Discussion
FredClogs said:
PugwasHDJ80 said:
Switzerland is a really god example
the cantonal states are like little countries- they all get on, but they all have their own rules- some allow the smoking of pot, some allow the closing to roads every 4th weekend to go rallying etc etc some are filled with swiss germans and are entirely devoid of life
A really good example of nonsense.the cantonal states are like little countries- they all get on, but they all have their own rules- some allow the smoking of pot, some allow the closing to roads every 4th weekend to go rallying etc etc some are filled with swiss germans and are entirely devoid of life
If smoking pot is bad for you then why should the happenstance of where you live have any effect, likewise if it's good for you. It's bannanas.
We should be ruled by a meritocratic intellectual elite, they have our best interests at heart. Village by village mob rule is at best wasted effort, just because you were born some place doesn't mean you have to have a different set of standards, goals and outlook on life.
what we don't need to be is ruled by a meritocratic intellectual elite- whatever that is! If it does exist then no one seems ot have found one in the last 10,000 years of human civilisation.
what we actually need is to make decisions for ourselves, village by village that suits our circumstances
PugwasHDJ80 said:
I really really really hope I need a whoosh parrot here
what we don't need to be is ruled by a meritocratic intellectual elite- whatever that is! If it does exist then no one seems ot have found one in the last 10,000 years of human civilisation.
what we actually need is to make decisions for ourselves, village by village that suits our circumstances
Common Purpose?what we don't need to be is ruled by a meritocratic intellectual elite- whatever that is! If it does exist then no one seems ot have found one in the last 10,000 years of human civilisation.
what we actually need is to make decisions for ourselves, village by village that suits our circumstances
PugwasHDJ80 said:
FredClogs said:
PugwasHDJ80 said:
Switzerland is a really god example
the cantonal states are like little countries- they all get on, but they all have their own rules- some allow the smoking of pot, some allow the closing to roads every 4th weekend to go rallying etc etc some are filled with swiss germans and are entirely devoid of life
A really good example of nonsense.the cantonal states are like little countries- they all get on, but they all have their own rules- some allow the smoking of pot, some allow the closing to roads every 4th weekend to go rallying etc etc some are filled with swiss germans and are entirely devoid of life
If smoking pot is bad for you then why should the happenstance of where you live have any effect, likewise if it's good for you. It's bannanas.
We should be ruled by a meritocratic intellectual elite, they have our best interests at heart. Village by village mob rule is at best wasted effort, just because you were born some place doesn't mean you have to have a different set of standards, goals and outlook on life.
what we don't need to be is ruled by a meritocratic intellectual elite- whatever that is! If it does exist then no one seems ot have found one in the last 10,000 years of human civilisation.
what we actually need is to make decisions for ourselves, village by village that suits our circumstances
Madness that people want to go backwards, we'd end up back in feudal Britain rather than some dream utopia!
Sir Humphrey said:
s2art said:
Do they? How do they square that with NATO membership? And how would the UK square that with something like the Falklands being attacked?
Looks a bit more complicated than that, the parliament has to approve it and put time limits on it (NATO members being attacked would be OK).The Falklands are an overseas territory of the UK and we are wholly responsible for its defence.
Kermit power said:
Thing is, I can't quite bring myself to believe that Cameron and Osbourne are that stupid? In fact, might they have played an absolute blinder??
Start out by refusing to put Devo Max on the referendum, then go through a painful campaign, then agree to bring it in, then point out - now the whole thing has far, far more visibility than it otherwise would - that we're really going to have to solve the issue for England as well, then sit back and say oh... look at that... Labour will never get a majority in the English parliament! Who would've thought it??
Apparently Ed Balls has been spitting feathers about the whole thing, as unlike Milliband and others, he's seen the inevitability of a devolved England and doesn't like it.
It appears that the fight between Cameron and Milliband has begun. Cameron wants to include devolution for England at the same time as coming good on the promises north of the border. Milliband wants to delay until the next election is over and done with. It could get rather interesting now.Start out by refusing to put Devo Max on the referendum, then go through a painful campaign, then agree to bring it in, then point out - now the whole thing has far, far more visibility than it otherwise would - that we're really going to have to solve the issue for England as well, then sit back and say oh... look at that... Labour will never get a majority in the English parliament! Who would've thought it??
Apparently Ed Balls has been spitting feathers about the whole thing, as unlike Milliband and others, he's seen the inevitability of a devolved England and doesn't like it.
We have 650 MP's in Westminster.\
I thought their job was to represent their constituents/regional interests.\
If they are not doing that then get rid of them all.\
It may be time to fully devolve the Scots,the Irish and the Welsh.\
Let them run their own affairs with their own currency,either that or get their MPs to do their jobs properly.\
Possibly we could have some form of "special relationship" formula,for trading etc.,what we were told the EU would be originally.\
PugwasHDJ80 said:
Switzerland is a really god example
the cantonal states are like little countries- they all get on, but they all have their own rules- some allow the smoking of pot, some allow the closing to roads every 4th weekend to go rallying etc etc some are filled with swiss germans and are entirely devoid of life
Which cantons allow smoking of pot and rallying?the cantonal states are like little countries- they all get on, but they all have their own rules- some allow the smoking of pot, some allow the closing to roads every 4th weekend to go rallying etc etc some are filled with swiss germans and are entirely devoid of life
I've been in Switzerland for other 5 years, lived in 2 cantons and have a good awareness of what goes on in the cantons around me and I am not aware of pot being legal anywhere in Switzerland and would surely have heard about monthly road rallying.
FWIW I think the democratic system in Switzerland is fantastic. People get to vote on local and national issues. Richer cantons transfer money to poorer ones and best of all there is no cult of personality in politics.
garyhun said:
In a Federal UK, how would the composition of the English and National parliaments be created?
Would there be a new election for the people of England to choose their parliament? Is so then how would the national parliament be created - a UK General Election as it is now?
Assuming federal = 4 countries I'd have our Federal Govt proportionally elected and be much smaller than it is. Country governments also much smaller in terms of 'MPs'.Would there be a new election for the people of England to choose their parliament? Is so then how would the national parliament be created - a UK General Election as it is now?
The US has 100 Senators and 435 Representatives for their huge population, we could probably make doe with sub-400 at all levels.
I think it's time to move to PR - the way the MEPs are elected should be the model for this.
ash73 said:
I don't want another English parliament full of more politicians I don't trust; we've already got a parliament in Westminster. Powers should be centralised and the government should be as small and efficient as possible, imo.
Devolving budgetary powers to local councils has already been shown not to work. They all raised the council taxes to ridiculous levels until the central government had to cap them.
What I would like is proportional representation, where each party's number of seats reflects its proportion of the vote; and I think last night's referendum vote illustrated how important it is. Look at the sea of red on the map of Scotland and compare that to the actual 45/55 split of votes; first past the post is a ridiculous dinosaur, why would I even bother to vote when I live in a safe area for one party or another?
Although pr appears attractive it will nearly always lead to a coalition.Devolving budgetary powers to local councils has already been shown not to work. They all raised the council taxes to ridiculous levels until the central government had to cap them.
What I would like is proportional representation, where each party's number of seats reflects its proportion of the vote; and I think last night's referendum vote illustrated how important it is. Look at the sea of red on the map of Scotland and compare that to the actual 45/55 split of votes; first past the post is a ridiculous dinosaur, why would I even bother to vote when I live in a safe area for one party or another?
This means that,as in our present case,a small party that not many voted for,would wield considerable power.
First past the post ,albeit not ideal at least gives the government the stage to put forward the agenda on which it was elected.
IainT said:
garyhun said:
In a Federal UK, how would the composition of the English and National parliaments be created?
Would there be a new election for the people of England to choose their parliament? Is so then how would the national parliament be created - a UK General Election as it is now?
Assuming federal = 4 countries I'd have our Federal Govt proportionally elected and be much smaller than it is. Country governments also much smaller in terms of 'MPs'.Would there be a new election for the people of England to choose their parliament? Is so then how would the national parliament be created - a UK General Election as it is now?
The US has 100 Senators and 435 Representatives for their huge population, we could probably make doe with sub-400 at all levels.
I think it's time to move to PR - the way the MEPs are elected should be the model for this.
The overall costs of maladministration in the UK with disgraces like the Rotherham debacle and the Staffordshire Hospital disgraces are typically ridiculous with the current systems. The truth is all these disgraces have been audited, examined, investigated and rigorously sought out to absolutely no effect in terms of either realising the appalling acts being committed by public servants and with percious few prosecutions being brought into effect.
Local government has become hopelessly ineffective. Thus vrtuually every education department and social services department in municipal boroughs are failing even the most basic test of competence. What we do not need is to get rid of all these layers of government which simply serve to obscure the vile acts that are actually going on under the noses of the gravy train politicians.
Smaller less overreaching government and four small central elected parliaments should massively improve efficiency and get rid of waste in government. If we coud get rid of all the waste we could pay off the national debt simply by making those savings over a number of years. Waste is undoubtedly the greatest enemy of the efforts of the beleaguered taxpayers in the UK. Anything which addresses that waste and reduces that waste has to be worthwhile.
s2art said:
OK, what if Australia is attacked? Are you sating we shouldnt get involved? I think your idea just doesnt work, there may be many reasons why we would wage war without being directly attacked. A pre-emptive strike by us being one, rather than waiting for the enemy to strike.
On the basis that Australia and the United Kingdom are two separate countries 10,000 miles apart then yes.Should we have gone into Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded in 1979? Since you support going to war to defend one foreign country you must want to do that every time a foreign country gets invaded or you look like a bit of a hypocrite.
Pre-emptive strikes are almost always an excuse to invade or bomb somewhere, those were our reasons for going into Iraq, since then America, Spain, Britain and Australia (the main countries that went into Iraq) have been bombed whereas Sweden, Switzerland, Germany and Canada (countries who didn't) have not. Costa Rica doesn't even have an army at all and they haven't been invaded or attacked for a while.
I brought this idea up a few days ago on another thread;
Two different types of elections.
1) Parliamentary elections in each State, to elect their MPs to sit in the four devolved parliaments. Numbers of MPs less than current levels, ideally less than 500 in total.
2) Elections to the Senate. Having equal numbers of senators from each state is vital, so no-one can complain of a lack of fairness. Each state elects 25 senators to sit in the Senate. Consider having the Senate on 'neutral ground' ie not in one of the 4 states. Could we buy / lease a small patch on the IOM?
State Parliaments get busy with the day to day running of their patch, the Senate deals with defence, foreign affairs, immigration, border controls and so on.
All in all, a better way of doing things (IMHO), and less politicians into the bargain.
Two different types of elections.
1) Parliamentary elections in each State, to elect their MPs to sit in the four devolved parliaments. Numbers of MPs less than current levels, ideally less than 500 in total.
2) Elections to the Senate. Having equal numbers of senators from each state is vital, so no-one can complain of a lack of fairness. Each state elects 25 senators to sit in the Senate. Consider having the Senate on 'neutral ground' ie not in one of the 4 states. Could we buy / lease a small patch on the IOM?
State Parliaments get busy with the day to day running of their patch, the Senate deals with defence, foreign affairs, immigration, border controls and so on.
All in all, a better way of doing things (IMHO), and less politicians into the bargain.
ash73 said:
I don't want another English parliament full of more politicians I don't trust; we've already got a parliament in Westminster. Powers should be centralised and the government should be as small and efficient as possible , imo.
Oxymoron Alert (in bold)..... An English parliament could be achieved, if the will was there, by having no more politicians. You would have four national parliaments, and they would send representatives to Westminster once or twice a week to deal with the "UK" stuff, which would be very little by comparison with the current position. We would certainly not need the numbers in Westminster that we have now because the vast majority of the work they do now would be done elsewhere
ash73 said:
Devolving budgetary powers to local councils has already been shown not to work. They all raised the council taxes to ridiculous levels until the central government had to cap them.
Your statement that councils have raised council taxes in recent years is pure and simple a load of dingo's kidneys. They have been "encouraged" (using the definition of the word that the Kray twins used to) to keep any increases to below 2% or have a local referendum.But we should not be talking devolution to local council level anyway - this gives the NIMBYs too much power. We should be talking about an English parliament that deals with matters that are solely concerning the English ie. Lands End to Berwick, not Croydon to Watford or Macclesfield to Accrington
ash73 said:
What I would like is proportional representation, where each party's number of seats reflects its proportion of the vote; and I think last night's referendum illustrated how important it is. Look at the sea of red on the map of Scotland and compare that to the actual 45/55 split of votes; first past the post is a ridiculous dinosaur, why would I even bother to vote when I live in a safe area for one party or another?
You do presumably recall that we were given a referendum on that particular matter only a few years ago, and the proposal was resoundingly defeated.Should we revisit it until a referendum gives the "right" answer? Should Scotland do the same? Which way did you vote in that referendum?
I really have no idea what they mean by this, and think that is the point, so that people interpret it how they think.
What I want to see is a Union of equals lets just do away with any distinctions in law and equalise political power across the Union. Then devolve real funding and day to day power to existing metropolitain areas and counties based on populations.
Sir Humphrey said:
s2art said:
OK, what if Australia is attacked? Are you sating we shouldnt get involved? I think your idea just doesnt work, there may be many reasons why we would wage war without being directly attacked. A pre-emptive strike by us being one, rather than waiting for the enemy to strike.
On the basis that Australia and the United Kingdom are two separate countries 10,000 miles apart then yes.Should we have gone into Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded in 1979? Since you support going to war to defend one foreign country you must want to do that every time a foreign country gets invaded or you look like a bit of a hypocrite.
Pre-emptive strikes are almost always an excuse to invade or bomb somewhere, those were our reasons for going into Iraq, since then America, Spain, Britain and Australia (the main countries that went into Iraq) have been bombed whereas Sweden, Switzerland, Germany and Canada (countries who didn't) have not. Costa Rica doesn't even have an army at all and they haven't been invaded or attacked for a while.
There is also family, friendship and emotion involved. Australia, NZ, Canada etc came to our aid in WW2, yes they had a stake, their interests were also the health of the West. And we should do the same for them if required. Would you really want to sit by if (say) Russia decided to annex New Zealand?
s2art said:
Sorry, cant make sense of that. The UK has interests, one of which is the 'health' of the western world. Happy to look hypocritical if we choose wisely on where we intervene. Its why we are in NATO, its why we follow the USA, its because thats where we think our interests are.
There is also family, friendship and emotion involved. Australia, NZ, Canada etc came to our aid in WW2, yes they had a stake, their interests were also the health of the West. And we should do the same for them if required. Would you really want to sit by if (say) Russia decided to annex New Zealand?
What about when Russia starts annexing Ukraine (who are NATO allies)? Should we now invade Russia?There is also family, friendship and emotion involved. Australia, NZ, Canada etc came to our aid in WW2, yes they had a stake, their interests were also the health of the West. And we should do the same for them if required. Would you really want to sit by if (say) Russia decided to annex New Zealand?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHfdSi-GDo
ash73 said:
rs1952 said:
Your statement that councils have raised council taxes in recent years...
I didn't say recent, you did. I was referring to central government caps that were implemented after local councils received budgetary powers and immediately increased their Council Tax by 12.9% in 2003/04.In any case, this Audit Commission report on the matter is interesting if you've got some pare time - not quite coming to the conclusion that you do http://archive.audit-commission.gov.uk/auditcommis...
Sir Humphrey said:
s2art said:
Sorry, cant make sense of that. The UK has interests, one of which is the 'health' of the western world. Happy to look hypocritical if we choose wisely on where we intervene. Its why we are in NATO, its why we follow the USA, its because thats where we think our interests are.
There is also family, friendship and emotion involved. Australia, NZ, Canada etc came to our aid in WW2, yes they had a stake, their interests were also the health of the West. And we should do the same for them if required. Would you really want to sit by if (say) Russia decided to annex New Zealand?
What about when Russia starts annexing Ukraine (who are NATO allies)? Should we now invade Russia?There is also family, friendship and emotion involved. Australia, NZ, Canada etc came to our aid in WW2, yes they had a stake, their interests were also the health of the West. And we should do the same for them if required. Would you really want to sit by if (say) Russia decided to annex New Zealand?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHfdSi-GDo
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff