Regional Government

[Roses in the Hospital]

I recieved the government pamphlet promoting regional government last week and am now somewhat torn on the issue. Previously I had been against the idea simply because I belived that regional government would simply encourage factionalism and widen the North/South divide and of course, would mean more politicians (which is never a good idea.) After reading the pamphlet however, I can't help thinking that, in principal, that such a scheme seems like a good idea. Particularly if it involves the renovation of the county councils, which in my experience don't function particularly well. But I can't shake off my initial reservations.
Anyone else have opinions on the subject...

[h&s]

Well don't we as communists/anarchists/whatever want soviets? They are small regional assemblies, so as this is similar (no where near the same, but similar) I think it could be a good thing. However, the same sort of people will get into power in these regional assemblies as those who get in at Westminster, so I doubt they will make any difference to normal people's lives.

[apathy maybe]

I believe the best system if we have to have capitalism is thus,
A national (or world even!) government that collects taxes (income and dangerous goods only) and looks after things that affect everybody (defence?).
Then have regional and local governments that recieve money from the world? government and looks after schools, roads and what have you.

The USA system is good to a certain extent, except somethings that are decentralised shouldn't be (voting) and things that should be aren't (can't think of an example). If they fixed their voting system to make it more fair (or even introduced random selection) they would have one of the best political systems in the world. (There would still be problems with it, but they can be fixed, and I didn't say the best possible either, just best at the moment.)

[James]

Origionally i was for the idea.

When one looks into it though, it becomes clear that support for this is stupidity of the highest order.

- it gets rid of LOCAL government
- replaces it with less local government
-establishes a detached tier of government
- gives the government a chance to give out a building contract to a friend
- gives the media a nice opportunity to explore the links between the government and said company: and also to explore how slow and tedious the building-works are
- costs the tax payer alot of money to build and sustain
- its a waste of money: the government is using the public money [it comes under public information] to spew out its biased propaganda
-it's a referendum [which are not binding; and are always biased because the government controls the question]
- is part of a wider EU policy to divide the EU into regions (i'm anti EU political union, in the form of which many politicians hope for. Why? Because i hate the corruption and lies)
- we need an official "English assembly" FIRST {this can be just offical rulling, which declares scottish etc, MPs can't vote on English matters. Such as tuition fee's - which was only passed because of the vote of some scottish MPs. Mps who wern't affected by the fee's. }


Interestingly, the government has cancelled referendums in the Northwest and other areas, because it turned out they would probably loose: thats ££££££££ down the drain, because the government has been spewing out propaganda in said areas for months.

So thats allright then.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 4 2004, 12:41 PM
I believe the best system if we have to have capitalism is thus,
A national (or world even!) government that collects taxes (income and dangerous goods only) and looks after things that affect everybody (defence?).
Then have regional and local governments that recieve money from the world? government and looks after schools, roads and what have you.

The USA system is good to a certain extent, except somethings that are decentralised shouldn't be (voting) and things that should be aren't (can't think of an example). If they fixed their voting system to make it more fair (or even introduced random selection) they would have one of the best political systems in the world. (There would still be problems with it, but they can be fixed, and I didn't say the best possible either, just best at the moment.)
Capitalism cannot work on such a basis. It needs the nation state to survive, to protect its bidding when necessary.

[h&s]

Origionally i was for the idea.

When one looks into it though, it becomes clear that support for this is stupidity of the highest order.

- it gets rid of LOCAL government
- replaces it with less local government
-establishes a detached tier of government
- gives the government a chance to give out a building contract to a friend
- gives the media a nice opportunity to explore the links between the government and said company: and also to explore how slow and tedious the building-works are
- costs the tax payer alot of money to build and sustain
- its a waste of money: the government is using the public money [it comes under public information] to spew out its biased propaganda
-it's a referendum [which are not binding; and are always biased because the government controls the question]
- is part of a wider EU policy to divide the EU into regions (i'm anti EU political union, in the form of which many politicians hope for. Why? Because i hate the corruption and lies)
- we need an official "English assembly" FIRST {this can be just offical rulling, which declares scottish etc, MPs can't vote on English matters. Such as tuition fee's - which was only passed because of the vote of some scottish MPs. Mps who wern't affected by the fee's. }


Interestingly, the government has cancelled referendums in the Northwest and other areas, because it turned out they would probably loose: thats ££££££££ down the drain, because the government has been spewing out propaganda in said areas for months.

So thats allright then. Well considering all that, the whole thing is just a lie and a sham (well it is New Labour - what did we expect?). Through a proposal that seems to delegate power to the regions of the country they are really taking it away and centralising it somewhere else. In that case I'm well against the idea.

- gives the government a chance to give out a building contract to a friend

Judging by the Scottish Assembly building they are going to cost a fortune, run massivly over schedule, and cost at least three times more than the, already rediculous, budget quoted.

[James]

exactly my friend.

But don't listen to me, because i'm a "reactionary".
:rolleyes:



This proposed idea (of regional assemblies) is ridiculous. I urge comrades in the affected areas to vote no - for the reasons stated (plus the million others!).

[Kez]

the question should be with whom will the power lie? answer is the ruling class, so it is not a step forward.

It will simply allow another layer of government to be pressured by the capitalist class, making our lives harder to live, so, on principle, no.