Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ] |
| Subject: Very nice idea... | |
Author: Paddy (Scotland) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 21:11:54 10/21/04 Thu In reply to: Jim (Canada) 's message, "This could be modified and updated for our proposal" on 20:12:13 10/21/04 Thu I think that this is a much more acceptable idea in general to many people in the U.K. & the wider Crown Commonwealth. England has existed as a single political entity for a thousand years or so: the prospect of being split up along lines that have no historical relevence is not a happy one for many of the English that I have spoken to. After all it is not England's "fault" that their population is so high compared to Scotland, say, even though Scotland makes up just under half of the landmass of Great Britain. Similarly I am certain that the Australians & the Canadians if wanting closer ties would like to remain Australian & Canadian in more ways than watching a national Football or Hockey team. I would however suggest changing slightly the ratios of national MPs. New Zealand and Scotland for example have 4 & 5 million as their populations so I would give them both 25 MPs. I know that this sounds slightly unfair in that NZ voter would "multiply his vote" by a certain factor compared to the Scottish but this happens in the U.K. anyway if you vote in the country instead of a city. It really does not make a difference to democracy but would matter a lot to the small nations. The structure sounds good as England does not need to be "restructured" to ensure that it does not dominate the others. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Rep by pop | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:58:57 10/21/04 Thu Based on calculations from the number of MP's in Westmister and populations, using double the population in a typical English constituency and current populations, I come up with this ratio which applies the same number across the board (an MP per 180,000 population): England 272 Scotland 28 Wales 17 N. Ireland 11 Canada 178 Australia 111 New Zealand 22 West Indies 25 TOTAL 664 [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Australian States | |
|
Author: Benjamin Simpson (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:27:29 10/22/04 Fri I would prefer to see Australian states represented seperaltyThis would lead to the following representation. (Based on Stats in aas at 2001 and your population): New South Wales 35 Victoria 25 Queensland 20 Western Australia 10 South Australia 8 Tasmania 3 Australian Captial Territory 2 Northern Territory 1 If the FC parliament eventually ablorber the powers of (and therefore the need for)then NSW wold be allocated 37 seats, owing the the absorbtion of the ACT. out of interest what would be a similar allocation for the CAnadian provinces? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Canadian Provinces | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:48:44 10/22/04 Fri Newfoundland & Labrador 3 Nova Scotia 5 Prince Edward Island 1 New Brunswick 4 Quebec 42 Ontario 67 Manitoba 7 Saskatchewan 6 Alberta 18 British Columbia 22 Yukon 1 Northwest Territories 1 Nunavut 1 [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Here is how the FC Parliament would look by Region based on rep by pop | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:57:40 10/22/04 Fri England 272 Scotland 28 Wales 17 Northern Ireland 11 Newfoundland & Labrador 3 Prince Edward Island 5 Nova Scotia 1 New Brunswick 4 Quebec 42 Ontario 67 Manitoba 7 Saskatchewan 6 Alberta 18 British Columbia 22 Yukon 1 Northwest Territories 1 Nunavut 1 New South Wales 37 Victoria 25 Queensland 20 Western Australia 10 South Australia 8 Tasmania 3 Northern Territory 1 New Zealand 22 West Indies 25 Dependent Territories 3 TOTAL 660 Note that England has less than half of the seats. So a coalition of all of the others could outvote England. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Looks good | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:04:07 10/22/04 Fri I have no desire to "break England up". I think it would be good if regions that define themselves as regions had the opportunity to govern themselves at provincial level. If no such regions exist, so be it. I rather imagine that Cornwall might like provincial status and, being a sentimental bugger, I would be strongly inclined to say "good on them". [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: More Subdivision | |
|
Author: Benjamin Simpson (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:12:08 10/22/04 Fri England 272 Scotland 28 Wales 17 Northern Ireland 11 Newfoundland & Labrador 3 Prince Edward Island 5 Nova Scotia 1 New Brunswick 4 Quebec 42 Ontario 67 Manitoba 7 Saskatchewan 6 Alberta 18 British Columbia 22 Yukon 1 Northwest Territories 1 Nunavut 1 New South Wales 37 Victoria 25 Queensland 20 Western Australia 10 South Australia 8 Tasmania 3 Northern Territory 1 New Zealand 22 Jamica 15 Trinidad and Tobago 6 The Bahamas 2 West Indies 3 PNG 30 Dependent Territories 3 Total 683 I notice there is no mention of the South Pacific. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: How did Trinidad and Tobago get in there? | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:26:51 10/22/04 Fri We have to limit ourselves at least to the Crown Commonwealth. And, since the idea (at least for me) is to work for a federation of essentially "british" countries, I don't see Papua New Guinea as being relevant. If we are talking about common culture and values, then there is very very little to work with there. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |