gareth2

Yup.


This should definately be in your constitution/manifesto, be it you or UKIP. You cant really protect the people from the people though, not without an overseer of some description; a leader (and who wants to be "protected" from themselves anyway?). Trust in the people. Require a 66% vote, and go with the result.

Heh; interesting. too big to get my head around. the current FPTP system would be ok I would suggest that it be done like this; Britain be split INTO phpbb_no more than 200 seats. Each of those seats gets split up INTO phpbb_local areas, of about 10 per seat. Similar to now, but with a different ratio. Reason; only 200 mp's as opposed to 400 plus would make it easier to get agreement at the top. Its a very big thing to get your head around though. Number two should be in every parties constitution. Its disgusting that it isnt, but then our leaders dont want us to have our say, they want to have THIER say and not be contradicted.

Regards,
Gareth.

arden forester

Lawrie Boxall, your quotes -
I agree - it would.
I totally agree - Sked had the languages and learning to show he was no Little Englander but a man with a vision.
I can't agree - Roger Knapman has been interviewed on the Dutch and French referenda.
I agree - but isn't this what Kilroy-Silk wanted, hence Veritas!
This is the "loose end" of UKIP thinking, in my opinion. I have found on this forum a variety of opinions about what we want other than the existing European Union. I think this is the problem about how others see UKIP regarding the whole campaign against a political union.

John Carter

Hence my idea of making everyone stand as an independent under a constitution. I haven't analysed it in totality yet, but it's currently seeming like there'd be no way that EU membership could be regained. There'd be no self-appointed political elites, for starters. Secondly, the constitution would prevent people in other countries from governing us.

Kilroy had the wrong pitch. He wasn't giving power back to the people, he was trying to give it to himself (or, at least, that's how it looked to the general population).

I've got that one sussed. Why hasn't UKIP?

I'm going to go with my idea. Once it's a bit more solid, I'm going to offer it to UKIP. If they don't want to run with it, I'm going to do it myself.

We've got the Mother of Parliaments. It's about time she gave birth again. But this thread isn't the place for that, so I'll shut up for the time being.

e

Good idea. But what would determine the Prime Minister?

__________________
\'Democracy is where the incompetent many elect the corrupt few\'

John Carter

I'm thinking; shortlist put forward by the MPs and then given to the public to vote on. Likewise with the cabinet. Due to everyone being independent, change of PM/cabinet doesn't have to coincide with a general election... ...MPs get voted in on the GE, PM/cabinet get selected/voted on two years later.
I'm open to suggestions.
Should I start a new thread on this so as not to pollute this one?

gareth2

No wait, youve missed the point....


Under that system, you dont need a pm. infact, heres what happens;

3 levels of government, each one voted for on polling day. bottom level like local government now (town leve) no change. Second one like county council government now; no change (in size) third one like regional ones.

Well it could work. But it boggles my mind. Ill just duck out, its huirting my head. good luck! P.s last thing you need is another party. why not see if ukip like it (the member) and then stand for leadership?

regard,
Gareth.

Edit; like the romans did. They just had a senate (when it wasnt being emporered to death) that didnt have a leader, right?

Tom Wilde

Having thought about it some more, it occurs to me that it might be a positively good thing if UKIP split INTO phpbb_a number of different parties with different ideologies after achieving its primary objective of leaving the EU.

Let's consider the political landscape in such a situation(which unfortunately seems to be many years away).

UKIP has won a general election, or else won enough seats to join a coalition government on the basis that there will be a referendum on our EU membership. The referendum is held, our side wins and Britain leave the EU. What happens next depends on whether UKIP stays united or fragments.

scenario 1: UKIP stays united in government
At this point, the old parties are still in favour of EU membership, but they're in opposition and we are in government. The other parties will graciously accept the verdict of the people for about 6 months, and then start pressing for Britain to rejoin the EU. As the government, we will get the credit when things go right and the blame when they go wrong, but even if leaving the EU goes really smoothly and we get lots of credit for that, at some point we'll be out of favour and will lose a general election. This might happen in five years or fifteen years, but it will happen at some point. In the meantime, the issue of EU membership will have been constantly on the political agenda as the defining difference between us and the opposition. When a pro-EU party or coalition finally forms a government, they will take us back INTO phpbb_the arms of Brussels and we'll be right back to square one.

scenario 2: UKIP fragments after achieving EU withdrawal
At this point, the old parties are still in favour of EU membership, but they're in opposition and we are in government. The other parties will graciously accept the verdict of the people for about 6 months. For a short while, the EU will be off the political agenda. During that time, UKIP splits INTO phpbb_large fragments - Liberal UKIP, Tory UKIP, Socialist UKIP or whatever which will either fight subsequent elections on that basis or will merge with the corresponding 'old' parties (so Tory UKIP joins the Conservatives, etc). This means UKIP isn't in power for so long, but it means that the whole political landscape is changed. Instead of a monolithic UKIP goverment and a pro-EU opposition, there will be a range of parties many of which are to a greater or lesser extent successors to UKIP and which share the glory of having restored Britain's independence. They will differ over matters such as public vs private ownership, social liberalism vs social conservatism and many other issues, but EU membership will have dropped down the agenda. UKIP will have won a permanent victory, but UKIP won't exist any more and history will move on.

This is exactly the Solidarity scenario, and I think it is the best that we could hope for.

John Carter

Yes you do - as a "spokes-model" for other countries to relate to.

Yep. That was my thinking.
I'll stop here and pop another thread up when it's all a bit clearer.

My current thinking with regard to UKIP is that it's pointless to plan "what if" scenarios for what happens when you win the GE. Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to happen - people are generally too stuck in their "my grandaddy voted Labour so I vote Labour" ways to vote en-masse for a party which offers them nothing really different. People need something radical to get their teeth into, something which offers them more than they've got at the moment - most don't see the benefit of leaving the EU (because it doesn't appear to directly affect them) so we have to sneak that in under the umbrella of more radical aims... ...like a real, proper democracy where the MPs work for them, not the party leader.
You're stuck in the battle of tactical voting between the three main parties, which will continue for a long long time unless everyone is offered a radical alternative which they can all (regardless of political view) live with. At the moment (and probably for a long time to come), UKIP is simply a Tory break-off group in the eyes of a great many people.

There comes a point where we have to ask whether we're loyal to UKIP or the best way (whatever that might be) of realising the goal of getting us out of the EU.

IMHO, the conventional political approach of UKIP is failing. We need to think outside the box, not rely on the legacy conventions handed down to us by the very system that betrayed us.

Lawrie Boxall

Apologies - I had not heard Roger or anyone from UKIP discussing the referendum results in France and Holland so I will withdraw my remark partially - but I think in general I am right to say that UKIP is almost an irrelevance in UK politics and continually fails to present an alternative vision and future for Britain and the world.

UKIP could of course revert to being a pressure group but it must make up its mind quickly so that we can all move on. I should not any longer keep a foot in both camps because this may prevent others from making alternative decisions on the way forward.

The theme of doing away with political parties has been mentioned on this forum before - hasn't it?. I have some sympathy with the idea but I am far keener on the policies of direct democracy and limiting the power of the executive in Parliament which achieve the goals we want and does not do away with political parties which are useful bodies in many ways. I think banning them will be impossible and preventing them from fielding candidates in elections seems not very democratic. I think you will have a hard job selling the idea for the national parliament - but for local elections there is a stronger justification and it is a real possibility.

I don't accept Tom's idea of scenario 1 where UKIP eventually leaves office and the incoming government takes us back INTO phpbb_the EU. UKIP in government would have to make constitutional reforms which would make it very difficult for professional politicians to deceive the electorate and usurp the democratic process as they have done for the last 30 years. These constitutional changes centre around handing power back to the people under direct democracy. Once people have these powers they will not easily be deceived INTO phpbb_giving them up.

However I do agree that diversity has its virtues - the diverse anti EU movements in the UK, Sweden and Denmark have achieved a great deal for sure. However there is a job to be done to make lasting changes to British politics - whether UKIP has the ability to do it I don't know. If not UKIP then I hope another party will come along to fill the void UKIP seems determined to walk away from - or maybe hasn't noticed?

On that note I would not like anyone to miss the main point of what I am saying and that is about trust. For a political party to be successfull it has to gain the trust of the voters. UKIP has failed to do this but without that trust it will never be electable and will never achieve its aims. Gaining their trust means that these discussions about radical policy ideas have to become secondary to the main issues of the economy, the health service, education and policing. There is absolutely no point in entering a general election talking about the EU and other constitutional reform until the public fully understand and accept that the party is responsible and will not take risks with the economy, their hard won jobs and health care systems. What UKIP did in May by insisting on talking about nothing else than the EU and then sulking when no-one elese wanted to discuss it was ridiculous in the extreme.

What all potential UKIP candidates and leaders should be asking themselves now is what stance does the party need to adopt to gain trust on these key issues and how those can be made to fit with and put to the service of the central UKIP principles of democracy, self government, openess, honesty etc to produce a coherent whole rounded philosophy. And I am not just talking about the trust of the people who want to end immigration or the trust of those who want massive tax reductions or the trust of those who want protectionist economic policies. I am talking about the trust of the mass of the people in the centre ground who would otherwise vote for one of Lib-Dem, Labour or Tory.

I think this question answers itself - all UKIP needs to do, all it can do if it wants to remain as a political party, is to implement the answer.

John Carter

So why have we got Bliar in again? All of the things which you mention above should have meant that someone else got in.

If the Tories couldn't get the most hated prime minister out of power during his worst moment, how is UKIP going to get ahead of the main three parties whilst playing by the same rules?

The general public, when taken as a unified entity, isn't as intelligent as you think they are, sorry. If they were, we've have Roger as PM right now.