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: Massive Union = More Government | |
Author: Roberdin | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 19:34:36 11/27/04 Sat In reply to: Ian (Australia) 's message, "Federal structure options" on 19:11:33 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? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous 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 ] |