|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Feb 24, 2017 0:24:23 GMT
I think we're too far gone to be reasonably considered a true unitary state anymore. Should we go down the route of a full federalism, then I think maintaining a bicameral parliamentary setup would be sound; gut and replace the Lords and replace it with a chamber where most of its members are selected by the regional parliaments*, with each constituent nation afforded equal representation here to serve as a partial counter to England's overwhelming dominance in the Commons. * Of course with measures in place to ensure that a single party can't dominate a province's delegation...I'm not sure about that last point, but I can see why someone living in Wales would say that.  There are plenty of off-the-shelf ways we could take from other countries to ensure delegations are not dominated by a single party. Have the nations represented by population in the Commons, have the equally weighted in the upper-chamber (Senate?) so that the small regions don't get drowned out by England. The method I had in mind for the apportionment of upper-chamber seats in this model would be that seats are apportioned based on the makeup of each region's respective parliament, through D'Hondt, perhaps? Still need to account for independent regional legislators, of course... |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,054 
|
Post by jamie on Feb 24, 2017 0:25:20 GMT
I think in the far north of Scotland and the Islands you'd still probably need to go down to 2-member constituencies, at which point there is no real proportionality. Yes, a 5-member urban seat isn't remote in terms of the surface area covered. I'm not against an increase in the number of professional politicians, but that's often a very difficult sell... and the Commons chamber itself would be even less physically accommodating to that many members as well. I believe that when you put it like that, there was a case for unicameralism before devolution. Do you believe in the continuation of a unitary state, including the abolition of devolved bodies? I would prefer some form of federalism, for which an upper house is frequently considered desirable. I think there be a general rule of having the VERY large seats as being on the bottom of 3 member quota deviance. Its probably an easier sell if done at the same time as getting rid of around 1000 unelected peers. I'd also like to see some sort of introduction of online voting for MPs so they spend less time in the commons are more time in their constituency work (this would also help deal with larger constituencies). I would support eliminating mid level devolution except where absolutely necessary. With a referendum, I'd hope to get rid of the Welsh Assembly, London Assembky and the Scottish Parliament. I'd also get like to get rid of the Northern Irish Assembly but that's undesirable in the current climate and even less politically acceptable than getting rid of the other devolved bodies. I'd allow some form of semi-regional bodies for urban places like London, Tyneside, Greater Manchester etc, to get councils working together on issues they share such as transport. However, as a general rule I believe you have local councils who are responsive (or can be) to the local area and manage local issues and a national parliament which governs the whole country. I just don't see how these devolved regions with millions of people spread over a large geographic area can in reality be much more responsive than the national government. Ultimately, as someone who identifies as British, I don't see the benefit in these regional bodies generally and would rather we strive to solve the issues that are leading to people feeling that Westminster politics is broken and devolution is necessary. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,054
|
Post by jamie on Feb 24, 2017 0:27:59 GMT
Gut and replace the Lords and replace it with a chamber where most of its members are selected by the regional parliaments*, with each constituent nation afforded equal representation here to serve as a partial counter to England's overwhelming dominance in the Commons. My idea of hell  |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 24, 2017 0:36:03 GMT
I'm not sure about that last point, but I can see why someone living in Wales would say that. There are plenty of off-the-shelf ways we could take from other countries to ensure delegations are not dominated by a single party. Have the nations represented by population in the Commons, have the equally weighted in the upper-chamber (Senate?) so that the small regions don't get drowned out by England. The method I had in mind for the apportionment of upper-chamber seats in this model would be that seats are apportioned based on the makeup of each region's respective parliament, through D'Hondt, perhaps? Still need to account for independent regional legislators, of course... You can stop the small regions being 'drowned out' using methods other than giving them equal representation to England as a whole, such as qualified majority voting. That would be acceptable in my opinion. The divisor would not necessarily have to be D'Hondt. In fact, the voting system wouldn't need to reflect a list PR system at all. Could even use multi-member AV or an exhaustive ballot to choose the delegates. I would support eliminating mid level devolution except where absolutely necessary. With a referendum, I'd hope to get rid of the Welsh Assembly, London Assembky and the Scottish Parliament. I'd also get like to get rid of the Northern Irish Assembly but that's undesirable in the current climate and even less politically acceptable than getting rid of the other devolved bodies. I'd allow some form of semi-regional bodies for urban places like London, Tyneside, Greater Manchester etc, to get councils working together on issues they share such as transport. [ ...] Ultimately, as someone who identifies as British, I don't see the benefit in these regional bodies generally and would rather we strive to solve the issues that are leading to people feeling that Westminster politics is broken and devolution is necessary. All right. I'm glad that's clear now. Remind me not to take any other proposals on constitutional tinkering seriously in future. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,054
|
Post by jamie on Feb 24, 2017 0:41:04 GMT
Foggy Accept its mostly wishful thinking but it's what I'd prefer. Just to clarify on last point, I mean that a major argument for regional devolution is that people don't identify as British. Since I do this argument doesn't appeal to me and I don't see any other real benefits of regional devolution so I'd prefer not to have it. Edit - Also on last point, I'd like to clarify I'm suggesting public opinion is being affected by disillusionment with Westminster etc. I may not agree with them all but I think there are plenty of reasonable arguments to be made for serious constitutional change.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 24, 2017 1:09:41 GMT
Foggy Accept its mostly wishful thinking but it's what I'd prefer. Just to clarify on last point, I mean that a major argument for regional devolution is that people don't identify as British. Since I do this argument doesn't appeal to me and I don't see any other real benefits of regional devolution so I'd prefer not to have it. Edit - Also on last point, I'd like to clarify I'm suggesting public opinion is being affected by disillusionment with Westminster etc. I may not agree with them all but I think there are plenty of reasonable arguments to be made for serious constitutional change. You're entitled to your opinion, but they are so far from what's realistic and inoffensive on this issue that it's tough to take them seriously. It sounds like you're re-fighting battles from the September 1997 referendum campaigns that have long since been lost. I agree with getting rid of 800 peers, but I'd at least replace them with something. I appreciate your blue-sky thinking about MPs being able to vote in Commons divisions remotely. I recognise as you do that to people in the Highlands and Snowdonia, Holyrood and Cardiff Bay can often feel almost as remote as Westminster does. I just find your solution to the last of these issues both preposterous and extreme. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,054
|
Post by jamie on Feb 24, 2017 1:27:51 GMT
Foggy Oh I definitely agree that reversing current devolution is not possible in the current political climate and would take a concerted effort to just halt at the current level. At the moment the best I can hope for is we remain unitary rather than go federal at which point it will pretty much be irreversible permanently. I'm not ideological opposed to some sort of HoL replacement as long as the Commons remains more powerful. The suggestion sometimes mooted around of an independent commission to appoint experts for an upper chamber isn't a bad one in my view as long as their delaying powers are limited. The idea of remote voting would at least help allay fears of overcrowding  More seriously, I do think remote voting would help MPs save time that could be better spent elsewhere. There's obviously a whole host of other potential reforms that can be explored. Tbh it's not so much a solution as a recognition that anything above local councils will feel remote to many if not most people. Therefore, if the main reason that someone wants regional devolution is that it brings power back to the local people, then I don't think the argument really holds. I just don't feel regional dveolution is really an answer to communities feeling remove from the current political system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 13:32:48 GMT
Make her royal majesty Queen Elisabeth Ii head of government.!!!!
Common sense agender
Xxx
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Mar 3, 2017 20:32:08 GMT
One more "just one thing" (prompted by the Chester and Cheshire West situation) -
have an odd number of councillors on every council.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 4, 2017 6:34:27 GMT
One more "just one thing" (prompted by the Chester and Cheshire West situation) - have an odd number of councillors on every council. The council in question has 75 members. It is the resignation that has caused the figure to drop to an awkward even number. Are you proposing that a second vacancy is created once one person resigns so that there is always an odd number of filled seats? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Mar 4, 2017 11:23:35 GMT
One more "just one thing" (prompted by the Chester and Cheshire West situation) - have an odd number of councillors on every council. The council in question has 75 members. It is the resignation that has caused the figure to drop to an awkward even number. Are you proposing that a second vacancy is created once one person resigns so that there is always an odd number of filled seats?  |
|
More seriously, I do think remote voting would help MPs save time that could be better spent elsewhere. There's obviously a whole host of other potential reforms that can be explored. 
