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: Federal structure options | |
Author: Ian (Australia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 19:11:33 11/27/04 Sat In reply to: Ian (Australia) 's message, "Good thoughts, Paddy" on 23:00:37 11/26/04 Fri I see four alternatives, depending on whether the larger members enter as full countries, as existing provinces, states and nations or further regionalised: Option A (4 members): CANZUK in its simplest form, with existing nation-states. Canada (1) + Australia (1) + New Zealand (1) + UK (1). Option B (7 members): UK entering as separate devolved units. Canada (1), Australia (1), New Zealand (1) + UK (4: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). Option C (25 members): Canada and Australia entering as separate provinces / states. NZ (1) + UK (4) + Canada (13 provinces / territories) + Australia (7 states / territories). Option D (33 members): England entering as 9 devolved regions (official FCS policy). NZ (1) + Canada (13) + Australia (7) + UK (12: 3 Celtic nations + 9 English regions). ============================================ I see three issues related to these options: 1. Loss of existing identities. This favours options A and B. In C and D Canada and Australia would cease to exist as political units, which could be very hard to sell to people from these countries. England would cease to exist as a political unit in option D, which could be even harder to sell. The UK would cease to exist as a unit in option B, but since no one says they are UKish, this may not make such an emotional difference. 2. Fourth level of government. This is pretty much at odds with issue 1, and favours options C and D. If Australia and Canada remained as federations within the new federation, they would have to pay for municipal, state / provincial, federal and super-federal levels of government. Most people don’t like politicians that much, and would not be mad keen to have so many more of them. I’m not sufficiently sure about how local government works in the UK to be able to comment on that. 3. The perception that one member is too strong and able to outvote the others. This is one of Nick’s arguments for favouring option D, because even with the UK entering as 4 nations (options B and C), England would have over 40% of the population of the federation, and this could create a perception (true or false is not the point) of England being an overwhelmingly dominant force in the federation. ============================================ This leaves us with two basic conflicts, which cannot be resolved simply: 1. Preserving existing identities (in the cases of Canada and Australia) means adding a fourth level of government. 2. Preserving existing identities (in the case of England) means having one member of the federation that is much stronger than the others. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Massive Union = More Government | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:34:36 11/27/04 Sat The thing is, that we are proposing a massive union, bigger and more widespread than anything seen before - we're bound to need more government politicians, the question is where do they go? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: How about? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:46:22 11/27/04 Sat Having fewer politicians? This has just given me an idea of how to resolve the location issue of a proposed FC Parliament. In order to deter the officious and incessant law-making that our respective Parliaments engage in, I propose a new building somewhere in the British Antarctic Territory. This would encourage and confine the Parliament’s business to that of debating essential legislation. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: With no heating for anyone but the Queen ;) | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:06:40 11/27/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: D'you know, I rather like that? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:03:12 11/28/04 Sun An innovative solution to an ancient problem: put the centre of government somewhere to which no-one in their right minds would want to spend more time than is strictly necessary. It explains a lot. Who, in the United Kingdom, would not want to spend large amounts of time in London, where all the best shops, concerts, plays, restaurants etc. are located? On the other hand, move the capital to Milton Keynes, Chorley in Lancashire, Skegness, Shoebury Ness, Leverburg on Eilan na Hearradh, or perhaps the Falklands, and you wouldn't get a politician within 100 miles of the place unless it were absolutely necessary. Ha. Never mind the FCS, let's start the GOSS - Government On Shetland Society! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: More politicians? perhaps, perhaps not | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:49:14 11/29/04 Mon Yes, we are proposing a biggish federation (CANZUK would have a greater land area than the Russian Federation, and obviously spread far more widely), but that doesn't necessarily mean that we will have to establish a fourth level of government. It may end up being the best solution, but it will certainly attract opposition. Some people in Australia already want to abolish the states and have just two levels of government. A silly idea, of course, but also an indication that four levels will strike many people as overkill. As for the federal capital, I don't see any point in it not being in London. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Capitals | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:03:33 11/29/04 Mon I'm in favour of Hamilton, personally. Convenient central location, nice weather, uncontrovertial (whereas London would be extremely controvertial), the list goes on! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Question for you Ian... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:59:39 11/29/04 Mon You stated that some Australians are in favour of two-tier Government. With larger (area-wise) states such as Western Australia, what is the perceived advantage over being Governed from Canberra? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I should have been more specific | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:20:30 11/29/04 Mon The fact is, I'm from New South Wales, and so are the people I know who are opposed to the states. Western Australia has an odd relationship with the rest of us. They asked to have convicts sent there after transportation was ending in other colonies, they almost decided against joining the Federation and then tried to leave it some time later. I rather suspect that they would be the last ones to want the states abolished. In fact, I can't see anyone outside Sydney and Melbourne seeing any merit at all in the idea, but people from Sydney and Melbourne often end up being what they call "opinion formers". [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ah... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:52:40 11/29/04 Mon So those closest to Central Government, are the most enthusiastic proponents of centralisation - that figures! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:33:18 11/29/04 Mon Yes, they can't see the point of a government in Sydney when they already run one in Canberra. Oddly, however, some of those who complain that Sydney's public transport system is run badly by a government in Sydney also seem to think that it would be run better by one based in Canberra. I fail to see the logic in that. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Thanks for your careful analysis Ian. | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:52:09 11/30/04 Tue I do agree about difficulties with the structure. In terms of getting the idea of the ground though, I really do think that the following, option A(ii), would be the most practical to sell to citizens: Option A(ii) (4 members): CANZUK in its simplest form, with existing nation-states' parliaments convening under one roof. Canada (1) + Australia (1) + New Zealand (1) + GB&NI (1). The four component nation states (committes of MPs from the nation states) having rights to institute (or remove) devolution within their region of control if there is a wish for it in a particular region. It is true that despite the similarities between the above mentioned countries each country does have a strong national identity and each nation does have proud national achievements. If the will is there in future to make this proposal for a new United Kingdom happen in the future, then I am confident that it will not be too difficult to come up with a viable political system. I believe that in terms of getting people to think that the idea might work the above option is by far the best. It involves one step, the formation of a "new" parliament (with corresponding agencies merging giving an even greater pool of talent) and would give in no sense radical change as countries would still be represented by the same politicians voted in on a national basis. People would be able to vote for a person to represent their local interests in the parliament, same as before. The best system would be ONE parliament with devolution wherever it was asked for (the location of which is in my view is unimportant). In principle, I have no objection to having the same number of main-chamber MPs being sent to the new parliament as there are currently serving the nation states. This might well give NZ a disproportionate size of the vote: Rough current figures: UK - 660 MPs Canada - 310 MPs Australia - 226 NZ - 120 Current % of total (1316) UK - 50% Canada - 24% Australia - 17% NZ - 9% Furthermore, it might be an idea to have the UK proportion scaled down to near 40% rather than 50% and give the other 10% to the dominions. As an example for discussion: Revised % of total UK - 43.8% Canada - 21.8% Australia - 19.4% NZ - 9% Why? Because the population of the UK is so concentrated and this is supposed to be a global Union. If we are going to have a frontier in Asia/Australasia (the only frontier that will be potentally "hostile") then it is important that that part of the federation has it's voice heard. Also, Oz and Canada are vast countries and should not be able to be outvoted by little Britain on matters of relevance, such as subsidisation of local air routes, say. In a Union with such wide differences in population density democracy of the "x-votes gets you a seat" could actually damage the federation. Also, I do not want to degrade New Zealand in any way just because it is small. I feel that it is better to have NZ with near 10% of seats and really get involved than have them with 3% and have them with no real possibility of control except for the last few counted votes in hotly contested debates. I feel that the above outlines a good structure. National identities still have a real relevence, there is no radical change in election practice required and does not really change much in practice. It sounds more plausible than changing century-old gradually acquired practces overnight. What do people think of this structure as an option? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Error in the above | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:58:43 11/30/04 Tue please read: As an example for discussion: Revised % of total UK - 43.6% Canada - 28% Australia - 19.4% NZ - 9% [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: My Thoughts... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:38:36 11/30/04 Tue The idea has its merits. I think you are right that to get New Zealand on board, you would have to give them the kind of representation that Scotland currently has at Westminster. This is another good reason for advocating Aus/NZ unification first. However, 1300 MPs would require a new Parliament building, and would raise the question of what we do with the existing Parliaments, Two of which, are great historical assets. I liked the rotation idea mentioned earlier. I am coming round to the idea of having a reasonably small Federal Government, with around 600 MPs. With this Government being responsible for foreign policy, defence, legal and constitutional matters, there is less of an argument for smaller, more representative constituencies. I have some ideas which I will work on and present in due course… [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Could we make a Parliament of 1300 members work? | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:07:45 11/30/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: hmm - it would certainly create some noisy debates! | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:25:17 11/30/04 Tue Order! Order! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I do not see why not... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:31:00 11/30/04 Tue Especially if policy is to encourage devolution of local affairs. Also, if we halved the number of MPs it would dilute the people's power to vote-in a local representative to serve their local interests. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: More of my ideas... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:03:20 11/30/04 Tue State Province # of MPs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Australasia New South Wales (inc ACT and Jervis Bay) 74 Australasia New Zealand 43 Australasia Northern Territories 3 Australasia Norfolk Island 1 Australasia Queensland (inc Coral Sea Islands) 40 Australasia South Australia 16 Australasia Tasmania 7 Australasia Victoria 54 Australasia Western Australia (inc Christmas Island) 22 British Isles Bermuda 1 British Isles British East Caribbean Islands (Anguilla, BVI, Montserrat) 1 British Isles British South Atlantic Islands (Falklands, South Georgia, South Sandwich, St Helena, Ascension etc) 1 British Isles British West Caribbean Islands (Cayman, Turks and Caicos) 1 British Isles England 525 British Isles Gibraltar 1 British Isles Isle of Man 2 British Isles Jersey 2 British Isles Northern Ireland 18 British Isles Scotland 59 British Isles Wales 34 Canada Alberta 30 Canada British Columbia 38 Canada Manitoba 15 Canada New Brunswick 10 Canada Newfoundland and Labrador 7 Canada Northwest Territories 1 Canada Nova Scotia 12 Canada Nunavut 1 Canada Ontario 112 Canada Prince Edward Island 4 Canada Quebec 79 Canada Saskatchewan 15 Canada Yukon 1 Commonwealth Overseas Territories Commonwealth Antarctic Territory (Australian and British sectors, Heard and McDonald Islands) 0 Commonwealth Overseas Territories Commonwealth Cypriot Territory (Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia) 0 Commonwealth Overseas Territories Commonwealth Indian Ocean Territory (Deigo Garcia and minor outlying islands, Cocos/Keeling Islands) 0 Commonwealth Overseas Territories Commonwealth Pacific Territory (Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie, Oeno and Sandy) 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL MPs 1230 Perhaps they could all sit in the existing buildings, linked by video? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sorry about the formatting... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:04:26 11/30/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Formatted Data | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:55:24 12/01/04 Wed Commonwealth MPs by Region/Province Total: 1230 ----------- Australasia ----------- New South Wales (inc ACT and Jervis Bay) 74 New Zealand 43 Northern Territories 3 Norfolk Island 1 Queensland (inc Coral Sea Islands) 40 South Australia 16 Tasmania 7 Victoria 54 Western Australia (inc Christmas Island) 22 ------------- British Isles ------------- Bermuda 1 British East Caribbean Islands (Anguilla, BVI, Montserrat) 1 British South Atlantic Islands (Falklands, South Georgia, South Sandwich, St Helena, Ascension etc) 1 British West Caribbean Islands (Cayman, Turks and Caicos) 1 England 525 Gibraltar 1 Isle of Man 2 Jersey 2 Northern Ireland 18 Scotland 59 Wales 34 ------ Canada ------ Alberta 30 British Columbia 38 Manitoba 15 New Brunswick 10 Newfoundland and Labrador 7 Northwest Territories 1 Nova Scotia 12 Nunavut 1 Ontario 112 Prince Edward Island 4 Quebec 79 Saskatchewan 15 Yukon 1 --------------------------------- Commonwealth Overseas Territories (No Parliamentary Representation) --------------------------------- Commonwealth Antarctic Territory (Australian and British sectors, Heard and McDonald Islands) Commonwealth Cypriot Territory (Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia) Commonwealth Indian Ocean Territory (Deigo Garcia and minor outlying islands, Cocos/Keeling Islands) Commonwealth Pacific Territory (Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie, Oeno and Sandy) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Sounds like a very clever option, Paddy | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:29:49 11/30/04 Tue It has the advantage of creating a larger organisation by blending the existing national parliaments rather than creating an entirely new structure. It could begin as joint sittings to discuss common issues before any federation actually came into force. In this way, it could help to ease into a new federal arrangement. The disadvantage is that 1300 members is a truly enormous parliament. I think that, like Dave, I am really more in favour of a smaller FC parliament with (initially at least) more limited powers. Perhaps the existing national parliaments could send, say, half of their members to the FC parliament, that is to say, each party selects half of its elected members as delegates to the FC. (Just out of interest, Paddy, have you calculated how the parties would line up in this 1300 member parliament? I imagine UK Labour would have the numbers to pull together a majority, wouldn't it?) I think it is good to have different models under discussion, because there will need to be a lot of debate about such issues before anything can come to fruition. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: MPs by party | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:24:52 11/30/04 Tue MPs at Westminster: (total 659) Conservative (163) Democratic Unionist (6) Independent (1) Independent Conservative (1) Labour (407) Liberal Democrat (55) Plaid Cymru (4) Respect (1) Scottish National (5) Sinn Fein (4) Social Democratic & Labour Party (3) Ulster Unionist (5) Speaker and Deputies (4) MPs at Ottawa: (total 308) Liberal (134) Conservative (99) Bloc Québécois (54) National Democratic (19) Independent (2) MPs at Canberra: (150) Labor (60) Country Liberal Party (1) Liberal (74) Nationals (12) Other (3) MPs at Wellington: (120) Party Electorate Seats List Seats Total Seats Labour 45 7 52 National 21 6 27 NZ First 1 12 13 ACT 0 9 9 Greens 0 9 9 United Future 1 7 8 Progressive Coalition 1 1 2 I appear to have overstated the number of Aus MPs previously. Overall there are ~ 337 "Tory" (Right wing/traditionalists) MPs and ~ 653 "Left Wing" out of 1237. In the above count I have not included third parties and below as I am not sure about exactly where the politics of these lesser parties lie. Looking at the paliaments at Ottawa and Westminster (very similar systems and numbers per population) it can be seen clearly that in the event of a conservative win in the UK and a Liberal Win in Canada, indeed the UK would be able to dominate the political agenda. (Of course, supposing that the Conservatives in Canada were to win most of the Canadian seats and the Labour Party were to win most of the British seats this would still hold true). For this reason I would wish to lower the proportion of MPs in the UK relative to the other nations (to around 40% as suggested above seems sensible) through decreasing numbers at westminster and/or increasing numbers in Canada/Oz. It is quite possible that the current parties might form alliances, although in a unified parliament there would be great cultural differences amongst both conservatives and socialists - it would not be as simple as left and right. This would lead to most interresting debates and perhaps freer voting as party lines would become blurred in such coalition voting on yes/no issues. What are peoples views now that this information has been published? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Too many parties... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:44:06 11/30/04 Tue I believe strongly that one of the greatest impediments to a settlement in Ulster arises from the fact that Ulstermen can not vote for any party which is likely to form a government. Were it simply accepted that the referenda in Ulster clearly show that Ulster has decided to be part of the UK, then people would not have to vote for single-issue parties (Unionist or Seperatist) and the British party system could be extended to Ulster, with people voting Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem, with the token party for nationalists like SNP in Scotland. As a result, I think that no Commonwealth Federation could possibly work if there be different political parties in each of the 'former' realms. This is especially true since, apart from in exceptional circumstances, a British majority could out-vote pretty much anything that the rest of CANZUK might have to offer, even if the British majority was that of a party which did not put forward any candidates in the rest of CANZUK. Alliances might be a solution, but that means coalitions, and, as the chap said, "England does not love coalitions." Look at Europe - every government is a coalition of about seventeen parties and they always fall apart. Italy has had almost fifty general elections since the War. Moreover, in a coalition the smallest party controls the balance of power, and therefore the party for which fewest people voted is the most influential - like Joerg Haider's ultra-right-wing party in Austria. Since the end of patronage in the 19th Century, political parties are the only thing which hold the legislative and executive in balance. Moreover, they are qunitessetial to the maintenance of a unitary state. The emergence of a Federal Commonwealth parliament must be concomitant with the emergence of pan-CANZUK political parties, or the thing will be completely dysfunctional. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes, clearly there are too many parties | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:20:10 11/30/04 Tue But I think they would settle down reasonably swiftly into 3 or 4 serious ones and a lot of little ones. The continued existence of separate parties along existing national lines would mean complete failure of the federation. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: There is a large nuber of parties... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:28:31 12/01/04 Wed I agree that they would form alliances so as to give a clear "government", a clear "opposition", probably a third-running, minority extremist left (like the Lib Dems in the U.K.) party and then the other protest votes. Out of interest, what are the BQ's policies in Canada? They hold 54 out of about 75-80 Quebec seats, the remainder are held by the Conservatives I believe... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Adjusted party figures | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:11:58 11/30/04 Tue Adding the other conservative parties in Australia and New Zealand (National + Country Liberal), it totals 376 "Tory" to 653 "Left", although these may well shake out differently in practice anyway. Adjusting the number of members per head of population, we end up with proportions more like 401 "Tory" to 649 "Left". I had no idea Australia had so few politicians per head, or that NZ had so many. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Rule of thumb... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:05:37 12/01/04 Wed The smaller the country, the larger its number of MPs per head. Look at the difference between, say, England and Scotland. England, with its population of 50 million, and Scotland, with its population of about 5 million, don't have an MP ratio of 10:1, but about 8:1. Clearly, Scotland is over-represented; but this is merely because otherwise Scottish constituencies would be so large that a single MP would not be sufficient to represent them. As it is, some MPs have to represent several islands, to travel between which one needs two or more boat rides (the islands being too hilly for an airstrip). But your point about ending up with 200 more centre-left MPs than centre-right is one of the things which is going to cause problems in Britain - or, rather, England. 1997 was the first time ever that a party other than the Tories had a majority in England, and as such is an artificial situation: even with Labour guaranteed another victory next year, they will certainly lose their majority in England to the Tories, since they only need to lose about 5 seats to do so. I therefore think that I am right in saying that one of the obstacles to the FCS idea would be the traditional English hostility to leftie, whale-hugging, peacenik, pinko, criminal-indulging, CND, long-haired, unshaven, sandal-wearing, vegetarian badminton players such as are exemplified by New Zealand in particular and the other former dominions generally (Australia, thank G-d, exepted). One whiff of a suspicion that England's foreign, environmental, economic or social policies could be decided by the likes of Helen Clarke and Paul Martin, and the FC would be dead faster than you can say 'hunting lobby'. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I'm a badminton player... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:34:04 12/01/04 Wed but none of the other things thankfully... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I used to be quite a good minton player | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:06:20 12/01/04 Wed I also wear sandals when it's hot and go through cycles of being quite scruffy and unshaven. Don't worry, though: I will clean up my act in time to become Australia's minister for Commonwealth Affairs. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Quite right there | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:35:21 12/01/04 Wed Although New Zealanders might actually start to vote more sensibly if they were a substantial part of a much larger Union. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Possibly | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:26:22 12/01/04 Wed But could you convince Squire Western of that? It's hard enough to convince me of that, and I've met some perfectly sensible kiwis! It's just that all the headlines from New Zealand are either about Lord of the Rings or the Rainbow Cruiser. Such is NZ's reputation that nut-cutlet eating and boat-shoe wearing British luvvies from Hampstead Garden Suburb actually choose to emigrate to NZ because it is so associated with vegan, dendrophiliac, clean-energy whale sanctuaries. In fact, I had a music teacher once, who had to give notice because she was emigrating to NZ. I asked her why, and without hesitation she said "Because there's no nuclear power." I laughed hesitantly, until I realised that she was being deadly serious. "One earthquake in northern Europe," she went on, "and the whole nuclear establishment's going into meltdown." I refrained from pointing out that earthquakes are not plentiful in Shrewsbury, and that nuclear power stations are probably built with a bit of resilience in mind, the evidence suggesting that Force 9 gales don't tend to recreate Chernobyl in the British countryside, but there you go. This leads me, perhaps, to alter my original statement. Perhaps not all kiwis are totally pinko, but such a reputation has been forced onto them by all the ghastly immigrants from Britain: rather like all the English immigrants in South Wales voting Plaid Cymru! If only we had a member from NZ, this topic might have some more light thrown on it. Oh, and P.S.: I've played badminton too! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Plaid Cymru? | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:29:46 12/01/04 Wed "all the English immigrants in South Wales voting Plaid Cymru!" Is this true? Please tell me I am misreading. Sadly its so stupid I can actualy imagine it happening. This country needs some serious work. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Deduction | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:25:36 12/01/04 Wed The number of 'pure' Welsh people living in South Wales is absurdly small. From a racial and cultural standpoint, the industrial revolution caused a massive ethnic shift in the population of South Wales. It stands to reason that, then and now, a great proportion of the increased population of the region came from across the boundry in England, particularly from Cheshire, Shropshire (which is half-Welsh in any case), and Worcestershire. The South of Wales is not "Welsh" like the North West of the principality, in the same way that the South of Scotland is ethnically and culturally anglicised and the North of England is ethnically and culturally scossified. In this context, it is safe to suppose that Plaid Cymru voters in South Wales must constitute in a great proportion people whose ancestry is hardly Welsh at all. On top of this is the phenomenon, which I have read about in the newspapers and seen with my own eyes (I've spent a lot of time in Glamorgan), of people who were born in England and have moved to Mountain Ash or Ponty Pwl mouthing off in a pub about bloody interference from London into Welsh affairs which should be left in the hands of Wales. I'm prepared to bet that there are similar English people in the South of Scotland voting SNP! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: British Dominance in Blend of Parliaments | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:58:38 12/01/04 Wed In such an arrangement, it is good to see that British parties seeking power would have to seek alliances overseas in order to guarantee a majority. These loose alliances would swiftly evolve into stronger ties - perhaps even total merging of essentially similar parties. This need to form a majority would actually give a lot of deciding power to the Dominions. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Good point | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:56:21 12/01/04 Wed But I still think that, initially, in the absence of pan-CANZUK political parties, the thing would only be held together by magnanimity on the part of British, and more particularly English, politicians. "Magnanimity is not seldom the truest wisdom, and great empires and little minds go ill together", and all that jazz. In the same way, the Anglo-Scottish union is held together, in many cases, by the English biting their tongues and letting a few unfair things slide. I realise, too, that the same is true in Scotland, especially when there is a Tory government in the UK for which only 20% of Scots have voted. Obviously, in federation there will be a transition stage: the important thing is, during this period, to have suffient feelings of goodwill, as Edmund Burke pointed out, so that there is no outcry in Britain when the New Zealand Green Party uses its alliance with whichever coalition is in power to force the Derbyshire Dales or the Grampians to be covered with bloody windfarms. People must believe that Commonwealth Federation is worth a few minor inconveniences. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: U.S. Senate Model | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:49:47 12/01/04 Wed The talk about having to give one of the members or the other members of the proposed federation a disproportionate number of members of the House of Commons raises a question in my mind, Why not use the U.S. Senate model. Have equal representation for each member of the federation in the Upper House and have representation in the Commons strictly by population. This would also continue the tradition of Bicameralism. Of course two senators per state would be to few. Maybe 10 per state which would give a senate of 40 members under option A above. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That was supposed to read | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:51:26 12/01/04 Wed The talk about having to give one or the other of the members of the proposed federation a disproportionate number of members of the House of Commons raises a question in my mind, Why not use the U.S. Senate model. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:00:22 12/01/04 Wed The trouble with that is quite simply that the British model for bicameralism is very different: the upper house is not related to population or areas. It is not representative of this or that particular region or group of people, but, traditionally, of specific interest groups which are vital to the nation's interests (although as Mr Blair's reforms are put into effect it shall probably end up representing large-scale donors to the leading political parties). The hereditary peers represent the landed and, theoretically, agricultural interest; the life peers represent the business and commercial interest, as well as bringing in those who are the leaders of other important sectors of society, such as the media, the thespians, etc. etc.; and the bishops, Chief Rabbi and Chief Imam represent the spiritual establishment (but no Catholics, of course, because of our religious laws). The attempt to superimpose a popular or geographical representative function on the Upper House would involve a complete re-think of the entire purpose of having a second chamber in the first place. I am not averse to this, but it would not be a simple transformation. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The government is formed by the majority in the lower house | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:19:06 12/01/04 Wed Under the US model, New Zealand would have virtually no say in the formation of the government, which might not impress Kiwis very much. It would also become vitally important to define exactly what would be the member units of the federation: is Australia to have 10 senators, or is each Australian state to have 10 senators? Should 10 senators represent the UK, or 10 each for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or 10 for each English region? Australia has a US-style Senate, but it is a relic from the times when states had widely diverging interests. Voters now elect senators who represent party interests, so the numerical advantage for smaller states becomes unjust. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Senate | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:35:34 12/01/04 Wed Both Britain and Canada have appointed, unelected upper houses, while Australia and New Zealand have elected upper houses. Many people in both Britain and Canada would like to move to elected upper houses, so establishment of the federation parliament would present the opportunity to do just that. It would have to be the most modern and up to date parliament with an elected upper house. No should the lower house have proportional representation or first-past-the-post. Again, both Britain and Canada have first-past-the-post. I believe New Zealand has proportional representation, and I am not sure about Australia. Both the upper and lower houses will have to standardised in the most modern and workable format. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Australia has preferential voting | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:57:24 12/01/04 Wed If you have, say, five candidates, you mark the squares with the numbers 1 to 5 to indicate your order of preference. If a candidate gets over 50% just with the number 1 votes, fines: they are elected. If no candidate gets over 50% of number 1 votes, the candidate who got the lowest number is eliminated, and their ballots are distributed among the other candidates according to the second preferences of those voters. If this still doesn't take anyone over 50%, the next lowest candidate is eliminated and their ballots distributed. You keep on at this until one of the candidates gets over 50%. Some states (in their state elections) have optional preferential voting, in which case you don't have to number all the squares, but just 1, 2, 3, as far as you wish. I prefer preferential voting to first past the post, because the "post" is always 50%, and you don't have to worry about "splitting the vote" and "tactical voting". [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Jim and Ian's points | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:47:49 12/01/04 Wed The trouble with having the same electoral system for Upper and Lower Houses is, I think, quite obvious: the party system would ensure (presuming that the same party was in majority in both houses, which is pretty inevitable) that there would be no point in having two houses at all. The party whips would ensure that the party's members in the Upper House would agree to legislation proposed by the party in the lower house, and object to the policies which were objected to by the party in the lower house. The only way in which you could prevent this would be to stagger elections, so that you could have a different party controlling each house. But this in itself raises a further problem: when the two are in conflict over a policy, which takes precedence? Obviously, the House whose elections were most recent, since they would be a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate. So there'd be no point in having two houses, once again. Now, you could remedy that by having different electoral procedures for each house, such as first past the post for the Lower House and proportional representation for the Upper House. But then there is no way to resolve which takes precedence when there is disagreement. Personally, I think that bicameral legislature is a joke if both houses are elected, for these and other reasons. A case in point is Blair's attempt to make the Lords more 'accountable'. What has been the result? The rise of the Commons to the point where we have unicameral legislature in practice if not in theory. On a related point, I and millions of other Englishman are allergic to proportional representation. Even though PR would practically institutionalise Tory government, I would still rather have the occasional socialist administration than the ghastly perpetuation of coalition government which PR entails. I think that it is important to remember that the only party to win an election outright under a PR system (i.e., get 51% for one party) was the National Socialist German Workers' Party in 1933. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: New Zealand has a mixed system with electorates and party lists | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:01:08 12/01/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: My View... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:17:20 12/01/04 Wed I would like to preserve the unelected and independent aspect of the current House of Lords. However, I would reform the political dimension. I propose that 40% of members would represent the current "establishment" with Landed Dukes, Life Peer Business Tycoons, Religious figures, Keepers of the Golden Slipper etc. As the House is a scrutinising chamber, we need diversity of background and opinion in order to serve its purpose. The House of Lords do not initiate legislation, so I see no need for it to be majority elected. Wiping away centuries of tradition, New Labour style, by abolishing ancient titles would not, in my view, add anything to our democracy. Neither would the creation of a carbon copy of the Commons, with whatever voting mechanism. However, I would reform the current political dimension of the House of Lords. The remaining 60% of members would be elected by proportional representation, using the popular vote of the General Election. Therefore, the proportions would reflect the general opinion at the time the Government was formed. I believe this presents a greater democratic mandate than staggered elections, and would not require an additional poll. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:41:30 12/01/04 Wed Chap recently suggested to me that we abolish the Commons and have a 100% hereditary Lords... but he was an earl so perhaps he was biased! Seriously, though, I fail to see the point of a second chamber if it were to be elected on party lines. Might as well have one chamber. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: well... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:48:54 12/01/04 Wed The House of Lords is already composed of political members, Government, oppposition and others. I am merely suggesting that we reform the method of selection for this political component. The PR device would restrict the numbers that each party can have in the chamber, thus eliminating the current practice of Governments loading up the Lords with members of their own persuasion. It would also give a voice to other parties that would never be represented by FPTP. Diversity is what we are trying to achieve. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Really? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:23:20 12/01/04 Wed I always thought that the second greatest thing about FPTP is that it totally prevents the loony minority parties from getting anywhere. BNP and the Communists stand no chance in FPTP, but under PR they'd be in Parliament! Like in France, where there are actually Communist and National Front representatives. Diversity is one thing, but PR allowed NASDAP to get a foot in the door in Germany, and we all know what that led to. Okay, so you could have a minimum cut-off point, say, 10%, but that's arbitrary and not really a lasting solution: mainly because a party which gets 9.9% of the vote has no seats but a party which gets 10% of the vote gets 10% of the seats - as soon as that happens, the system seems ridiculous and you have to start the whole reform process of again. I'm a great believer in our system. It worked fine until a certain party started to horse around with it, which opened a whole can of worms, largely because if you partially reform something it makes no sense, and so there are immediate calls reform it completely. Mr Blair, having read Machiavelli, knows this well, and cunningly came up with this solution so that it would appear as though public opinion was driving the changes. On the contrary, until he deliberately imposed a crap partial-reform compromise almost everyone was happy with the system apart from a few intellectuals who don't like anything which is 100% rational. The British constitution was a triumph over logic of the organic. I believe that Aristotle called it catalaxy. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes but... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:31:24 12/01/04 Wed You cannot claim to be a mature true democracy, if you design a political system to prevent views being aired that you find distasteful. Mature democracies can stomach these parties, just as mature democracies don't tend to have them in the first place. It is this Government and its ppolicies that have created the surge of the BNP [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Fair point. I stand corrected. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:33:43 12/01/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I prefer preferential voting | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 03:45:09 12/02/04 Thu FPTP means a candidate can be elected with just thirty-odd percent of the vote. With preferential voting, a candidate must get over 50%. You don't get the situation of, say, two similar candidates getting 30% each and a very different candidate getting 32% and beating the two of them. The preferences of the voters are better accomodated. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sortition | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:39:51 12/01/04 Wed One way to avoid the carbon of the lower house problem would be to use sortition, selection by lottery as a method for choosing some of the members of the upper house. Sortition is democratic in the sense that every one would have a equal chance to be selected, but since it would depend on the luck of the draw their would be no problem of a mirror result of the House of Commons. Before someone points out that this not a traditional way for the English Speaking nations to chose legislators, let me agree, but point out it is the way we chose jury members. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |