Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife wrote:They're not adding another layer but evolving and empowering current authorities. The one-size-fits-all approach in England HAS to change, especially with the other nations being given greater autonomy.
Really? So do you actually believe, for argument's sake, that if there were a regional assembly for the South West of England that Cornwall CC, Devon CC, Somerset CC, would suddenly disappear or amalgamate into one? And if they did, how long before Cornwall felt that Devon were getting more than their fair share of the cake?
HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife wrote:It just makes zero sense for countries of 1m-5m receiving greater powers while the one of 55m is still run from the centre.
So what do you propose, that England be divided into 10 or 20 regional assemblies? How long before those regions want full independence? And how long before further subdivision is sought, or before one region becomes envious of its neighbours because they have more wealth? I agree that one size doesn't necessarily fit all, but surely there has to be some form of over-arching National framework. It just needs to be better at balancing the differing needs of those regions.
HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife wrote:Just seen that Labour are going to speed up local devolution, with fiscal powers thrown in, plus they are going to regulate everywhere's buses London-style.
Okay, so I *was* leaning towards blue...
Brilliant. Just what we need - another layer of bureaucracy and opportunities for even more bureaucrats to stick their noses in the trough. We already have local devolution - they're called County/Unitary/Town/Parish councils.
They're not adding another layer but evolving and empowering current authorities. The one-size-fits-all approach in England HAS to change, especially with the other nations being given greater autonomy.
It just makes zero sense for countries of 1m-5m receiving greater powers while the one of 55m is still run from the centre.
I agree with HH...
bl**dy hell .........
"I love the night. The day is okay and the sun can be fun. But I live to see those rays slip away"
HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife wrote:They're not adding another layer but evolving and empowering current authorities. The one-size-fits-all approach in England HAS to change, especially with the other nations being given greater autonomy.
Really? So do you actually believe, for argument's sake, that if there were a regional assembly for the South West of England that Cornwall CC, Devon CC, Somerset CC, would suddenly disappear or amalgamate into one? And if they did, how long before Cornwall felt that Devon were getting more than their fair share of the cake?
HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife wrote:It just makes zero sense for countries of 1m-5m receiving greater powers while the one of 55m is still run from the centre.
So what do you propose, that England be divided into 10 or 20 regional assemblies? How long before those regions want full independence? And how long before further subdivision is sought, or before one region becomes envious of its neighbours because they have more wealth? I agree that one size doesn't necessarily fit all, but surely there has to be some form of over-arching National framework. It just needs to be better at balancing the differing needs of those regions.
Even Scotland didn't want full independence, despite the additional factor of historical hatred for England that a sizeable proportion still harbour.
However I'd also be nervous about having too much devolution. As you say, there has to be some backbone of central government there.
Stop looking for solutions to symptoms and start identifying the disease.
No Shot Sherlock wrote:Not interested in which party you'd vote for, but curious as to how many on here will use their vote, and how many will abstain?
I'll be casting mine
I shall be voting, without a doubt, and yes I do know for which party. I believe it's a duty to vote, and should be a legal obligation to do so, even if you vote "Abstain". As Jasper says, those who decline to use their right to vote have no real moral justification to criticise the government for any of their decisions. It is less than 100 years since The Fourth Reform Act was passed, prior to that only about 60% of men, and 0% of women had the right to vote. We all know about the huge struggle for women to be allowed to vote, but had that Act not been passed, a large percentage of us men, discussing this issue right now, would not be able to vote. What was the point of that struggle if people say, "Nah, can't be arsed."?
Lost in Transportation wrote:
HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife wrote:
No Shot Sherlock wrote:
HappyHour@TheBreweryOfLife wrote:Just seen that Labour are going to speed up local devolution, with fiscal powers thrown in, plus they are going to regulate everywhere's buses London-style.
Okay, so I *was* leaning towards blue...
Brilliant. Just what we need - another layer of bureaucracy and opportunities for even more bureaucrats to stick their noses in the trough. We already have local devolution - they're called County/Unitary/Town/Parish councils.
They're not adding another layer but evolving and empowering current authorities. The one-size-fits-all approach in England HAS to change, especially with the other nations being given greater autonomy.
It just makes zero sense for countries of 1m-5m receiving greater powers while the one of 55m is still run from the centre.
I agree with HH...
Jeezuz, whatever next?
I before E except when you run a feisty heist on a weird beige foreign neighbour
No Shot Sherlock wrote:Not interested in which party you'd vote for, but curious as to how many on here will use their vote, and how many will abstain?
I'll be casting mine
I shall be voting, without a doubt, and yes I do know for which party. I believe it's a duty to vote, and should be a legal obligation to do so, even if you vote "Abstain". As Jasper says, those who decline to use their right to vote have no real moral justification to criticise the government for any of their decisions. It is less than 100 years since The Fourth Reform Act was passed, prior to that only about 60% of men, and 0% of women had the right to vote. We all know about the huge struggle for women to be allowed to vote,
But it does allow women to stroke kittens and join the Womens Institute - voting is just something that confuses women. Don't they have enough work to do in the kitchen? On behalf of the Ghengis Khan Party, we don't need another layer of confusion and long words like 'justification to criticise' and 'legal obligation' - it just makes women cry and ruins the perfectly good Macaroni Cheese they've just prepared for our high tea......
As a rule I don't like to waste my time, hence I will not be voting. Give me a candidate worth voting for and I will change my mind, but I doubt I will see that in my lifetime...