More government? Just say no!
Wednesday, July 18, 2007 
More good news. Tucked away inside the Telegraph are three short paragraphs that mean a lot to those of us who want to reduce the burden of government on people's lives: "John Prescott's vision of a new tier of local government was in ruins yesterday when Gordon Brown dumped his regional assemblies project. Plans for eight regional assemblies were floated in Labour's 1997 manifesto but hit the buffers in 2004 when a referendum on whether to establish a first assembly in the North East was rejected by 78 per cent of voters."
Of course, this doesn't reduce the layers of government, it merely removes (for the moment) the threat of further expansion. But it offers hope for the future. Perhaps the message is sinking in at the highest level. Many of us do not want extra layers of government. More government means more politicians running around like headless chickens looking for things to do to justify their existence.
That is one of the reasons why I am against an English parliament, which some people believe will restore political equilibrium between England and the rest of the (devolved) UK. I (and many other people) want less not more government. An English parliament? More politicians?!! Just say no.
Reader Comments (13)
As well as just saying 'No' to more layers of government shouldn't we also be given the opportunity to say 'Yes' to fewer layers of government?
Back in 1997 a referendum was held in Wales as to whether we wanted a Welsh Assembley or not. 50.3% of the electorate voted Yes and 49.7% voted No. The rest is history with an expensive talking shop now costing us millions of pounds every year to run. Money that perhaps would be better spend on health and education.
But just imagine what would have happened if just under 50% of the electorate had voted Yes. The politicians would have held referendum after referendum every few years until we got it right. I just wonder if these same politicians would now be up in arms if it was suggested that we now have a vote asking us if we want to continue with this expensive extra layer of government in Cardiff. We could then follow the suggestion above 'More government? Just say no!'
Robert -
It's absolutely astounding that what amounts to a major change in our Constitution (and we DO have a 'Constitution') should have been brought about by the wishes of a simple majority - and the slimmest of simple majorities at that.
In most mature polities, such a change could only have been effected by, for example, two-thirds voting in favour.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion (apologies if I'm behind some of you on this) that the interests of the State (an artificial construct)and those of Society (an oranic entity) are mutually antagonistic.
Every year that passes sees an accretion of greater power to the former - and a corresponding weakening of the latter.
Yet there is also a paradox at work here: the more powerful the State becomes, the less competent it seems to be at providing those services to Society (eg the maintenance of a sensible Law and Order policy and the protection of our ancient freedoms) which alone justify its existence.
But so long as there are people around in sufficient numbers to say 'why doesn't the Government do something ?' in response to every footling 'issue', then so long will the problem remain.
But Robert, you LIKE big government!
Yes, Robert, and lots of BIG councils with lots of enforcement officers patrolling and bossing people around as is happening in my area - patrolling railway and bus stations to stop people from smoking.
This is not entirely on topic, but is IS politics.
Perhaps those with a mind to could go here:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/LTPD07/
And sign up?
Not so much less government, but it is a little less governance from Europe.
Robert. Whereas I accept your figures for the vote on The Referendum in wales, it doesn't quote the poor turnout. As I remember it was only about 50% of those who were given the opportunaity and therefore proves the point I have made before. The minority will always dictate in this Country. So much for Democracy.
Colin, having just read many of your articles with pleasure on another site, I am surprised to see you took so long to sign up.
Whilst on the subject of referendums - I know this is slightly off the subject but each time the government pushed anti-smoking legislation in our faces they said there was public consultation! What I would like to know is which section of the public they actually consulted where they all anti smokers? I certainly was not consulted neither was anybody else that I know. As far as I know the results were never published anywhere, except to say that the majority agreed with the smoking ban (even smokers). I cannot think of one smoker who would actually agree to a ban (unless they were trying to give up) as it would be shooting themselves in the foot. Back in 2003/4 I filled in a questionnaire given to me at my local pub, because they were worried by the possibility of a ban. I thought was instigated by the actual owner of the chain of pubs (Thorley Taverns). It asked questions such as Do you think it is reasonable that smoking should be banned where food is served? Y/N. An innocent question you might agree but after some thought I thought that if I said yes this could be interpreted that even smokers wanted smoking banned anywhere that sold food which I did not - so my answer had to be no and I encouraged others to say no even if they thought it was reasonable. Anti smokers by their nature are unreasonable people so why give them the excuse.
Quite frankly I cannot see what all the fuss is about with smoking and food - I smoke all the time when I am cooking so does my husband and we are both still here to tell the tale. It does not make the food taste or smell of tobacco as my cigarette is usually burning away in the ashtray and I have the odd puff whilst waiting for the food to cook. Anyway what about barbecues - the food is cooked in smoke (or is that the wrong kind of smoke).
Simon, could Forest get the full contents of the so called public consultation, questions, answers etc. under the Freedom of Information Act?
With regard to the referendum in Wales, from memory there was only about a 25% turnout of eligable voters and the results are correctly quoted by Robert, which just goes to show that unless people are willing to get up and shout about whats happening the slightest majority will have their way. With this in mind and I would suggest that we prepare ourselves for more legislation with or without more layers of government to stop the errosion of smokers rights, because without well organised opposition to any more laws the goverment will take the majority stand every time.
Alison. I just checked the referendum results of Sept 1997. 50% turnout and 25.2% in favour of the Assembly. The figures were much lower in the 70's. The 1997 was as a result of the Tories losing all seats in Wales and they tried to get something out of us. As we now know, They were the only party that did have a clue of what we were about to receive.
Alun,
Trying to keep up with every facet of this ridiculous legislation is like painting the Forth Bridge.
There are many petitions and I will get around to signing them all.
There just doesnt seem to be enough hours in the day. Despite having a full time job, I also dedicate around 30-50 hours a week to fighting the UK bans. I recently, and very reluctantly, resigned as VP of Forces International. They are doing sterling work on their multi media project and I was very much looking forward to being part of an international movement, but recent shenanigans here in the UK caused me to re-focus. I speak of course, about the upcoming legal actions concerning Hamish Howitt and Nick Hogan.
Lots of support needed here.
Will FOREST help, I wonder?
Colin. I wasn't having a dig at you - far from it. As I said I had read several articles written by you and found them very intersting. I hope others read them who read and leave comments on these posting.
No sweat Alun. I didn't take it as a dig.I apologise if I came across as snippy. I did not mean to.
There has been a stunning response (to my scribbling) since July 1st. I have a busy mail bag and so far, I have not received a single negative comment. I even got a lovely email from an anti-smoker! I answer all emails and I have some great dialogue going.I am pleased to note the variety of writers. I have received emails from at least three scientists, two lawyers, several engineers and one doctor.
Thank you for your kind words.
The problem with UK politics is that we do not have a fully established separation of powers which provides checks and balances against dictatorial government. The judiciary is largely separated from the legislature and executive, but is forced to uphold all laws made by parliament. The executive however, are also part of the legislature, which means the government have a lot of influence on law making. A shake up of our constitution creating more of a separation would protect us from the undemocratic law making that we have seen as part of the Blair government machine.