Re: As you (and we) tippie toe round the libel laws
My original comment was in response to a comment from another poster, which they then deleted by the looks of it (in shame?). My comment was meant humorously - obviously - as recycling 'swivel eyed loons' would have been a little lame. My use of a random anachronistic idiom should have been a pointer to the 'humour' element. Sorry if it passed you by (also sorry for any passerby reading this, I am now shooting for the most pretentious language I have used since I was in the education system and was meant to sound clever...)
I would obviously not be able to support the fact that any party does not have 'nutters' within their supporters. Whichever definition of 'nutter' we take where at least one party has some, this will certainly be true in general for all parties. We obviously need to say that nutter≠mentally ill; common usage of the word means we can use it without fear (whereas saying UKIP has lots or retards/spastics/mongs in the membership would not be OK with me as the potential insult to the mentally handicapped would be unfair in my eyes).
However BobRocket, you allude to the 'ratio' of 'nutters' to 'non-nutters' in your comment. Then try to draw the conclusion that all parties would have an equal ratio of 'nutters' stuffing their ''gunnals', Regardless of my opinions, it is an interesting question. If there were an agreed definition of 'nutter' with an 'nutter test', which party would have the highest proportion of nutters in the membership (NQ - Nutter Quotient)?
Field-testing this would be hard (like, impossible). So the ordinary girl or guy in the street is reduced to anecdotal evidence. I guess we could look at the number of people UKIP vs other parties who have been chucked out from the party recently? Is there a public list anywhere? Without doing more research, we are left to guess at the NQ...
All of the main parties have had problems with people (they always will), but the NQ score of the following stuff kind of stands out:
- Tory MPs defecting to UKIP, like Reckless, "He said that, as a Tory, he could not keep a promise to "cut immigration while treating people fairly"". High NQ?
- Tort MEP defecting to UKIP , one commented when caught going to a massage parlour, "MEPs are entitled to a private life. I work extremely hard and when I do occasionally have time off I enjoy a massage." High NQ?
- 'Meet the Ukippers' - Mensa level NQ!
- Labour supporter Natasha Bolter, turned PPC for UKIP claimed sexual harassment from UKIP General Secretary - a truly weird story - 178 NQ
- The fact that UKIP has attracted far-right support (based on polling studies) and stuff like this: "the EDL leadership said: “All nationalist parties should stand aside in areas that Ukip have a good chance of winning. Let’s not split their vote. We might take a couple or a few hundred votes of them, we don’t come no where and we’ve cost UKIP the win because they come 50, 60 votes behind Labour.” Gulp NQ!
Small things, but as the UKIP membership is very small (not talking about the people who may vote for it, but the members) it is pretty much sure there is a higher NQ for UKIP than the three mainstream parties. Analyzing the Scots and Welsh nationalists is a little tricky as they are mostly 'nutters' anyway, won't mention Northern Ireland as the NQ there on both sides meant 50 years of rubbish. The Greens probably have a high NQ, but at least they mean well to all people, so if they are not going to be in contention we should leave them alone to be mostly confused.
I do have some time for the central argument of UKIP - that the EU isn't 'right'. Their approach to fixing it, by ignoring the problem and saying 'we leave' is not really that useful.
Based on my careful analysis - as presented above - I can confidently say it is the party with the highest ratio of nutters to gunnels out of all of the relevant parties is UKIP.
in he debate (not sure if the Monster Raving would have a higher NQ than UKIP if analysed properly... in the same way we can ignore the rest)