Conference Motion 4

michaelwilcox · 29-09-2007, 10:25 PM

If radical means expanding the whole 'common purpose' thing then no. I'm not convinced bringing that forward is good for our party image, it simply encourages the cranks and gadflies tag.

Raymond Finch · 30-09-2007, 12:13 PM

The proposal is far too vague.
Radical could mean anything.
Badly worded in my opinion.

kernow · 30-09-2007, 12:23 PM

I'm for radical (not too extreme mind you) to grab the attention of Joe and Jane public and stop them voting for parties just because their parents voted for them!

Tom Wilde · 03-10-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Allen

Abstain

This motion could be interpreted so many ways that it is meaningless.

I completely agree.

Actually, I completely loathe this motion. Apart from the ambiguity over 'radical', it makes no sense to bundle together support for several different policies in one motion. I think we have it about right on the EU - we are already the most radical party on that subject as we call for outright withdrawal. I am strongly opposed to us being "more radical" on immigration as I believe we already have a well-balanced policy ('Net Zero') and to be 'more' radical would not only be a bad policy but would attract racists.

On reflection I will vote against, as I think the motion is so badly constructed that it is important to defeat it.

brian lee · 03-10-2007, 10:35 PM

It is an ideal motion for a UKIP Conference, because the management i.e. Nigel doesn't want anything that might cramp his style. Vague is good because it doesn't matter whether it is passed or not, but leaves the membership fighting amongst themselves as to what it means.

For the 2005 Conference the South Essex Branch of UKIP proposed a motion,

"This Conference proposes that in view of the devolution of certain powers to elected assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and whilst maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom, England be accorded similar status as one indivisible territory with its own Parliament."

It didn't make the agenda. Possibly it was too radical. (They could have taken the English Democrats out if they had passed it and made it a big issue).

View Poll Results: I vote
For	14	60.87%
Against	8	34.78%
Abstain	1	4.35%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ukip-general-issues/42016-conference-motion-4-a.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
UKIP General Issues - British Democracy Forum (& UKIP)	This thread	Refback	29-09-2007 10:22 PM

29-09-2007, 10:25 PM	#11 (permalink)
michaelwilcox Junior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Bristol/South Glos Posts: 49 Party: UKIP	If radical means expanding the whole 'common purpose' thing then no. I'm not convinced bringing that forward is good for our party image, it simply encourages the cranks and gadflies tag.

30-09-2007, 12:13 PM	#12 (permalink)
Raymond Finch Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 508	The proposal is far too vague. Radical could mean anything. Badly worded in my opinion.

30-09-2007, 12:23 PM	#13 (permalink)
kernow Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 4,866	I'm for radical (not too extreme mind you) to grab the attention of Joe and Jane public and stop them voting for parties just because their parents voted for them!

03-10-2007, 10:35 PM	#15 (permalink)
brian lee Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: South Essex Posts: 611	It is an ideal motion for a UKIP Conference, because the management i.e. Nigel doesn't want anything that might cramp his style. Vague is good because it doesn't matter whether it is passed or not, but leaves the membership fighting amongst themselves as to what it means. For the 2005 Conference the South Essex Branch of UKIP proposed a motion, "This Conference proposes that in view of the devolution of certain powers to elected assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and whilst maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom, England be accorded similar status as one indivisible territory with its own Parliament." It didn't make the agenda. Possibly it was too radical. (They could have taken the English Democrats out if they had passed it and made it a big issue).