Pingback: “Nice Democracy You’ve Got there. It Would Be a Shame If It Got…Broken” | DaveD's Blog

  6. alan

    Nice to hear UKIP is against the EU, whilst being paid by the EU. If this is not dishonest and hypocritical, I do not know what is.

  7. AM-FM

    So does this mean that we can ask the police to investigate whenever the dwp or rtu says anything that isn’t true?

  8. Pingback: UKIP uncovered: More hidden policies revealed (part one of a possible series) | elizapdushku's World

  9. Dioclese

    Trust you will be digging just as hard into the the parties policies? I’d hate to think this is just another anti-UKIP witch hunt…

    1. Mike Sivier

      UKIP triggered this by sending police to a blogger’s house for no good reason.
      If any of the other political parties start using such tactics, I’ll happily give them the same treatment.

  10. Pingback: The picture that caused an uproar and a police visit, analysed. | SLATUKIP (Still Laughing At UKIP)

  11. Bryn miller

    The uk is a tiny island when compared to the planets available land mass(look at an- atlas) and yet England is more populated per square mile than China,India,Japan,South Korea and many other countries.We are heading for a population crisis.So are we to concrete over our dwindling countryside,farmland,forests and woods etc to build not just houses but roads,railways,airport runways,hospitals,factories,schools,prisons etc.just to accommodate our burgeoning population added to by immigrants of any race,and breeding.what will our future generations inherit because of our bad decisions,and when they question where had all the space gone? How are we going to answer them?

    1. Mike Sivier

      These are the important questions.
      I suppose the answer is not to get that far down this particular line. That’s why I’m for restricting free movement in the EU so it is between those countries that have similarly-performing economies, removing the financial incentive for people from poorer countries to come here.
      Having said that, Poland now has higher average pay than west Wales and the valleys, so that may not deter some.

      1. Bryn miller

        A sensible comment. But we must address the population problem not just in the uk but worldwide.If the human race continues on its current course it will self destruct within the next 200yrs max. Human beings are a brilliant species,but at the same time stupid.

      2. Mike Sivier

        I agree – and this is one of the many ‘elephants in the room’ that get overlooked and forgotten while we’re all discussing the overcrowding caused by immigration – why are we still all having so many children?

Comments are closed.