My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

AIBU?

to believe we should have a fully federal UK

39 replies

longfingernails · 19/09/2014 00:21

Much as it pains me to say it, the United States currently represents a more perfect union than ours. Now that major constitutional change for Britain looks inevitable, let's do it properly (i.e. not like Gordon Brown's moronic ideas).

Westminster should have responsibility for national security, immigration, and the federal budget. We would elect a Prime Minister directly; they would control an executive. We would further elect a Parliament (like the Senate) who would control the purse strings, initiate legislation, and hold the Prime Minister to account. We would also elect the House of Lords as a purely revising chamber using proportional representation on 10 year rolling terms.

Then we would have English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish assemblies. Each would have a directly elected First Minister (like governors in the US).

Each assembly would have its own (limited) borrowing powers, and control over health/education/community policing/further education policy.

There would be a clear separation between federal taxes/spending, and national level taxes/spending.

Furthermore, the same structure (with clear executive/legislative separation) should be pushed further downwards too. Let's have more directly elected mayors.

Britain's devolution structure has not been well designed at all (goes without saying, as it was designed to be a Labour stitch up, but they even screwed that up). Let's do it properly.

OP posts:
MaidOfStars · 19/09/2014 00:50

I'm up for a federal Europe but I understand I may be a minority voice!

elvenbread · 19/09/2014 00:55

I think Gordon Brown was absolutely fantastic in his speech on weds. I am with him all the way

longfingernails · 19/09/2014 01:05

Gordon Brown is an idiot. He has promised more money and more power for Scotland without any thought of what it will mean. If more power is devolved then the position of Westminster becomes even more untenable - it can't remain a federal chamber which also legislates on English-only laws whilst allowing non-English MPs to vote on them purely under the pretext of Barnett.

OP posts:
misskelly · 19/09/2014 01:09

Federalism can only work if England is carved up as it would still be bigger and more powerful than Scotland, Wales and N Ireland combined so pretty much what we have now. Can't see this being very popular.

longfingernails · 19/09/2014 01:11

California has 38m people. Wyoming has 500k. The US makes it work.

But in any case, I support county level taxes and spending (and even more local devolution of power than that, with many more elected offices).

OP posts:
PetulaGordino · 19/09/2014 01:12

I'm with misskelly re England. The needs of English regions that are not SE England (or London basically) would still be lost

misskelly · 19/09/2014 01:15

Yes, but in America even though they have some huge states and some very small no state is bigger than the other states combined. No state can dominate this cannot work in the UK unless England is carved up.

longfingernails · 19/09/2014 01:16

I think some sort of federal Britain is now inevitable. The question is what shape it will take.

OP posts:
Fanjango · 19/09/2014 01:17

Agree with misskelly about the size of England but hope to god local councils don't get more power! My local council has been shafted by Lord Hanningfield , and says little a bout getting the money back, yet they turn the lights off at night despite violent crime rising. They only care about their patch. Don't live in the country after they carve up the country, you will be even more insignificant than now Shock

longfingernails · 19/09/2014 01:17

What is particularly unacceptable is to devolve more and more power away whilst Scottish/Welsh/NI MPs can still vote on domestic English matters.

OP posts:
longfingernails · 19/09/2014 01:19

Local councils are hopeless partly because their remit is so small. I think we should let postcode lotteries bloom; competition will lead to best practice becoming apparent and improving the quality of our governance.

OP posts:
Terrierterror · 19/09/2014 01:25

There are more people in North West England than there are in the whole of Scotland and Westminster does not act in their interest. An English assembly wouldn't either.

misskelly · 19/09/2014 01:26

I think that England not having its own parliament is increasingly becoming a problem, but the biggest problem for England is trying to balance power/leverage between London/South East against the rest of England.

claig · 19/09/2014 01:34

Agee with Fanjango. No devolution to cities and regions and no more mayors and useless local bureaucrats and luvvies who will tax us more to big themselves up.

But let's have UKIP direct democracy with local referenda where the people decide, not the luvvvies, politicians, cronies and gravy train brigade.

Let's not fall for the EU elite and their puppets' plan to break up England into regions in order to more easily control us and divide us by putting another layer of luvvies and bureaucrats above us to tax us ever more.

longfingernails · 19/09/2014 01:38

Yes, direct referendums are a great idea. We especially don't need regions, foisted upon us by the EU. But counties are a natural geographic division in Britain, and we already have county councils. They could be beefed up.

OP posts:
AcrossthePond55 · 19/09/2014 01:39

The reason it works (and I use that word subjectively) is that the House of Representatives is based on population with the more populous states having the most representatives. Election of representatives is by geographical district.

What this means is that although a populous state could try to push through a law, the smaller states can, and do, form coalitions to stop the bigger states from doing so. Coalitions based on common ground rather than just what state you live in. Rural states banding together to stop laws proposed that are more favorable to urban areas. Not perfect, but I guess it's still working Ok for us.

It could work in the UK if one of the houses of legislation was based on population, rather than strictly by country. So, populous South West favorable legislation could be stopped by a coalition of districts in Scotland and Northern England.

claig · 19/09/2014 01:40

No more backhanders, no more stitch-ups, no more fiefdoms, no more Rotherhams, no more cosy cliques., no more mayors and Rotherham officials that can't be sacked, but more local referenda where the people decide how they are governed, not these party puppets and cronies.

elvenbread · 19/09/2014 01:40

Longfingernails. Gordon Brown is far from an idiot. Have you stopped to think what the snp have promised without thinking it through?

longfingernails · 19/09/2014 01:48

Gordon Brown: the man who sold our gold at rock-bottom prices, who ran a deficit even during the boom, who thought he had abolished the economic cycle. The man with the hubris to think he saved the world. The man who refused to say the word cuts. You're right, Gordon Brown is far from an idiot. Idiot is far too complimentary.

As for the SNP - they certainly shouldn't be allowed to dictate the shape of devolution, especially if NO wins heavily, as it seems likely. Their views should be taken into account but not given disproportionate weight.

OP posts:
claig · 19/09/2014 01:50

The left wing progressives and think tanks have already been thinking about this and not just in the last week, and the luvvies will back it. The EU will lap it up and a whole new layer of luvvies will queue up to join the gravy train and tax us more and add a further layer between the people and how we are governed.

"Speaking in Sheffield, Mr Clegg endorsed a report by the IPPR North think tank proposing a new wave of combined local authorities headed by directly elected "metro mayors"."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29155854

We won't hear the end of this, all the media and all the right-on think tanks will jump on board and all the great and the good will push for it and we will get more useless mayors and commissioners that no one turns out to vote for but whom we all have to pay for.

claig · 19/09/2014 03:06

Just listened to Labour's creepy Jim Murphy on the BBC.

He is not in favour of Scottish MPs not being allowed to vote on English issues, he prefers the think tanks' solution of devolution for the English regions.

Labour don't want to lose their influence and will probably try and push for regional devolution instead - mayors and all the rest of it that no one turns out to vote for. Cameron will probably give them what they want because he is a progressive too.

longfingernails · 19/09/2014 03:14

Cameron will promise English votes for English laws at the very minimum - more out of fear of UKIP than any principle - but a shining example of why UKIP are a great force for good in this country, if used wisely.

If Labour oppose English votes for English laws they will lose hundreds of thousands of marginal votes. It's a very straightforward argument for a Tory prospective parliamentary candidate to make.

OP posts:

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

livingzuid · 19/09/2014 03:22

I am very up for it. Germany manages it perfectly well and with a comparable (ish) population size although I couldn't compare the two economies. Scotland has started the debate and it needs to be continued. Our system is out of date.

claig · 19/09/2014 03:23

Yes, good points. Cameron wil be forced to offer it.

elvenbread · 19/09/2014 06:21

The correct result.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.