Read the post again.Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Read the post again.
I'm not quite sure why you do stupid stuff like that - in Germany (and we're probably the kings of paving roads...) we have both locally and nationally allocated funds. And our federal government certainly doesn't build bridges or similar stuff nilly-willy.
Our states have to request funding if they want to build new bridges or tunnels for the Autobahn. Everything else? Directly in the states' hands.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Well in the UK funding is central and as I said repeatedly the issue is NOT that the bridge is getting built. It is that the bridge (and the existing one) is being made toll diverting traffic through our town which is already a rat run.
Either way though that was a solidary example as a specific. In general national policy priorities vary by location too.
EDIT: PS England doesn't have states.
Strange that the planners don't take the environmental effects into consideration. Overhere the national level would have a very hard time pushing a road / bridge / tunnel through without support at the provincial and local level. Funding may be central, but that doesn't mean central gets to decide on spending the money all by its lonesome self.
And just for your information; the Kingdom of the Netherlands doesn't have states either in its European Territory, that part of the kingdom of strictly unitarian ever since 1815.
Congratulations America
So? Then you have districts or something like that. And as I said, our funding is also central for the Autobahn and that still doesn't make our federal government build any bridges without the local government first actually requesting such a bridge.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
And now we're going to get an illegal Catalan referendum.
Hope is the denial of reality
No, E. Ukrainians wanted a refrendum like Crimea but was rejected. The real reason is Because in so said democratic country, the ruling class controlthe intelligence and media. They could rig the voting result to get whateverthey want and justify it with various reasons because they control the media.That’s what happened in Scotland referendum. In East Ukraine, they are not able to do so. So they show theirreal face – to suppress by force.
Scottishreferendum vote-rigging claims spark calls for recount
Tens of thousands sign petitions wanting recount or fresh votebased on videos that purport to show evidence of electoral fraud.
Esther Addley
The Guardian, Monday 22 September 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ount-petitions
Poll after poll showed otherwise. But don't let facts get in the way of your delusions.
Hope is the denial of reality
Polls are actually subliminal mind-control forcing people to vote "the right way" Loki, I thought you knew that.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I don't like legislating by surveys or polls, or how our political parties are set up that way. Do you? Does anyone?
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you genuinely that ignorant?
Rand, actually it's you trying to sell the story here that local considerations play no role in British decision making. That makes the system either incredibly stupid or your story incredible.
Congratulations America
That is categorically NOT what I ever said. If you read what I wrote with a modicum of common sense I wrote that local considerations are different in different locations. What is good for Liverpool may be bad for Warrington. What is good for London may be bad for suburban England. We are not one uniform London based Borg.
We have local representatives precisely TO represent local areas who may have competing interests. Removing that will make Parliament less representative not more.
Actually all you showed is that concentrating all power in one place gets you decisions that are detrimental to communities without representation. To me that makes for an icredibly bad system of government.
Congratulations America
Quite ironic for a believer in transnational centralisation. Anyway that is why you need local representation, I agree it would be a bad idea to get rid of local representation in Parliament so lets not do so. Lets keep our local representatives.
Erm, as I said, I don't have a local representation in our national Parliament, still we get a say about local issue. Your argument is flawed by the assumption that only a local PM can solve the problem of dealing with problems that concern different levels of the country (local and national).
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Obviously I live in a country where people feel less threathened by their government than in the UK. Probably that has got a lot to do that democracy doesn't just mean voting for your MP once every few years.
Congratulations America
I'm not entirely sure where anyone demanded to do so. Steely's issue was with the way said representation comes about...
You're trying to make a binary issue out of it, painting us all as stupid wheras it's you who obviously didn't get it.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
No it is you who has categorically not got it. You have been arguing there is simply no need to have local representatives to Parliament which is a notion I utterly reject. If you are able to propose an alternative voting method whereby an individual local, not regional or national, MP is elected I'd consider it. We had a referendum on switching to the AV voting method recently which got comprehensively rejected.
I don't know where exactly you draw the line between local and regional. But if local means a few towns together you may consider reading the link I posted a while ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipropo..._apportionment
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
For national issues. A bridge is not a national issue, whatever your laws try to paint it as. It's very much local.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Well some bridges are of national importance, some even international (Like the bridge that will maybe be built from Germany to Denmark)
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Well, those are the exceptions. Then again, such stuff actually falls under the purview of our federal government since it's part of the Autobahn.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I gave that as 1 example. I also gave other more general examples such as the rather naive belief given by Labour's Diane Abbott MP that petrol should be more heavily taxed as the public should be using Public Transport. Because the whole country has the London Underground
Or do you consider taxation to not be an issue either?
I still don't see why that singular example should make my vote worth less just because I happen to live in a city. I'm also not quite sure how this Abbott person personally holds a dictatorial sway over taxes?
Let's turn this thing around, okay? Why on earth should the country folks be allowed to vote on stuff that's happening in London, using your special logic?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Firstly there's a difference between London and other cities and towns and countryside. Where I am is a town it's not countryside but it's not London either.
Laws affect the entire nation so should be voted upon by representatives of the nation. Not just one area. As I said above 48% of Labour Party members live in London but the same can not be said of the population as a whole.
Your vote should hold equal say. Under our system it does. You have a vote in who your individual representative is. That MP must be the MOST popular candidate for your area. You can hold that single person to account.
That's not "equal say" if population density is irrelevant. It would be equal say if population density was uniform.
Why is that so hard to grasp? If your vote holds more power depending on where you live inside a country then there's something very wrong with your system. Unless, of course, said representative gets an equally large representation.
I mean, if one guy represents 1 million people and the other guy represents only a hundredthousand - and both get the same voting power in parliament - how exactly is that "equal say"? It's "equal" for the representatives, okay, but not for the ordinary citizen.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote