It never fails to amaze, particularly from reading Guardian CiF and the Student Room, just how many people loathe UKIP and for no apparent reason - false conflations with a tyrannical madman who laid claim to the entire European continent and massacred 6 million Jewish people aren't just the norm, they are deemed credible.
1. Is it perceived racism?
If it is, I can point to hundreds of incidents of racism within the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats.
Take the former, Diane Abbot has stated 'white people love to play divide and rule', Jack Dromey called a Royal Mail worker a 'pikey', there's a former head of a neo-Nazi movements operating as a Labour councillor up North and one Labour candidate sent his opponent 33 homophobic text messages after losing to him at the last election. In 2013, 8 Labour councillors in Harrow resigned under accusations of racism.
Even during the 60's and 70's, Labour was far more vitriolic with its rhetoric around immigration than the other parties.
Is it that UKIP is perceived to be more racist than other parties? Is it then the case, therefore, that a little bit of racism is socially acceptable, and more than a little is entirely unacceptable? Would that then extend to racism against a minority group is more palatable than racism against the majority, if the only issue at hand is numerics?
2. Is it mass immigration?
We'll ignore for the time being that the vast majority of immigrants are white, however this seems to be the most common cause for complaint amongst those who would convince us UKIP is the precise equivalent of Nazism.
What is it specifically about their policy on mass immigration which irks people? Why shouldn't we extend the points based system to all immigrants, rather than discriminating in favour of EU citizens? How is it racist to enforce a system utilised in many advanced democracies the world over?
Does it matter that every single minority group in the UK wants a reduction in mass immigration (source: migration watch)?
3. Is it the BBC?
Has it placed too much emphasis on UKIP's identity, ahead of their policies? I fail to see what within UKIP's manifesto can be construed of as 'far-right', particularly in consideration of their manifesto pledges around income tax brackets, hospital parking charges and the minimum wage, yet it's a term often used in reference to UKIP largely as a means through which, in my opinion, to tackle them based on identity, rather than policy.
Is it the association the BBC has constructed with the BNP? Does it matter that UKIP bans all former BNP members? Does it matter that Labour plays host to a number of former BNP members?
4. Is it free market economics?
Is their deference to the market place deemed by many to be immoral? Is it any less immoral to take money from hard working families and pass it to a centralised bureaucracy to decide upon how best to spend it on their behalf? Is it any less immoral to dehumanise an individual and only consider him or her as a 'category' of people?
Is it any less immoral foisting mass immigration on a populace under the smokescreen of 'diversity' and 'tolerance'?
Is it any less immoral exploiting 'tolerance' to make society at large conform with a narrow political agenda to advance mass corporatism and deflate working class wages (by advancing a massive over supply of labour) under the guise of 'tolerance'?
What is the problem?