Not great reasons: Most of the links on this now-infamous meme have been taken down by UKIP members, anxious to hide the embarrassing facts they revealed. The vote in favour of marital rape is not so easily removed as it is recorded on the European Parliament’s official website.
Everybody loves a good political debate in the letter page of the local paper, right? Everybody but UKIP, it seems.
In the recent European Parliament election, the party of right-wing anti-Europeanism won more votes than anyone else here in Powys. Dismayed, Yr Obdt Srvt wrote to the papers to ask whether those who had supported UKIP were aware of the facts surrounding their chosen representatives.
“Policies put forward by UKIP or by high-level members of UKIP include raising income tax to a flat rate of 31 per cent for everyone (a rise of 11 per cent for the poorest; a cut of 14 per cent for the richest), speeding up NHS privatisation (in all parts of the UK), and making it legal for a man to rape or assault his wife (UKIP voted against a law to ban this in the European Parliament),” I wrote.
The response, the following week, was predictable: “Is this likely? I cannot imagine a political party of any hue, anywhere, in favour of such abhorrence,” wrote a UKIP supporter of very long-standing, of the vote in support of marital rape.
“My guess is this assertion comes from the rumour mill in the fibs factory. It should be taken with a large pinch of salt and Mr Sivier should check his sources.”
So I published my source – the European Parliament’s official record, available on the Internet for anybody to look up.
This should be enough for some, but not for UKIP and its adherents!
“It is true that in 2006 UKIP voted in the European Parliament against a non-binding resolution – not a law – to ban marital rape. Context and interpretation are relevant. They did so simply because of their opposition to the EU and all its works.”
Well, now – this response puts UKIP in a bit of a quandary. Firstly, the writer had to twist my words to make his interpretation of the 2006 vote fit – the resolution was calling on member states, including the UK, to create their own law regarding the subject. My comment that UKIP voted, in the European Parliament, against a law to ban marital rape is correct because UKIP opposed the resolution.
Now it seems that opposition has come back to bite them because the Welsh Government is considering just such a law at the moment. According to Assembly Member Joyce Watson, the Gender-based Violence, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Bill places duties on the Welsh Ministers, Local Authorities and Local Health Boards to prepare and publish strategies aimed at ending domestic abuse, gender-based violence and sexual violence.
If UKIP and its supporters say they support this law, they will make hypocrites of themselves – publically – in the light of their opposition to such legislation in the European Parliament. If they oppose it, then they prove my point about their policies. Either way, UKIP is shown up as a gang of evil-hearted villains.
Oh, and if Mr Farage and his friends voted in support of marital rape “simply because of their opposition to the EU”, why did its members not simply avoid voting altogether – as that party has done in more than two-thirds of European Parliament votes since 2009?
UKIP has the worst voting record of any British party in the European Parliament; the fact that its members took the trouble to attend and vote on this resolution indicates that they actively opposed ending marital rape and the many other examples of violence against women that were included with it.
It seems these last points may not see the light of day in the local newspapers, as editors can tire of long-running debates.
How fortunate that we have the social media to save the day and bring this important information to the masses!
Feel free to disseminate this article as freely and as often as you like, to get the message across.
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:
Alternatively, you can buy Vox Political books!
The second – Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first, Strong Words and Hard Times
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Mike Sivier's blog 
UKIP’s fans have that all-purpose excuse for anything the party does in the EU. Apparently voting against a law that just so happens to resonate with a lot of far-right people on one of their rare appearances at their workplace is just them sticking it to the EU and showing how stupidy-poopid it is. I don’t get it either, but it’ll take more than reason and evidence to cut through that fatty layer of moon-logic.
“That fatty layer of moon-logic” – what a brilliant description!
I must try to find ways of using that.
This picture was done before the Council and European Elections and has all been written off as nonsense.
Maternity leave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hbcUoCALeY
Income tax: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27654958
Scrapping holiday entitlement (Even Conservative MEP’s don’t want us to stay in the ECHR): http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/…/there-is-no-longer-any…/ They don’t want to scrap holiday entitlement, that is nonsense…
Privatising the NHS: http://www.ukip.org/ukip_head_of_policy_tim_aker_last…
House building: UKIP would review all house building as any party would. This “policy” from the picture is utter nonsense though taken from the 2010 Manifesto which has been abandoned having been written by a previous party head.
Climate change: See ‘House Building’… From 2010 manifesto…
Banking regulations: No source given (even says it on the picture for goodness sakes!)
Human Rights Laws: As I highlighted above. Repatriating Human Rights Laws to the UK doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be any Human Rights…
Rape/Human Rights laws: Absolute and utter nonsense. There is no such policy…
Cutting Education Spending: Again utter nonsense. More would be put into spending with the reintroduction of grammar schools and apprenticeship schemes…
Buying 3 Aircraft Carriers instead: If anyone is stupid enough to believe that then they really should vote Labour…
2010 manifesto… Farage said recently it’s nonsense…
Yes the defence budget needs increasing to keep building facilities open for worldwide construction (see Portsmouth) and to solidify our defensive capabilities which are lacking: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Battle-stations-Navy… http://news.sky.com/…/raf-jet-chases-russian-planes…
UKIP have no policy to cut spending in Education to fund Aircraft Carrier builds. It’s utter nonsense.
The vast majority of the above picture is made up from a mixture of the 2010 Manifesto which has long since been rubbished by Nigel Farage and UKIP, assumptions by people and outdated UKIP affiliate websites that have forgotten to take down old data.
FYI None of the major parties have a 2015 General Election manifesto yet.
UKIP’s is out in September. So don’t think questioning UKIP policies when none of the major parties have conclusively outlined theirs is terribly wise to be honest!
As far as the marital rape issue is concerned, you really should have read the article before posting this comment. You have just made yourself look extremely – and I mean extremely – silly.
While you might have some shiny new weblinks to support your point of view, I’m afraid your claim that the evidence in the meme is from the 2010 manifesto, assumptions (whatever that means) and outdated old data won’t wash. I checked this information myself and all but one of the claims was accurate.
The claim that I could not substantiate was the claim that UKIP would cut education funds to build aircraft carriers. I have made that clear in the past.
Your last paragraph is an attempt to tell us that UKIP doesn’t have any policies, because it doesn’t have a manifesto out yet. Do you seriously expect us to believe that kind of stupidity? All political parties have policies all the time, not just in time for elections.
Until UKIP’s manifesto is out – since that party has taken down as many references to current policies as it can find – we must rely on what we know – and we have checked.
I for one will look forward to seeing a huge number of policy reversals in UKIPs general election manifesto. I imagine September will be a fun month, full of picking these things out and exposing them for what they are.
Do you know yet if the manifesto will be the kind of colourful eight-page children’s book that we got for the European Parliament elections?
reading this i had to laugh sounds more like labour i all for ukip they get my vote
Reblogged this on sdbast.
I don’t think “Yr Obdt Srvt” is a proper welsh name. There aren’t enough lls in it. 😀
Oh you’re such a wit. I’m not Welsh – I just live here – and Yr Obdt Srvt is an abbreviation of ‘Your Obedient Servant’.
I’m sending this link around to my various blogs that I read, to my friends and family – to anywhere I can.
You have it spot on Mike – I could never, ever vote for such a party, they live in the middle ages and believe that they can beat down women. Let them even try that on me, or many millions of other women!
Stupid party will be giving out clubs and telling men that they should drag the women by their hair.
They are as much use as a paper thimble and as thick as mince – as they say in Scotland.
Reblogged this on Jay's Journal and commented:
Something everyone should read – it’s about Ukip and their beliefs – disgusting!
Is what you stand for so weak that you have to tell lies to try and fend off UKIP’s challenge? It’s a compliment I suppose.
No lies here, just accurate reporting.
“No lies here, just accurate reporting.” Mike Sivier………. Daily Mail, Guardian, The Sun……..All use the same twisted logic as your comments, Oh This one you can use next time for free,”We where just following orders” , But as your an old hand at reporting you know how to use propaganda to its best Your manta one pressumes is why let the truth get in the way of a good story.
I approved this comment so the rest of you could boggle at it, as I did.
Pingback: It’s time to smoke a Kipper | Vox Political
Marital rape: UKIP does not have any policy in this regards. It is a blatant lie. The only comments about marital rape were made by a man who once donated to UKIP, and does not speak for UKIP on any area of policy. This would be like claiming anyone who has ever given any money to LibLabCon can speak for them on policy
UKIP Raise Income Tax: UKIP’s flat-tax proposal would have the effect of helping the poor. It would also especially help the aspirational working class, as it would not punish them by confiscating their new income once their business grew enough to take them into a higher tax bracket. As for the rich, they create most of the jobs, and have said in the past over taxation would drive them out of Britain.
Speed up NHS Privatisation: UKIP would not speed up the privatisation of the NHS. The NHS privatisation was started by the Labour Party, so why UKIP is being attacked for pointing out flaws in the current system is puzzling.
Mr Browning’s original comment was considerably longer than the above; I cut it down to the relevant parts. Note that, unlike Thomas Evans, he does not deny that the Income Tax rise is UKIP policy, nor does he deny that UKIP would continue NHS privatisation (although admittedly he does not agree with UKIP would speed it up).
Where he goes badly adrift is his comment on marital rape. Mr Browning, you cannot argue with the official record of European Parliament proceedings, in which UKIP members including party leader Nigel Farage voted against a regulation calling on member states to make laws against this and many other examples of domestic violence and violence towards women. It is there in black and white. Here’s a link to the names of those who voted and how they voted – you’ll find Mr Farage et all at the top of page 11: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=PV&reference=20060202&secondRef=TOC&language=EN
“As for the rich, they create most of the jobs…”
The primary function of the rich creating jobs is to create the means to exploit the worker for profit; the jobs are a merely by-product of profiteering.
“…and have said in the past over taxation would drive them out of Britain.”
Don’t slam the door on the way out.
Reblogged this on amnesiaclinic and commented:
Interesting…..
“I approved this comment so the rest of you could boggle at it, as I did.”
So kind of you sir, My best part so far, I am soooooooo Proud of that piece.
What garbage on ukip and its policies.
Income tax: Ukip want to take people on minimum wage out of tax altogether, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100024310/ukips-plan-to-free-minimum-wage-earners-from-income-tax-looks-like-a-vote-winner/.
Education: Ukip want to bring back the grammar schools giving working class kids a chance to escape the poverty trap,http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/01/nigel-farage-ukip-schools-taxes.
You have no idea on ukip’s policies our manifesto isn’t out until september pointless in debating nonesense like this.
It’s hard to tell fact from fiction at the moment, that’s for sure. You all seem to have a delusion that the fact your manifesto won’t be published until September means we can’t discuss your policies until then; think again.
Also, you are avoiding the substantive issue, which is that UKIP voted against a motion to outlaw violence against women including marital rape (among others). The Welsh Assembly is discussing such a law at the moment. Would UKIP support it or not? If yes, then the party is open to accusations of hypocrisy; if no, then the party confirms what I and others have said about its attitude to this issue.
Which is it?
I’ll say this about UKIP-they have managed to surf the wave of popular discontent with the three main parties. It’s a pity that their rule if they took power would be much worse then we have now.
So funny how people creep out of the woodwork to peddle crap like this page..while supporting paedos in power over the last 40 years of failure.
Just another source of animal feed for sheeple.
Nobody here supports paedophilia or wants child abusers to have positions of power. If you were to read some of the other articles on this blog, you would receive that message very clearly.
Vox Political’s stance on child abuse, like its stance on UKIP, is supported by fact – a quality that is noticeably absent from your comment.
Your position on UKIP is based on lies half truths and innuendo.
If that were true, why do you have no way of opposing it? The article uses factual evidence and you don’t seem to have any.
Your ‘facts’ are fiction. It is hard to answer when all you have is lies.
You think the official record of proceedings in the European Parliament is fiction. I foresee difficulties for you in persuading anyone else of that notion.
Ok let’s answer one of your lies. You claim UKIP policy is to raise income tax for the poorest 88% of Britons.
Well, it is insane to refer to poorest 88% for a start as that includes people on massive salaries who could never be construed as poor. That you suggest that only the top 12% are rich shows you to be disingenuous at best.
UKIP policy is that people on minimum wave should suffer no tax or NIC. THAT is truth. Labour, who you seem to support taxed minimum wage earners through all the Blair Brown years.
So UKIP is clearly, on the issue of tax, more a left wing defender of the poor that you are.
See, but that is a mistake.
The observation that UKIP wants to raise income tax for the poorest 88 per cent of earners – not Britons; I saw what you did there – can be linked to the number of people currently being taxed less than 31 per cent.
The idea of people on minimum wage paying no tax or NI is problematic because current policy among all the right-wing parties is to allow wages to be depressed as much as possible, leaving more profit for the bosses, owners, shareholders. With more people on minimum wage, and taken out of tax and NI, there will be less money to pay for services and the government – of whichever kind – may then say it cannot afford to provide these services and hand them to the private sector. Any service provided by the private sector will, by definition, be more expensive to the purchaser than that provided by the state, so those earners on the minimum wage will end up having to shell out a higher proportion of their earnings than if they had carried on paying tax.
And it remains unfair to raise taxes for those in the minimum tax band to 31 per cent while lowering them to the same level for those in the higher tax bands.
This is not rocket science. If it eludes UKIP’s strategists, one must question their intelligence. If it is known to them, one must question their morality.
UKIP according to you are against building houses on green belt land. So that puts us on the aide of the left wing Green Party!
And you think that makes UKIP bad! What planet do you live on?
If you had clicked the links in the article and read some of the other articles I’ve written on this subject, you would know that UKIP’s position regarding house-building on the Green Belt is one of the few policies I could support.
However, it seems UKIP representatives have disowned this policy along with all the others. Here’s the quote: ” 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?”
So there you are. You can’t have it both ways.
Well, you have it both ways. So I don’t see why I should not.
I don’t think any of the points are a true representation, so frankly this discussion is a waste of time.
The only way I have it is in accordance with the facts. Perhaps you should look up ‘confirmation bias’ – just because you don’t agree with the points, that doesn’t make them any less factually accurate.
Anyway, if you’re determined to ignore the facts I’m presenting, then this discussion is indeed a waste of time and you can congratulate yourself for being right about one thing.
On tax, it seems Harman thinks those on middle incomes should pay more tax. So I guess you do not support Labout?
I’m a member of Labour but do not agree with the party on every policy point and often try to influence policy away from the perceived direction of travel.
I’m probably similar to most party members in that sense.
Am I allowed to be the same in UKIP?
I expect so – it’s not my responsibility.
And then there are all your ‘no source found for this claim’. And we are supposed to respond! If you cannot prove your claim you should apologise and withdraw it.
Lazy, lazy, lazy – you really need to read the articles to which this one links. Then you might at least understand why I think your comment is silly.
There’s a nice pack of lies. What a dishonest slimeball.
Are you saying that UKIP didn’t vote against that now-infamous EU motion? Are you saying there is a way for them to take a position on the Welsh Assembly Bill that is neither hypocritical nor confirms their support for marital rape?
You have no argument; on this blog we don’t pay attention to vulgar abuse.
I love the way that Jez pretends not to notice any of your responses to his “refutations”. He seems to think all he has to do to prove you wrong is just say, “This is a lie!!!!!” without really demonstrating why.
His whole stance is just prolonged squealing.
It’s frighteningly reminiscent of Iain Duncan Smith, if you think about it.
I put a comment on one of his blogposts over the weekend, rebutting his ignorant/dishonest interpretation of climate science. Guess what? He deleted my comment. Why am I unsurprised?
UKIPpers complain about being persecuted and shouted down, but do you see how quick they are to censor when they get a chance to?
Hmm… They’ll probably sing like birds about this comment, because I’m sure I’ve deleted comments from them in the recent past. But here’s the difference:
Comments I have edited or deleted were either off-topic, attempts to flood the blog with so much material that it would put people off, repetition of arguments that had been disproved previously, or plain old-fashioned abuse.
I doubt yours fell into any of those categories!
I’d like to think not, but feel free to judge for yourself.
http://thegreatcritique.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/its-politics-not-science-driving-climate-mania-why-are-environmentalists-and-scientists-so-reluctant-to-discuss-long-term-increases-in-southern-hemisphere-sea-ice/
Looks perfectly rational to me.
Reblogged this on SMILING CARCASS'S TWO-PENNETH.
Pingback: Embarrassment for UKIP as hypocrisy is exposed in the local press | John D Turner
It does not seem to make it clear that our current tax system of 21% is PLUS 26.8% National insurance (12% Empoyees,13.8%) making the lowest paid give away 47.8% of their wages Ukip will ban NI. It does not mention that the MINIMUM you can live on in the UK is the MINIMUM wage (clue is in the name) £13,124.80p. Why is it taxed then if it is the MINIMUM. Ukip propose no tax on this.I do not see that mentioned. Tax is payable from £9996 pa at a rate of 20% PLUS NI
No – the Minimum Income Standard (the minimum on which you can live in the UK), according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which researches such matters, is £16,284 pa, which is more than the minimum wage provides. The poorest earners in the country are being pushed into debt by their employers while the government does nothing.
But taking them out of tax is not the answer, for reasons I have already mentioned. The answer is to build up their wages until they reach the Living Wage level at the very least.
Anything else is, in my opinion, an insult to the time and effort these valuable workers put in.
Oops – forgot to put in the JRF link: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/minimum-income-standard-2014
Sorry, that should read'(12% Employees, + 13.8% Employers) I profess to being one of Chukka Umuna’s Internet Primitives!!
Pingback: It’s politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice? | TheCritique Archives
Pingback: “It’s politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice?” | TheCritique Archives
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
Mike here discusses UKIP’s misogyny and their opposition to laws criminalising marital rape. He tackles and demolishes the claim of UKIP members that the party only voted against an EU resolution to press member states into passing legislation against it from a simple opposition to any legislation passed by the European parliament, and not from the party’s own very well documented misogyny. The Welsh Assembly is considering passing a law against marital rape. I don’t know about traditional, medieval Welsh law, but marital rape was a crime in Anglo-Saxon England. See the book, ‘Women in Anglo-Saxon England’. This fact also shows how hackneyed and actually anachronistic UKIP’s image of a traditional England and Britain actually is.
Are we to believe that all socialists have respect and regard for women? Take some of the leaders of the SWP who, it has been widely reported, have sexually abused female members of that organisation and then held their own trials of the suspects. (Might some of these guys vote LABOUR in the secrecy of the voting booth?) The trials have been subject to rules (not laws) thought up by the leaders themselves and then – surprise, surprise – the accused are found not guilty by fellow members – no less – who sit in judgement. Can you imagine what the MSM’s reaction would be if UKIP followed a similar path? Could we have your reaction/condemnation Mike please – as an up-to-speed guy you must know of this situation. Have you mentioned it before? And please remember these are offences that have are alleged (by female victims) to have happened – they are not voting records. C’mon – sauce for the goose and all that.
I wasn’t aware of the SWP scandal but looked it up on Wikipedia. You mean this, I take it:
“A Disputes Committee document was discussed at the party conference in January 2013 about allegations of sexual assault and rape made by a much younger female member against ‘Comrade Delta’, a senior party official who by then was no longer in his former post. Allegations about Delta’s behaviour had been an issue for several years within the group,[86] the first complaint against him being made in 2010. ‘Delta’ has never been questioned by the police about the allegations made against him.[5]
“A transcript was leaked to the Socialist Unity website shortly after the January conference, and the party’s perceived failure to adequately resolve the issue resulted in strong internal criticism.[87] One member of the disputes committee[88] had asserted that the party had “no faith in the bourgeois court system to deliver justice.”[87] Journalist Laurie Penny noted that the allegations were investigated and dismissed by friends of the accused, and that the alleged victim and her friends have been harassed by other party members,[89] while journalist John Palmer, a one-time IS member, pointed to problems with the policy of ‘democratic centralism’ as it had been adopted by Tony Cliff,[90] though Alex Callinicos defended the party’s version of Leninism, and referred to the ‘Delta’ issue as “a difficult disciplinary case”i n the February issue of the party’s monthly Socialist Review magazine.[91]
“In an official statement, the party’s Central Committee, via Charlie Kimber, stated that the issue was an internal matter, insisting that “we strongly condemn” the release of the conference transcript and that “this case is closed”.[92] Richard Seymour, on his Lenin’s Tomb blog, criticised the party’s leadership.[86] Along with another writer and (then) SWP member China Miéville and others, Seymour was involved with the internal opposition’s blog, International Socialism, established in January 2013.[93] According to Alex Callinicos: “the internal opposition are accountable to no one for these actions. They offer an unappetising lesson in what happens when power is exercised without responsibility.”[91]The Guardian reported that a woman who complained about rape in the SWP claimed she was asked a number of offensive questions about her sexual past and drinking habits. Another article in The Guardian suggested that instead of actually dealing with the rape allegation, the SWP preferred to talk about its internal organisation, thereby protecting its leadership.[94]
“A report by Shiv Malik and Nick Cohen published by The Guardian the following March revealed that further allegations of rape have been made internally against ‘Delta’ and another senior party member.[95]
“A special conference was held on 10 March,[95] in which Seymour and Miéville’s faction was defeated, and the central committee insisted the report about the complaint against ‘Delta’, “that no rape had occurred”, be accepted.[96] Seymour, who later accused “the leadership” of “rigged debates and gerrymandered votes”,[97] announced his resignation,[98] while the newly established International Socialist Network gained more than 100 now former SWP members.[97]
“Julie Sherry, a member of the Central Committee responding to allegations of the party’s sexism, has written: “We believe women cannot be free until capitalism is destroyed by a revolution led by women and men together.”[99] Sherry replaced a member of the Central Committee who disapproved of the handling of the case while her father was a member of the disputes committee who found the allegation of misconduct against ‘Delta’ “not proven”.[97] Journalist Owen Jones speculated in January that “the era of the SWP and its kind is over.”[100]
“Subsequent to the publicity surrounding the SWP’s response to this rape allegation, a number of critics on the left called those in leadership positions “rape apologists” – for instance, these allegations were publicly aired and were the basis of a walkout in protest against SWP candidates at the National Union of Students (NUS) meeting in April 2013.[101] The Socialist Workers’ Student Society has been active at many universities, but the SWSS suffered a serious decline in membership as the ‘Comrade Delta’ scandal unfolded.[102]
“‘Comrade Delta’ himself was reported to have resigned from the SWP in July 2013.[3] According to Alex Calliniocos in June 2014, around 700 members of the SWP have resigned from the group.”
The obvious question that arises is, why hasn’t the alleged victim made a complaint to the police, so that they could investigate the case? You’re right that it is clearly inadequate for the party to whitewash the situation with its own inquiry – and clearly there were opportunities for corruption, as evidenced in the article. Note the wider reaction – a huge drop in party membership. This is what happens – and rightly so – when political parties try to cover up their misdemeanours. UKIP should take note.