Would You Support Federalism and Localism?

Re: Would You Support Federalism and Localism?

Postby Guest » Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:09 pm

Lady Murasaki wrote:
Stooo wrote:Far too complicated, 51.9 voted to leave remember...


I can't believe I attempted to read all that.
Didn't get very far.

What's wrong? Do you struggle with reading?
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Would You Support Federalism and Localism?

Postby MungoBrush » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:24 pm

Fletch wrote:
Rolluplostinspace wrote:
Fletch wrote:
Rolluplostinspace wrote:When I was around ten or eleven years old I sat in the same room as Tony Benn while he discussed the feasibility of the shires having their own tax raising powers and law making abilities.
I have no idea what conclusions may or may not have been reached.
It was all way over my head.
But if implemented it would mean that weed could be legal in one shire and not in another.
Gay marriage abortion drinking laws petrol prices movement of goods and so on would have been different all over.


Can you imagine the carnage as crims make a run for the county line with police in hot pursuit?

Imagine if weed was only legal in Lancashire.
There would be an influx of artists musicians and so on.
If abortion was illegal in Kent it might attract Catholics.
Gay marriage legal in five shires but illegal in others.
There might be some merit in different areas attracting different cultures/subcultures.
Our towns might be spared from cloned shopping areas.
I have no idea whether or not these things could work.


But then those laws could be made national by the government so ending any differences. There would be outcry's and protests about what was happening in the next county, how this one is affected and so on. As I said, the UK isn't really big enough for it.

It's confusing enough in the US with what is a federal crime and what is classed as local crime under the sheriff. They have all sorts of charges some local some federal. You can even be charged and fined for crossing the street in the wrong place! Land of the free eh...


I don't think that the OP is holding up the USA a a model to be copied
I lived most of my life in Australia which - as you all know - is a federated system under a constitutional monarchy.
Under the constitution, the Federal Government has responsibility for a very specific list of powers - similar to the list proposed by the OP.
It also included items such as marriages, overseas trade, weights & measures, and a few other things omitted from the OP's list
All other powers are devolved to the states
States are free to raise whatever taxes they like - including income tax. But the reality is that the Federal government collects all income taxes then makes "grants" to the states which does water it down a bit.
Also, in Australia, every state elects the same number of senators - irrespective of population size - so the Senate is a proper "house of review" and not just a rubber stamp like here.

It does reinforce local culture so it could have a great beneficial impact here in the UK where regional differences are much more marked than in Australia.
User avatar
MungoBrush
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:03 pm

Re: Would You Support Federalism and Localism?

Postby Maddog » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:42 pm

It's an excellent idea, but centralized powers rarely give up control without a fight.

Besides, rarely are governments in favor of excellent ideas that would actually benefit the lowly citizen and give them more control over their lives.
User avatar
Maddog
 
Posts: 32102
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:46 am

Re: Would You Support Federalism and Localism?

Postby Fletch » Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:00 pm

MungoBrush wrote:
Fletch wrote:
Rolluplostinspace wrote:
Fletch wrote:
Rolluplostinspace wrote:When I was around ten or eleven years old I sat in the same room as Tony Benn while he discussed the feasibility of the shires having their own tax raising powers and law making abilities.
I have no idea what conclusions may or may not have been reached.
It was all way over my head.
But if implemented it would mean that weed could be legal in one shire and not in another.
Gay marriage abortion drinking laws petrol prices movement of goods and so on would have been different all over.


Can you imagine the carnage as crims make a run for the county line with police in hot pursuit?

Imagine if weed was only legal in Lancashire.
There would be an influx of artists musicians and so on.
If abortion was illegal in Kent it might attract Catholics.
Gay marriage legal in five shires but illegal in others.
There might be some merit in different areas attracting different cultures/subcultures.
Our towns might be spared from cloned shopping areas.
I have no idea whether or not these things could work.


But then those laws could be made national by the government so ending any differences. There would be outcry's and protests about what was happening in the next county, how this one is affected and so on. As I said, the UK isn't really big enough for it.

It's confusing enough in the US with what is a federal crime and what is classed as local crime under the sheriff. They have all sorts of charges some local some federal. You can even be charged and fined for crossing the street in the wrong place! Land of the free eh...


I don't think that the OP is holding up the USA a a model to be copied
I lived most of my life in Australia which - as you all know - is a federated system under a constitutional monarchy.
Under the constitution, the Federal Government has responsibility for a very specific list of powers - similar to the list proposed by the OP.
It also included items such as marriages, overseas trade, weights & measures, and a few other things omitted from the OP's list
All other powers are devolved to the states
States are free to raise whatever taxes they like - including income tax. But the reality is that the Federal government collects all income taxes then makes "grants" to the states which does water it down a bit.
Also, in Australia, every state elects the same number of senators - irrespective of population size - so the Senate is a proper "house of review" and not just a rubber stamp like here.

It does reinforce local culture so it could have a great beneficial impact here in the UK where regional differences are much more marked than in Australia.


Like our system of local government then.

What's the advantage of this Federal system? :dunno:
User avatar
Fletch
 
Posts: 9663
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:35 pm

Re: Would You Support Federalism and Localism?

Postby Maddog » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:13 pm

What's the advantage of this Federal system? :dunno:



In theory, the politician fucking up your life lives close enough for you to get your hands around his throat. :more beer:
User avatar
Maddog
 
Posts: 32102
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:46 am

Re: Would You Support Federalism and Localism?

Postby Rolluplostinspace » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:28 pm

Maddog wrote:
What's the advantage of this Federal system? :dunno:



In theory, the politician fucking up your life lives close enough for you to get your hands around his throat. :more beer:

Already like that here.
User avatar
Rolluplostinspace
 
Posts: 4712
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 8:12 pm

Re: Would You Support Federalism and Localism?

Postby Rocthedog » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:04 am

Another Guest wrote:http://www.constitutionreformgroup.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CRG-Act-of-Union-Bill.pdf

Pages 50-67 (warning the article below was made by the tory likes of Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove and Jesse Norman with some ideas on reforming healthcare that might outrage some users)
https://whatwouldvirchowdo.files.wordpr ... _party.pdf

I was reading these ideas put forward by UK politicians from both left and right and thought they were pretty solid for restructuring the UK political system, one which I feel is currently broken from a constitutional standpoint among others. These areas are to do with federalism and localism, two things that the UK lacks when compared to Germany. Canada, Australia, to a certain extent Spain and the notorious United States of America ( :shoot: :leer: :bum: :hap: ).

I personally feel the UK could be well suited to a federal model of politics as well as having stronger localism for our communities, here are some ideas that I liked from these articles:

Federal Level:
Houses of Parliament
- House of Commons 325 Members (half of the current HOC number of members)
- The Senate 240 Members (same as proposed in the HOL Reform bill 2012 only with 240 total elected, with half elected every 5 years and serve 10 year terms)

Reserve Powers:
- The Crown
- The United Kingdom
- The Constitution
- Ministers of the Crown
- Foreign Affairs
- Defence
- Human Rights
- Central Bank
- Monetary Policy
- Central Taxation
- Government Borrowing
- Currency
- Regulation of financial services
- National Security
- Nationality
- Immigration
- Extradition
- Emergency Powers
- The Civil Service

Policy areas outside the list can be legislated on but would require a double majority in the Senate meaning a majority of each nations' Senators (e.g 7/12 Scottish Senators, 5/8 Welsh Senators, 4/6 NI Senators, 61/120 English Senators and 74/146 Senators as a whole), these could also be vetoed by all four subnational Parliaments with a 2/3 majority in the four which will result in the four First Ministers to advise the Monarch to veto the bill.

Supreme Court
- Stays the same though have three judges from each UK nation.

Subnational Level:
- English Parliament: 533 Members
- Scottish Parliament: 129 Members
- Welsh Parliament: 80 Members
- NI Assembly: 90 Members

Can legislate in any policy area that isn't reserved at federal level, but most notably legislating on things like:

- Agriculture
- Fisheries and forestry
- Education
- Environment
- Excise Duties
- Subnational rates of taxation
- Food standards
- Gambling
- Consumer advocacy
- Health (the NHS)
- Abortion
- Law and justice
- Courts
- Legal profession
- Prisons
- Control of firearms, explosives and air guns
- Local government
- Rail franchising
- Sport and the arts
- Subnational transport
- Various welfare and housing related benefits


Local Level:
Local councils are in great need of more power and should be more self sufficient. Having more legislative and financial control will encourage more people to take an active interest in local politics as more powerful councils will make them more efficient, more accountable and more attractive to good candidates.

- Policies in regards to School admissions policies, hospital cleanliness, speed bumps, council workers’ wages solved by local councils as opposed to Whitehall
- Scrap VAT and replace it with a Local Sales Tax set at the level of a county or metropolitan authority with local councils free to vary the rate according to
their spending needs
- Councils should be allowed to raise the remainder of their budgets by whatever means their electorates approve with options for additional top-up revenue would be fees and charges for services, a local income tax, a property-based levy, a a local business rate or nothing at all
- Have subnational govt give extra funds to more deprived councils if needed
- Devolve all aspects of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Govt to local level
- Directly elected Sheriffs, with real powers to direct the local police force priorities and responsibility for supervising prosecutions and punishments, would appoint and dismiss Chief Constables, set their own targets for the force, make their own Policing Plans, control their own budgets and allocated his or her funding as a block allocation and the power to set local sentencing guidelines

Seems pretty solid to me, but I highly doubt politicians would want to give even more power away.


But they already have to the EU they make the rules for this country.
User avatar
Rocthedog
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:41 pm

Previous

Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests