Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

chewmylegoff

Tromking wrote: »

A federal system in all likelihood would provide us with a net loss in politicians.
No doubling up of as we have at moment with representatives from Ulster, Wales and Scotland attending Westminster in large numbers. A federal government with only 100 seats seems about right and the HOL with 800 or so potential attendees would be consigned to the constitutional dustbin surely.

Parliamentary reform unfortunately has to be agreed by the people currently in the houses of Parliament. They are, at least, as intelligent as turkeys and will therefore be unlikely to vote for Christmas.

Tromking

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Parliamentary reform unfortunately has to be agreed by the people currently in the houses of Parliament. They are, at least, as intelligent as turkeys and will therefore be unlikely to vote for Christmas.

I agree.
The only problem with that is do nothing and the Union is lost.
EVEL is just the latest sticking plaster solution before the !!!!ers finally 'get it' and adopt Federalism.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Clapton, give it up. You won. All of it. At least try and enjoy it.

You are a middle class, home owning, white, English man who lives in a country that for living memory has existed to serve the interests of middle class, home owning, white, English men.

You once again have a government whose only mandate is to worry about the interests of you. Before announcing any new policy announcement you can rest assured that David Cameron has spent hours worrying over reports from focus groups of middle class, home owning, white, English men to make sure everything is entirely acceptable to them.

All of those cuts that are affecting youth services, state education, social housing, benefits for the working poor. They have all been carefully chosen so that not one drop of pain might land on the delicate and endangered shoulders of middle class, home owning, white, English man,

The fact that a handful of MPs in Westminster, an institution largely composed of middle class, home owning, white, English men, might actually be thinking about other people, shouldn't worry you.

The SNP aren't going to come and eat you in your bed and Mairi whatshername isn't going to change any of the laws that have been so artfully created by middle class, home owning, white, English men to protect the interests of middle class, home owning, white, English men.

So just relax and enjoy your life. If you can't I don't see who can.

A single party, nationalistic, authoritarian, northern state is mainly a danger to its own citizens

fortunately those that will need to, can escape to a tolerant, multicultural, wonderful, entrepreneurial, generous spirited people only a few miles south
there are of course some exceptions from that, but nowhere is perfect

how are the parents?

zagubov

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Because what we really really need is just loads more politicians.

I already seem to be subject to a parish council, borough council, county council and central government. Adding in a regional assembly on top of thst would be ludicrous.

The desire for more politicians baffles me. The ones we have are rubbish, why would you want to pay higher taxes to employ more idiots to govern you.

Where I live there's a borough council, a Greater London Assembly, a two-house parliament where I get to vote for one house.

In the US you've got a two-house elected federal government, a state government and then your county and municipality. People seem to think it's a good thing.

Is there a definitive list of which countries have the highest and lowest number of politicians in proportion to the electroate/general population?

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

Where I live there's a borough council, a Greater London Assembly, a two-house parliament where I get to vote for one house.

In the US you've got a two-house elected federal government, a state government and then your county and municipality. People seem to think it's a good thing.

Is there a definitive list of which countries have the highest and lowest number of politicians in proportion to the electroate/general population?

interesting to note that the USA population of 318 million

Senate : 100 people ; minimum age 30 and must be US citizens for 9 years

HoR : 435 people at least 25 year old and citizen for at least 7 years

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

interesting to note that the USA population of 318 million

Senate : 100 people ; minimum age 30 and must be US citizens for 9 years

HoR : 435 people at least 25 year old and citizen for at least 7 years

Well the word senate does refer to "elders".

I believe that the London Assembly has 25 members.

The NI assembly has over 108 politicians, which seems like a lot when you consider that for much of the 20th century it had a two-house parliament with 52 MPs and 26 senators, with a prime minister and a governor representing the Queen. Plus obviously MPs and Lords at Westminster.

I beleive there's a formula for calculating what's the best democratic size for a parliament for a given size of population, but not sure what is. I seem to recall it's related to the square root of the population, so there's a substantial minimum size.

Grateful for any info on this.

Generali

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1063/Buchanan_0102-03_EBk_v6.0.pdf

Is apparently the seminal work on the topic.

Apparently the UK has too many representatives.

On an unrelated subject, the Texas state Senate can only sit for 100 days a year as there is only so much damage they can do in that time. It seems that they have taken up my political motto:

Don't just do something, stand there!

chewmylegoff

The ideal number of representatives is 1. We just need to find the perfect benevolent dictator.

.string.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The ideal number of representatives is 1. We just need to find the perfect benevolent dictator.

I've been issuing edicts for years, but nobody has noticed.

Where can I get an army?


PS. Don't do benevolent and don't know anyone that does.

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The ideal number of representatives is 1. We just need to find the perfect benevolent dictator.

Look no further. :money::money::j