What sort of federalism would you like for the UK?

Precisely, Holly.

Because the bridges are run by a private firm.

Gracesgran the thing is, with more reorganisation the costs go up again - redundancies paid out then the same people come back under a slightly different job title in a rejigged department. Or they return as 'consultants' on huge daily rates in effect doing the same thing as before.

I'm not sure if you are referring to quangos or a more federalised system of government rosequartz.

Changes in general in the public sector.

I do not think it is necessary to have five layers of government.

I think I said earlier that I do not see the need for an additional layer.

You do not need the Lords as your second chamber if you have a UK Parliament as that becomes your second house and, as constituency work would be done by the Assemblies (they would probably be called something else, even Councils as they would be building on that) you do not need as many UK MPs as we currently have MPs in the Commons. Those running Assemblies could subsume the constituency work of the English MPs and do the county or city council work.

I don't have all the ins and outs worked out rosequartz, that is for cleverer people than me to suggest, but the "extra layer" tactic was used to scare voters in previous assembly elections. I understand why, as the current political parties certainly the two largest, will not want a devolved system. They would have to work much harder to bring together groups and would be much less able to steam-roller bills, that no one has ever voted on, through the(UK) Parliament.

Well, we certainly have 5 layers where I live and it is costing a lot of money.

the "extra layer" tactic was used to scare voters in previous assembly elections. I understand why, as the current political parties certainly the two largest, will not want a devolved system. They would have to work much harder to bring together groups and would be much less able to steam-roller bills, that no one has ever voted on, through the(UK) Parliament.

I suspect that is very true - they're not the most truthful lot are they! It will have a lot to do with losing much of their power and influence as well (which wouldn't be a bad thing - opportunities could then go to those who will do a good job of it rather than to their cronies who only seem to have an eye for profit).

I was not suggesting we keep the Lords in its present state and function but that we have an elected, upper house to act as the federal body. I believe Thatcher destroyed the metropolitan councils because they were challenging the Tory party then in power.

I forgot about them, so we have six layers of government where I live.

I agree all round Lilygran. This would be a great opportunity for changing from a none elected second house. My only problem with electing members of the house of Lords is that they would be Lord, Lady, etc. That doesn't conjure up a representative to me - but it's a small point at this stage.

Yes, as regards England, over the years mainly Tory Westminster has concentrated far too much power on itself - police and education come to mind - and watered down the role of the big metropolitan local authorities. On the other hand things like social care and aspects of the benefit system have been delegated. This has led to much fragmentation and a lack of consistency, so I would start the process of reversing all this. I agree that the House of Lords (how I hate that patronising title!) should become a regionally elected upper house for the whole UK, with most of its present constitutional responsibilities continuing, but totally excluding hereditary and religious appointments. I would also dissestablish the Anglican Church. Basically, the UK needs a proper, written constitution.