Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Newsnight Now


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

"something around the Scandinavian level is about right".

For Scandinavia perhaps. Small homogeneous wealthy nations with a culture of prudence and hard work will be able to support a larger state that somewhere like the UK (for example).

No reason the UK could not be broken into a dozen regions/states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442
2
HOLA443

I agree.

Perhaps the establishment's real fear about Scottish independence is that it would kick-start a push for regionalism in other parts of the UK.

Wasn't there some sort of vote on this in the north east a few years back?

It was voted down iirc. People in England don't want more layers of government at the moment, and I agree with the majority. Regional democracy is great, but when you factor in the cost, not so great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

Wasn't there some sort of vote on this in the north east a few years back?

It was voted down iirc. People in England don't want more layers of government at the moment, and I agree with the majority. Regional democracy is great, but when you factor in the cost, not so great.

Which is why it only works if you remove central government. Or at least limit them to meeting just a few days a year with very limited powers.

Regional government, and thus the people, will always be under the thumb of the state while the state remains so large, so central and so powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

Wasn't there some sort of vote on this in the north east a few years back?

It was voted down iirc. People in England don't want more layers of government at the moment, and I agree with the majority. Regional democracy is great, but when you factor in the cost, not so great.

That was a NuLab "more government is always good" idea. However just slapping on an extra layer of governance is wasteful and pointless.

Where regionalism works (as in London with the Mayor) it is because it does things formally the responsibility of central government. The problem is persuading those in Westminster to voluntarily give up some of the power they've spent their whole lives acquiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

Which is why it only works if you remove central government. Or at least limit them to meeting just a few days a year with very limited powers.

Regional government, and thus the people, will always be under the thumb of the state while the state remains so large, so central and so powerful.

I'd like to see most tax-raising power transferred to local government, with central government taking a % cut. He who pays the piper etc etc.

Add in reforming of the House of Lords by making most members delegates from the regions, and the whole power balance changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

Which is why it only works if you remove central government. Or at least limit them to meeting just a few days a year with very limited powers.

Regional government, and thus the people, will always be under the thumb of the state while the state remains so large, so central and so powerful.

Agreed.

All attempts at regionalism seem to founder on the transfer of powers to the new structure - central government will not let go, and you end up with an unworkable compromise, along the lines of the current councils in the UK - elected, but effectively powerless because Westminster controls their budgets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

I agree.

Perhaps the establishment's real fear about Scottish independence is that it would kick-start a push for regionalism in other parts of the UK.

Wasn't there some sort of vote on this in the north east a few years back?

It was voted down iirc. People in England don't want more layers of government at the moment, and I agree with the majority. Regional democracy is great, but when you factor in the cost, not so great.

Each every tier of government = another layer of taxation

e.g. in london approx a quarter of your council tax goes to the GLA

regional assemblies - do not want

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

Agreed.

All attempts at regionalism seem to founder on the transfer of powers to the new structure - central government will not let go, and you end up with an unworkable compromise, along the lines of the current councils in the UK - elected, but effectively powerless because Westminster controls their budgets.

Which is why councils are such a joke.

Its a shame, they should be the most powerful political bodies in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

Each every tier of government = another layer of taxation

e.g. in london approx a quarter of your council tax goes to the GLA

I'm all for small government and low taxes, but I suggest you firing at the wrong target here. The GLA part of the council tax funds the Police, Fire Brigade, and TfL. If they were not financed locally they would still need to be paid for by taxation.

The best place to trim government is at the top level. Ask yourself which parts of Whitehall are really necessary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information