Why don't we elect a PARTY that is not politically correct?
Because UKIP are too boring and the BNP too dangerous! (Both are equally riven with internal party strife because of a lack of democracy within the party, which demoralises the membership and creates great resentments. Interesting too that a Socialist Workers Party activist I spoke to on Saturday 31 May complained of exactly the same problem, as regards the split between Left List and Respect.)
SUGGESTED SOLUTION:
Form a party with a constitution such as the one at
http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=107
Now compare and contrast this to the horror that is the BNP constitution, found at http://www.thenationalparty.org.uk:80/constbnp
UKIP's can be found at http://www.ukip.org/ukip/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=39
and get the BNP and UKIP to unite under a party with such a constitution, after having a leadership election.
Remember we only have 2 more years to do this, ie 2010, or we will also miss the next boat to change things.
It is well-known complaint that Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage both operate a crony-system.
No such thing would operate under the proposed party constitution which supports government by referenda. It doesn't matter if it doesn't sound realistic as long as enough people find it fair in principle, and like the sound of it.
They would be the first to join the party, discuss tactics, make the rules. After these are finalised, they can then invite the leadership contenders to fight it out.
Policy disagreements would be resolved by agreeing to disagree - much easier to do when all everyone has to do is agree for a referendum to be conducted should the party be voted into office, ie that the question should be asked, not how it should be answered. Internal party bickering over policies they would never be in a position to decide would then be surgically and permanently removed.
INFORMAL LEADERSHIP SURVEY, EVERY YEAR
The new and different rule would be that all members would every year be required to give the name of the member they think most fitted to lead the party, which will be published. Based on this result, the first and second most nominated members would have the option of having a formal leadership contest.
CARETAKER LEADER UNDERTAKES TO STAND ASIDE IN FAVOUR OF ELECTED LEADER
The founder and acting leader of such a party would state the intention of immediately standing aside for a properly elected leader once a leadership contest has been conducted.
You can't say fairer than that, can you?
Because UKIP are too boring and the BNP too dangerous! (Both are equally riven with internal party strife because of a lack of democracy within the party, which demoralises the membership and creates great resentments. Interesting too that a Socialist Workers Party activist I spoke to on Saturday 31 May complained of exactly the same problem, as regards the split between Left List and Respect.)
SUGGESTED SOLUTION:
Form a party with a constitution such as the one at
http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=107
Now compare and contrast this to the horror that is the BNP constitution, found at http://www.thenationalparty.org.uk:80/constbnp
UKIP's can be found at http://www.ukip.org/ukip/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=39
and get the BNP and UKIP to unite under a party with such a constitution, after having a leadership election.
Remember we only have 2 more years to do this, ie 2010, or we will also miss the next boat to change things.
It is well-known complaint that Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage both operate a crony-system.
No such thing would operate under the proposed party constitution which supports government by referenda. It doesn't matter if it doesn't sound realistic as long as enough people find it fair in principle, and like the sound of it.
They would be the first to join the party, discuss tactics, make the rules. After these are finalised, they can then invite the leadership contenders to fight it out.
Policy disagreements would be resolved by agreeing to disagree - much easier to do when all everyone has to do is agree for a referendum to be conducted should the party be voted into office, ie that the question should be asked, not how it should be answered. Internal party bickering over policies they would never be in a position to decide would then be surgically and permanently removed.
INFORMAL LEADERSHIP SURVEY, EVERY YEAR
The new and different rule would be that all members would every year be required to give the name of the member they think most fitted to lead the party, which will be published. Based on this result, the first and second most nominated members would have the option of having a formal leadership contest.
CARETAKER LEADER UNDERTAKES TO STAND ASIDE IN FAVOUR OF ELECTED LEADER
The founder and acting leader of such a party would state the intention of immediately standing aside for a properly elected leader once a leadership contest has been conducted.
You can't say fairer than that, can you?
No comments:
Post a Comment