The English Government.

[klr]

MORE FUCKING POLITICIANS???!!!!

Sez you with your separate parliament.

[MrJonno]

That may be so MrJonno, but people do have a regional identity; the Midlanders, Yorkies, Cornishians, Fenlanders, Lakelanders, Northumbrionians etc etc. England/s national culture may be rather porous and bland, but even though its a small country with a relatively mobile workforce I think people still feel tied to 'their' areas - adopted or otherwise. Even in Scotland, the people of the Western Islands and Highlands feel separate from the Borders or the grey-faced folk of Aberdeenshire. I think dividing the nation into relatively autonomous regional governments, or Cantons perhaps(?), feeding an overall federal core could be way to devolve power even across the union - within the framework of a constitutional republic of course.

As I mentioned there are strong city cultures at least in the big ones and they do tend to have mayors or strong local government. Not sure about counties, does someone living in Coventry really care much for Birmingham and vice versa?. There is also a rural/urban split but I just can't see an English identity. Also bear in mind the more elections there are the less people tend to vote and the more corrupt/extreme the results are due to low turnout. You only have to look at local council elections where nutters tend to get in from extremist parties get in. Do you really think people vote UKIP so they can run the local swimming pool better than anyone else?

[PsychoSerenity]

What about regional assemblies across the union, with a region by region tax and spending remit, under a national federal republic?

I think that would be an excellent idea.

I don't know, there's one thing I particularly worry about here - though perhaps this might actually help solve it, if it was managed at a national level - and that's the increasing disparity between rich areas and poor areas. It's the thing that pushes the biggest cities to grow the fastest, and eventually even creates ghettos of poor areas within the cities.

If the regions had more autonomy, they'd have more power to fix their own problems in a way that suited them best.

I suppose I'm a bit of a political objectivist (but not in an Ayn Rand sense) - I think there are effective and ineffective ways to go about solving certain problems, - though these may be incredibly difficult to find, and even harder to implement given the levels of corruption - and the same solutions should, largely, work for everyone. So the best way to head in the direction of the better way of doing things, is to balance the views of the largest possible group of people.

Obviously there will be many things that depend specifically on geographical location that still need to be managed locally. But 'who lives there' should not make a difference. Otherwise it's too easy for people living in a rich area to make sure that they are very well off, and then become viciously protective over what they have, to the detriment of everyone else.

[John_fi_Skye]

MORE FUCKING POLITICIANS???!!!!

Sez you with your separate parliament.

You must've missed my recent rant on a fred of Rum's in which I argued for a 70% reduction in the number of politicians by whom I'm governed.

[Brian Peacock]

What about regional assemblies across the union, with a region by region tax and spending remit, under a national federal republic?

I think that would be an excellent idea.

I don't know, there's one thing I particularly worry about here - though perhaps this might actually help solve it, if it was managed at a national level - and that's the increasing disparity between rich areas and poor areas. It's the thing that pushes the biggest cities to grow the fastest, and eventually even creates ghettos of poor areas within the cities.

If the regions had more autonomy, they'd have more power to fix their own problems in a way that suited them best.

I suppose I'm a bit of a political objectivist (but not in an Ayn Rand sense) - I think there are effective and ineffective ways to go about solving certain problems, - though these may be incredibly difficult to find, and even harder to implement given the levels of corruption - and the same solutions should, largely, work for everyone. So the best way to head in the direction of the better way of doing things, is to balance the views of the largest possible group of people.

Obviously there will be many things that depend specifically on geographical location that still need to be managed locally. But 'who lives there' should not make a difference. Otherwise it's too easy for people living in a rich area to make sure that they are very well off, and then become viciously protective over what they have, to the detriment of everyone else.

That's a very pragmatic, practical viewpoint. The thing with national politics is that its run by a political elite who consider their constituency to be the economic elite who fund them. Devolving power to the region could de-focus that natural imbalance in the system and re-focus it on the citizen. There's obviously a concern that certain areas will attract more money than others, larger conurbations usually have a more active and robust economy than smaller ones, or the rural outlands, but a regional democracy with a little more autonomy could address local concerns locally.

[Blind groper]

Here's hoping the British will be too smart to introduce state governments. That is one of the big and wasteful political systems that should have been dumped long ago. The thing is that nations like Australia and the USA instigated state governments in days when communications and travel were slow as hell. So the politicians had to be close to the area they administered. That is no longer the case, and a politician can deliver with regard to territory thousands of kilometres from his home today.

Of course, once state government exists, it becomes almost impossible to get rid of it, since there are a bunch of politicians at state level with their snouts in the public trough, and they will fight tooth and nail to prevent their power and money source being taken from them.

All that state government does in the end is provide another money sink to suck taxes out of the pockets of productive people.

[JimC]

Here's hoping the British will be too smart to introduce state governments. That is one of the big and wasteful political systems that should have been dumped long ago. The thing is that nations like Australia and the USA instigated state governments in days when communications and travel were slow as hell. So the politicians had to be close to the area they administered. That is no longer the case, and a politician can deliver with regard to territory thousands of kilometres from his home today.

Of course, once state government exists, it becomes almost impossible to get rid of it, since there are a bunch of politicians at state level with their snouts in the public trough, and they will fight tooth and nail to prevent their power and money source being taken from them.

All that state government does in the end is provide another money sink to suck taxes out of the pockets of productive people.

In the case of Oz, I suspect you are right, but political inertia means they will be with us always, and the continual shifting blame game with it...

[ronmcd]

It could be said that the Westminister system worked fine for a long time, but that the politics of the different parts of UK have diverged enough now that it's not sustainable. Hence devolution, and the AV referendum, and the 2014 indy ref. (I'm ignoring the 1979 devolution referendum as it doesnt fit with my argument ) As London has it's own devolved government, it's really only the rest of England (the majority of voters!) that now don't have partial local control, and I agree that's a problem. Of course the one referendum on a regional assembly for the North of England was rejected by the voters. People need to want it before it could happen. It would happen if people elected politicians on that mandate ...

I used to favour a federal system, I'd probably vote for it still. But Westminister will never allow it. So independence it is for me, it's the only option. I wish there were an option other than continued Westminister trough-feeding by elected politicians for the North of England too.

[mistermack]

The best solution would be to have one big government, with the resources and expertise pooled from across the country.
Then the regions, like Scotland, and Wales, and the North of England, can have an office of government dedicated to their needs.
And have county and local councils for the piddling day-to-day stuff.

Well, fuck me, that's what we had, before they spent billions fucking it up.

Scrap the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Assembly. Make a nice concert hall out of them.
And save all that money, in local politics salaries. Brilliant !!!

[ronmcd]

The best solution would be to have one big government, with the resources and expertise pooled from across the country.
Then the regions, like Scotland, and Wales, and the North of England, can have an office of government dedicated to their needs.
And have county and local councils for the piddling day-to-day stuff.

Well, fuck me, that's what we had, before they spent billions fucking it up.

Scrap the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Assembly. Make a nice concert hall out of them.
And save all that money, in local politics salaries. Brilliant !!!

You know, that would work.

But the electorate don't want that.

Problem.

[Tyrannical]

England should be given a parliament, and restrict the jurisdiction of the UK parliament.

[rainbow]

All that state government does in the end is provide another money sink to suck taxes out of the pockets of productive people.

You make it sound like this is a bad thing.

Let the productive people keep their money, and they'll end up spending it on leisure.

Then where'd we be?

[mistermack]

The best solution would be to have one big government, with the resources and expertise pooled from across the country.
Then the regions, like Scotland, and Wales, and the North of England, can have an office of government dedicated to their needs.
And have county and local councils for the piddling day-to-day stuff.

Well, fuck me, that's what we had, before they spent billions fucking it up.

Scrap the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Assembly. Make a nice concert hall out of them.
And save all that money, in local politics salaries. Brilliant !!!

You know, that would work.

But the electorate don't want that.

Problem.

The electorate have been lied to.

In any case, when did the electorate ever get everything they wanted?
Experience tells that people want loads of stuff, right up to the time when they are asked to pay for it. Then reality kicks in.
The problem with stuff like this is that payment is removed from the voting process.

If people got the bill for their share of the cost of the Scottish parliament, the day before they voted, they might come to their senses.

But this is how con-men work. Buy it now. Pay later. The mugs fall for it all the time.

[ronmcd]

The best solution would be to have one big government, with the resources and expertise pooled from across the country.
Then the regions, like Scotland, and Wales, and the North of England, can have an office of government dedicated to their needs.
And have county and local councils for the piddling day-to-day stuff.

Well, fuck me, that's what we had, before they spent billions fucking it up.

Scrap the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Assembly. Make a nice concert hall out of them.
And save all that money, in local politics salaries. Brilliant !!!

You know, that would work.

But the electorate don't want that.

Problem.

The electorate have been lied to.

In any case, when did the electorate ever get everything they wanted?
Experience tells that people want loads of stuff, right up to the time when they are asked to pay for it. Then reality kicks in.
The problem with stuff like this is that payment is removed from the voting process.

If people got the bill for their share of the cost of the Scottish parliament, the day before they voted, they might come to their senses.

But this is how con-men work. Buy it now. Pay later. The mugs fall for it all the time.

Short version: the electorate don't matter.

Okey-dokey.

[Beatsong]

We hear a bit here about the coming referendum on devolution, much of the resistance of which, here at least comes from our fellows down south. This makes me wonder why as I can't see how Scotland leaving the union would be detrimental to England.

For me that's very simple.

Scotland supplies a fair number of the votes and seats that give us a fighting chance of a Labour government every now and then. With no Scottish people voting for the same government as me, the chances of my having to live under permanent toryism increase significantly.

I fuckin hate the tories.