Consider the Coalition's promise contained in their Programme for Government (paqe 27) in which was 'promised':
"We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents."As we all know now, that 'power of recall' is dependent on a committee of an MP's peers agreeing to the demands of a constituency - in other words voters can force squat-diddly!
Now consider Ukip's 'promise' contained in their document "The Constitution", in which it is stated:
"Introduce a right of recall whereby electors can challenge an errant MP and force a by-election in exceptional circumstances, such as abuse of expenses"I have to ask what, exactly, is the difference twixt the two? Does not that of Ukip imply that it will not be the electorate's decision? Does that not imply that the present situation, whereby politicians 'look after their own', will continue?
How about political parties 'spelling out' that which they mean, when issuing 'promises'? How about Ukip doing likewise - or are they too, despite their Libertarian claims, a practitioner and believer of 'central control'? How about Ukip learning from the errors of another party?
Digressing slightly, Dougas Carswell complains today about civil servants 'controlling' ministers and calls for civil servants and ministers to appear before the relevant Select Committee to justify their annual budget with the proviso that no approval means no fee. Should not 'Government' also appear before their electorate for approval of their spending plans on the same basis of no approval, no fee? If Ukip maintain that they are a party for 'small government', should not that aspect of 'Referism' also be part of their manifesto?
Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, posts on Ukip and queries their lack of strategy. As I have commented, Ukip's problem appears to be that they believe the word 'strategy' is spelt F A R A G E! One can but hope that Alexandra Swann may be able, without ruffling too many feathers, to change their strategy!
Not another amendment to something which they have, allegedly, been doing since 2010....?