Federalism and state's rights

[JimC]

I'm feeling so guilty about leaving out Tasmania, I should marry my cousin to compensate...

[Blind groper]

You cannot get rid of state government. All those extra politicians with their snouts in the taxpayers trough... They will fight like randy weasles to keep their power and money.

State government is like having twice as many used car salesmen. They are useless parasites, but will always put up all sorts of arguments to justify their existence.

It is all due to history. Australia (and the USA) are enormous countries geographically. In the old days it took weeks to go from one place to another, and took almost as long to send a message. Having local representatives to do local work made sense. That reason has long since passed, and state government is not needed in a world in which it takes just a few hours to cross Aussi, and a fraction of a second to send a message. Australia has fewer people than many larger cities, and communication and travel is just as quick as it is to cross those cities. Australia needs state government just as much, or as little, as those cities need state government.

How you get those snouts out of the trough, though, is the real question.

[Hermit]

Australia has fewer people than many larger cities

I agree with the general drift of what you say, but there are only two conurbations in the world with a larger population than that of Australia - Tokyo–Yokohama and Jakarta.

[Blind groper]

Depends how you define a city.

Aussi has 23 million people. Tokyo has 38. Delhi 25. Shanghai 24. Karachi 23.5.

In addition, there are many cities that are close. Mexico city, Mumbai, and Sao Paolo each have 21 million. Osaka 20. etc.

But the point is that Australia does not need state government. If a city with more than 23 million can survive without dividing into states, so can Australia. I cannot see my argument registering with all those politicians who are sucking at the jugular of the poor taxpayer, though.

[pErvinalia]

To be fair to the concept of state governments, particularly in Australia... They need to manage services over massive distances. Typically distances way larger than most countries. It's not just about the number of people. It's about the size of the territory they manage. But having said that, I still think a system of stronger local councils with a federal government could achieve this. We couldn't have State of Origin footy any more, though, so that could be a bit of a bummer.

[Blind groper]

Why would those "massive distances" matter, rEvo?

It takes a lot less time today to travel from Sydney to Perth than it took to travel 100 kms a century ago.

[Seth]

[JimC]

I suspect that our current federal/state/local government tripod of quarrelling power will remain with us for a long, long time.

Historical inertia is hard to shift, whether useful or not...

[Brian Peacock]

...

Sometimes I wonder whether the loss of efficiency mandated by the inevitable duplication and conflict between 2 disparate control structures is worth the benefit of more clearly local representation....

Discuss..

In the UK we're currently in the process of devolving power to the region's. London, Wales and Northern Ireland get an assembly and Scotland gets a parliament, with each institution predicated on the notion of being granted, asserting, and broadening their level of independence from central government. Politicians across the center to center-right also advocate an English regional assembly and moves are being made to limit the voting rights of Members of Parliament when it comes to laws which affect regions but their own (why should English MPs in the national chamber get a vote on legislation that only effects Wale? etc).

Amidst thise we also have elected councils at the county, metropolitan area, city, and parish level, all predicated on and dedicated to representing and serving whatever local area they embody. All of these democratic institutions cede certain rights and responsibilities to the others and there exists an ongoing, and seemingly increasing tension between them, with each jockeying for influence over this or that body, mechanism, and/or area of responsibility and control.

At the same time each of these elected bodies are served by a different level of instititional, but unelected civil and political support which have their own remits and responsibilities, along with a large number of quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations variously appointed at and by each institutional level and responsible for a variety of specific administrative and political areas and issues.

These civil, administrative, and political instititions, whether elected or appointed, are manned (both figuratively and Invariably literally) from the common stock of political aspirants, their cronies, sympathisers, or donors, all of whom appear share the singular trait of believing they are the best person for the job even as they demonstrate by their works that an inclination towards self-aggrandisement, nest-feathering, and economic or political toadying is a far more precious personal commodity than any inclination to non-partisan neutrality or even rudimentary skills in administrative competence.

In short, the UK has developed a disintegrated democratic system which is fragmented and fragmenting while the political process has become dogged by evidence-free assertions, pleadings, and admonitions from each body at every institutional level that without an immediate increase in their powers and/or an extension of their scope of influence society will continue its much lamented decline, the responsibility for which falls entirely at the feet of every democratic and political institution but their own.

With so much political white noise being generated by the system it's no wonder that people are disengaging from politics and increasingy seeing political aspirants as a breed apart whose concerns are predominantly self-serving and divorced from the lives of the rest of us.

[JimC]

Interesting, Brian. However, there is a possibility that the complexity and friction within such a system, although inefficient, makes sure that authoritarian decision making is actually restricted in a useful way...

[Blind groper]

My own feeling is that the ideal system is a central single government, and sub governments based on function rather than geography.

So, for example, you might have an organisation responsible to central government, for controlling air pollution. Another for water pollution. Another for building and running prisons. Another for the judiciary. Another for building freeways, and so on.

Each would have a budget to work to, and a goal to achieve. In this way, we concentrate experts in a field in one organisation. Each would be controlled by a board of directors selected by central government, with the choosing based on expertise, qualifications, and experience.

Democracy would be focussed on central government only. One of the side benefits would be to take power away from politicians and put it in the hands of people who know what they are doing, instead. Of course, that is the reason it will never happen, since politicians will never relinquish power and money.

For special situations, like Wales, you might have specific organisations dedicated to cultural matters, such as concerns of the Welsh kind.

[JimC]

Blind groper wrote:

...For special situations, like Wales, you might have specific organisations dedicated to cultural matters, such as concerns of the Welsh kind.

As long as such a body didn't have a continuing series of damaging leeks...

[piscator]

Central Planning works for AAPL, it might work for a country smaller and less diverse than Denver...

[Pappa]

Why would those "massive distances" matter, rEvo?

It takes a lot less time today to travel from Sydney to Perth than it took to travel 100 kms a century ago.

My experience in the UK suggests that people care a lot more about what happens locally than nationally. This can lead to nimbyism, but also ensures that some MPs and local councillors are focused on issues that affect the people who vote for them.

[Pappa]

...

Sometimes I wonder whether the loss of efficiency mandated by the inevitable duplication and conflict between 2 disparate control structures is worth the benefit of more clearly local representation....

Discuss..

In the UK we're currently in the process of devolving power to the region's. London, Wales and Northern Ireland get an assembly and Scotland gets a parliament, with each institution predicated on the notion of being granted, asserting, and broadening their level of independence from central government. Politicians across the center to center-right also advocate an English regional assembly and moves are being made to limit the voting rights of Members of Parliament when it comes to laws which affect regions but their own (why should English MPs in the national chamber get a vote on legislation that only effects Wale? etc).

Amidst thise we also have elected councils at the county, metropolitan area, city, and parish level, all predicated on and dedicated to representing and serving whatever local area they embody. All of these democratic institutions cede certain rights and responsibilities to the others and there exists an ongoing, and seemingly increasing tension between them, with each jockeying for influence over this or that body, mechanism, and/or area of responsibility and control.

At the same time each of these elected bodies are served by a different level of instititional, but unelected civil and political support which have their own remits and responsibilities, along with a large number of quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations variously appointed at and by each institutional level and responsible for a variety of specific administrative and political areas and issues.

These civil, administrative, and political instititions, whether elected or appointed, are manned (both figuratively and Invariably literally) from the common stock of political aspirants, their cronies, sympathisers, or donors, all of whom appear share the singular trait of believing they are the best person for the job even as they demonstrate by their works that an inclination towards self-aggrandisement, nest-feathering, and economic or political toadying is a far more precious personal commodity than any inclination to non-partisan neutrality or even rudimentary skills in administrative competence.

In short, the UK has developed a disintegrated democratic system which is fragmented and fragmenting while the political process has become dogged by evidence-free assertions, pleadings, and admonitions from each body at every institutional level that without an immediate increase in their powers and/or an extension of their scope of influence society will continue its much lamented decline, the responsibility for which falls entirely at the feet of every democratic and political institution but their own.

With so much political white noise being generated by the system it's no wonder that people are disengaging from politics and increasingy seeing political aspirants as a breed apart whose concerns are predominantly self-serving and divorced from the lives of the rest of us.