Tim Worstall

6 responses so far ↓

• 1 john b // Mar 25, 2008 at 5:43 pm

  Labour would have had a majority in an English Parliament in 1997, 2001 and (if it were elected by FPTP) in 2005. Even if such a parliament had been elected by STV, they would have been the largest single party by a wide margin.

  The reason for not introducing an English Parliament is that it would be a gibberingly mad piece of bureaucratic overkill, effectively overlaying a parliament serving 50m people on a parliament serving 60m people.

  What we -should- have is regional parliaments with the same power as the Scots and Welsh parliaments…

• 2 Will Rhodes // Mar 25, 2008 at 6:31 pm

  I could write an essay on how bad the provincial governments are here in Canada, but there is autonomy in the most part. Different laws for each province and then you add the federal government on top of that.

  De-centralised, certainly and getting schools out of the nightmare it is in now but pulling just 600+ schools out and leaving the rest as is? What’s the point?

• 3 Kay Tie // Mar 26, 2008 at 12:46 am

  “Different laws for each province and then you add the federal government on top of that.”

  To the point where a paramedic, for example, has to requalify if he moves from Ontario to BC. And import duties on goods like cars, boats and planes between provinces!

  Canada is not a single country.

• 4 Kay Tie // Mar 26, 2008 at 12:47 am

  “The reason for not introducing an English Parliament is that it would be a gibberingly mad piece of bureaucratic overkill”

  Well how about all the English MPs get together on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays to decide English legislation, and the rest can join in on Tuesdays and Fridays to determine other legislation. Much cheaper then: no extra staff, no new buildings.

• 5 Will Rhodes // Mar 26, 2008 at 3:19 am

  “Canada is not a single country.”

  Oh.

• 6 john b // Mar 26, 2008 at 10:23 am

  @ KT - yup, at least that’d be no more inefficient than what we have now.

  I’d still prefer the regionalised solution, simply because the kind of decisions that are devolved in Wales and Scotland (and indeed, in most other countries) are generally better taken by and on behalf of 5m people than 50m people. Give London, the West of England, the Northwest, and so on their share of the central money, and let them use it on what they think is important.

Leave a Comment