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: Sounds like a very clever option, Paddy | |
Author: Ian (Australia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 16:29:49 11/30/04 Tue In reply to: Paddy (Scotland) 's message, "Thanks for your careful analysis Ian." on 13:52:09 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. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous 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 ] |