Sunday, 4 March 2012

C'mon Ukip, make your mind up

I have been reading the 'New' Constitution on the Ukip website and am slightly puzzled by apparent contradictions where the granting of referenda are concerned.

In the section "What We Stand For" it states: "Give the public power to require binding local and national referenda on major issues."

In the section "Criminal Justice" it states: "Allow binding national referenda on controversial public law and order issues that are outside party politics. The public must have the final say."

In the section "Constitution" it states: "Introduce ‘Direct Democracy’ whereby 5% of the national or local electorate can demand a binding referendum on any issue."

So, are referenda to be allowed on "major issues", or "issues that are outside party politics", or "on any issue"? What are the definitions of 'major' and 'issues that are outside party politics'? If referenda are to be granted 'on any issue', why are the others mentioned?

If there is any member of the Ukip NEC or party heirachy among my readers, perhaps they would care to solve my dilemma? I do not mind waiting whilst 'New' policy documents are drafted..........


john in cheshire said...

my sentiments. I really hope that UKIP are not becoming/are just another political entity.
I want a party that sees its ultimate goal as being unnecessary. I thought UKIP (of which I am a member) was that party.

Captain Ranty said...

Pat Nurse is drafting the smokers rights document for the next UKIP manifesto with a provisional promise from the very top that smoking in cars will not be banned

WitteringsfromWitney said...

jic: Ukip wish to retain the status quo (nbr MPs), central control (recall system - no mention electorate's choice only), so local boards - centrally funded? Need I go on - manifesto yet another loosely worded document.

CR: And they will probably cock that policy up too!

Stuart said...

That's funny really because I had a problem with the message Marta Andreason was giving in the Telegraph a week or so ago. She was saying that the Chancellor should reduce the amount we give to Brussels because of the failure to pass the accounts. I felt that this was a reform message rather than the acknowledgement that it cannot be reformed and the UK should leave. It sounded a lot like the Tory reform agenda to me, but I might have been mistaken.

Captain Ranty said...


That is not me.

It's the deluded anti-smoker again.


WitteringsfromWitney said...

CR (the real one) Ok thanks - wish I could block the bastard!