h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Edward;

I think we need less government nationally, and probably more control locally.

I think we need a national Health Service, a national defense in the form of Army, Navy and Air Force, a national ploice and customs force, and a common simplified tax structure that we all contribute to in order to finance them.

Schools, social care, planning, and many other issues I would like to see decided locally, and instead of 1 big general election I would favour MPs being elected 25% at a time every 5 years.

And - unsurprisingly - I'm against Europe.

>>Schools, social care, planning, and many other issues I would like to see decided locally

Completely?

Schools - if not a standard curriculum...do we not at least need common, national standards?

Social Care - do we not need national standards/oversight to prevent cases such as of Caby P, Victoria Climbie...etc?

Planning - surely there are inter-regional issues such (eg) joining up transport links between regions, natyional policies on airports...etc.


Still - some level of local decision making is, agreed, A Good Thing. I'd be quite content with an independent Scotland. Within Europe.

And on the Europe thing specifically...it's a tired old myth that Europe imposes centralised control. What it really does is to ensure common practices between the member nations. This allows us to work as an economic bloc without countries going their own way and constantly trying to undercut one another on Ts and Cs.

>>and a common simplified tax structure that we all contribute to in order to finance them.

I remain unconvinced of the advantages of that.

>>instead of 1 big general election I would favour MPs being elected 25% at a time every 5 years.

So we'd have to wait even longer to remove an unsatisfactory government with a large majority? Again - don't see the advantage.

"I think we need less government nationally, and probably more control locally."

Everyone seems in favour of local control and accountability, but everyone seems against a 'postcode lottery' in relation to the provision of services. But the former opens the door for the latter.

Apart from that, my other concern about localisation is that the wealthy areas end up with better services than the poorer ones, and inequality is just perpetuated. Now granted this already happens to a certain extent.

I don't think voting a quarter of the country at a time would allow for large governments, I'd think it would lead to more government by consensus.

Knowing you could lose perhaps your whole majority 12 months later would should make extremism harder to enforce.

Though it could just lead to rounds of tit for tat in and out policies. Hopefully knowing the electorate could pronounce on your stylke would stop plans being made that had a 3 year tenure.

Hopefully it would also put a stop to defferring difficult decisions or passing them on to a future government.

I forgot to say I also reduce the number of MPS - by about half.

And I'd let you have your home rule in Scotland - if you wanted it - but then no Scottish MPS at Westminster.

Sorry - standard curriculuum - I'd like politics taken out of education - it has no place there - let teachers teach. Centralised exam boards testing children at 11 16 and 18.

I'd love to let parents be more involved in education, but I'd be scared of the prejudices that would allow in - I'd have to think about how to achieve it.

>>I'd love to let parents be more involved in education

Nice, well-meaning stuff for the leafy suburbs. But what about those areas in which, for socio-economic reasons, parents are less likely to be involved?

>>I'd like politics taken out of education - it has no place there - let teachers teach.

I'd agree that teachers should teach. But what *precisely* is meant by 'I'd like politics taken out of education'? Do you mean you want no democratic control over whether education budgets are used efficiently? Do you want to do away with quality control in education? Or what?

I mean that Whitehall should not be dictating what teachers should do ~ literacy hours ~ 151 item tick lists on child progress ~ defining what can and can't be in a lesson.

Let schools decide what they'll teach. Do we need a national curriculuum ? Or should we just say Literacy Maths and Life Skills other subjects according to need/ability ?

Oh - and close all selective schools or at least take away their charitable status.

Sorry - should also add that I am chair of resources committee at a secondary school - I already have an obligation to balance the school's budget.

Ah. So what you're *really* objecting to is a matter of policy, rather than a constitutional arrangement. That's fair enough. But it suggests that what you mean is 'Take a different political attitude to education', rather than a trite 'Keep politics out of education'.

Well I object to the constant changing of emphasis to suit the current political wind.

SATs ~ League tables ~ etc.

I particularly disagree with making OFSTED in charge of measuring social services for children. Whilst schools, social services, and the police need to co-operatate in the care and protection of children they are seperate strands.

So, yes, a policy issue. But not necesarily one that requires wholesale political reorganisation.

I'm really not sure about local government for local people. It seems much less likely to be under scrutiny, and I suspect that local councils get away with wasting a lot of money.

Very possibly. But who's to blame for that? How many people follow local politics? How mant attend council meetings? Read local newspapers? Know who their councillor is?

Democracy is wasted on us! More people are willing to have a general grump or propose wacky new systems than are prepared to get involved with the existing one.

Damn it all ~ I totally agree with Edward's last post.

My time here is over.

But, yes, serious point. Whenever I hear people moan about 'Politicians' or 'The System', I think 'Then become one yourself and change it.'

That is all well and good in theory. However by the time you have got to a point where you are able to change the system not only are so firmly enmeshed in it that you cannot - unless, of course, you are independently wealthy and do not mind cutting the throats of your friends, family and political allies - but the vetting process means if you go in spouting that kind of idea then you are straight back out. Until later...
BCNU - Crescent

So start your own party. What's stopping you?

Try these ~

sorry

Try these ~ http://www.juryteam.org/