B.A.Ware

Perhaps we do need radical reform. I think what is being proposed is a theory.

Percy the Poodle

Paul, i think what Bman means is that on UKIP's winning an election we would pass an act of parliament setting out the rules he has established. We would also pass an act saying that a majority in a referendum would be required to change these rules.

However, as no parliament can bind its successor according to our constitutional law, other parties in future governments could still break the rule. We would ask them to sign something saying that they wouldn't, which due to the favourability of our pension terms, it would be political suicide to refuse to sign up to.

Paul Birch

That may indeed be what Biscuitman means, but I've asked him repeatedly and he refuses to give a straightforward answer.

I would still argue that, in such an event, the opposition parties would not sign any such general commitment. It would not be in their own interests to do so. If they had a very different policy they intended to push as a major plank at the next election, a slightly risky but not unsound tactic would be to argue that being returned to power would be mandate enough; alternatively, they could simply offer a single referendum on that specific point, without signing up to some general agreement or principle that could prove an embarrassment later on. On the other hand, if they had no immediate plans to reform the state pension again, their best bet would be leave it all for future governments, and not to bind themselves unnecessarily. I doubt that the electorate would consider such behaviour unreasonable - although I dare say the UKIP government might gain a few brownie points by making the referendum suggestion.

Lawrie Boxall

Have UKIP members fully taken on board the meaning of UKIPs policy of Direct or Active Democracy? These proposals are major constitutiuonal reform and if implemented would radically alter the relationship between the electorate and the government and between Parliament and the executive. Perhaps our little crumble cream is anticipating these changes even though he seems to be referring to a plebiscite (not an internet site for chavs) rather than a referendum. If UKIP was successful at some point these reforms would be extrememly difficult for any incoming government to overturn.
I am presuming the proposals for the Popular Initiative and Popular Veto have been retained and not watered down - perhaps MKD can tell us.

Biscuitman

Thanks for coming in on the Active Democracy subject Lawrie, i think i referred to the bare detals on the other thread.

I only had a few notes from your presentation at Knowl Hill so couldn't recall the whole concept.

Although Active Democracy is not as emotive to the electorate as pensions, immigration, health crime etc it is the foundation of UKIPs view on the future government of the country in order to prevent government by the likes of a B-Liar/Prescott axis ever again.

__________________
IF THE EU WAS THE ANSWER, IT MUST HAVE BEEN A STUPID QUESTION!

mkpdavies

The last I heard they had both been retained in full. Petrina Holdsworth made a point of it at the Weybridge and Runnymede AGM.

I think it is one of THE most important policies we have, and people I speak to agree!

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems