Turn on thread page Beta

The Commons Bar Mk IV watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Well, I've yet to say owt about local government which really should be abolished in its current form. I would argue for historic county-level local government rather than the hodgepodge we have now. That would, in the case of Wales, take you from 22 counties to 8. In England from hundreds of councils to about 40 and in Scotland similar levels of reduction (with a wider council covering the Highlands and Islands). That is a reduction of government tiers and a reduction in bureacuratic oversight and interference in people's lives. Just because I'm a socialist, doesn't mean I want government on every street corner. I don't, I want appropriate government doing appropriate things, namely universalising the best that society can offer.
    So basically a change from FPTP to PR, scrap the house of lords and a change of council boundaries?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norfolkadam)
    ******s are tasty as sod.

    The double entendre is implied but it's also true.
    I was sorely tempted to post the South Park Song here...
    Offline

    15


    I wish I was in the Peak District. :moon:

    The flatness of Norfolk is absolutely driving me crazy. I mean Norwich is quite hilly but there's nowhere like this for 150 miles from where I am. I'm just craving hills man. I NEED MY FIX.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    So basically a change from FPTP to PR, scrap the house of lords and a change of council boundaries?
    No. It's a shift from a bicameral in a non-federal governmental structure to a unicameral federal system which is far more than "simply scrap the house of lords". The change of council boundaries is also far more significant than you imply.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norfolkadam)
    ******s are tasty as sod.

    The double entendre is implied but it's also true.
    :awesome:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    No. It's a shift from a bicameral in a non-federal governmental structure to a unicameral federal system which is far more than "simply scrap the house of lords". The change of council boundaries is also far more significant than you imply.
    OK. So say we move to a unicameral system. How would the federal system differ from a devolved system?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I would like to point the following out: ******s are rank. I don't like the smell, I don't like the mess they make, I don't like the way my mum would always bring ******s home and force me to put them in my mouth.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    OK. So say we move to a unicameral system. How would the federal system differ from a devolved system?
    Is it necessary to be really quite so elementary? Federal systems differ widely depending on the nature of the federation and the extent to which powers are divied up between the state level and the federal level. Now's not the time to go into Riker and all that stuff to be honest. A devolved system is a stepping stone from centralised state to federalised one but the two differ on the basis that Westminster can, tomorrow, erradicate the Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, and Scottish Parliament if it so wished. The US senate cannot, tomorrow, wipe out the state legislature of Massachussetts. That's the difference.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nothos)
    I would like to point the following out: ******s are rank. I don't like the smell, I don't like the mess they make, I don't like the way my mum would always bring ******s home and force me to put them in my mouth.
    ha ha ha

    Innuendo :cool:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nothos)
    I would like to point the following out: ******s are rank. I don't like the smell, I don't like the mess they make, I don't like the way my mum would always bring ******s home and force me to put them in my mouth.
    Deep down your throat eh?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Also, the former Conservative candidate for Slough rung me earlier today, right out of the blue. This was followed a minute later by a call from another, unrecognised number. By the time I saw they had rung (My phone was on silent in my jacket pocket) it was gone 20:30, after which I consider it rude to call someone without good reason.

    Needless to say I'm rather paranoid now :erm:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Deep down your throat eh?
    The worst part was when the ******'s juices ran down your chin.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nothos)
    The worst part was when the ******'s juices ran down your chin.
    I've never gone that far with one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Is it necessary to be really quite so elementary? Federal systems differ widely depending on the nature of the federation and the extent to which powers are divied up between the state level and the federal level. Now's not the time to go into Riker and all that stuff to be honest. A devolved system is a stepping stone from centralised state to federalised one but the two differ on the basis that Westminster can, tomorrow, erradicate the Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, and Scottish Parliament if it so wished. The US senate cannot, tomorrow, wipe out the state legislature of Massachussetts. That's the difference.
    Sorry if I'm being elementary. Just trying to fully understand your ideas. I always thought the difference between federalism and devolution would be like you say, devolution is done by an act of parliament and so can be eradicated by another bill.

    But, also that devolution allows for a degree of flexibility in powers granted to the different states as opposed to a federal system where it is rigid. Is this incorrect?

    Thanks for your patience.
    Offline

    15
    Unicameral federalism to drippy ******s in one fell swoop
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    Sorry if I'm being elementary. Just trying to fully understand your ideas. I always thought the difference between federalism and devolution would be like you say, devolution is done by an act of parliament and so can be eradicated by another bill.

    But, also that devolution allows for a degree of flexibility in powers granted to the different states as opposed to a federal system where it is rigid. Is this incorrect?

    Thanks for your patience.
    It's not the flexibility that's at stake, it's the idea that the powers are "granted" by some higher power in the first place. The point of a federal system is that the individual states are equal members of the federation and their powers are there by virtue of that equal membership. It's a bottom up revision of the British constitutional settlement and would allow for the fair expression of all the different voices of the United Kingdom without one side being drowned out by another. I would see federalism as flexible enough for our needs. Like Elisha Cuthbert.

    You're lucky if I'm patient :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norfolkadam)
    Unicameral federalism to drippy ******s in one fell swoop
    Late-night TSR ...




    ... Nice.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    I've never gone that far with one.
    I would highly recommend you do not.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nothos)
    I would like to point the following out: ******s are rank. I don't like the smell, I don't like the mess they make, I don't like the way my mum would always bring ******s home and force me to put them in my mouth.
    :laugh:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    It's not the flexibility that's at stake, it's the idea that the powers are "granted" by some higher power in the first place. The point of a federal system is that the individual states are equal members of the federation and their powers are there by virtue of that equal membership. It's a bottom up revision of the British constitutional settlement and would allow for the fair expression of all the different voices of the United Kingdom without one side being drowned out by another. I would see federalism as flexible enough for our needs. Like Elisha Cuthbert.

    You're lucky if I'm patient :p:
    Cheers for the unicameral federalism 101.

    Do you think a system like this but European wide would work then? So getting rid of the UK and just having England, Scotland etc as federations within Europe as opposed to the UK?
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.