Third attempt at crafting a response. The first two were rubbish and in any event, my wonderful internet connection ensured that only fragments were saved to the Cloud. Just as well. ****** The biggie is the Welfare State. It's also the manifestation of big government that is least likely to be addressed. This is the provision by the State and via public, non-voluntary funding of a "safety net" that historically was either supplied through voluntary, charitable donations or, more usually, not supplied at all. People historically looked after themselves and those near and dear to them. Or they didn't, and people died. Not much we can do with the Welfare State now. The creation of the modern Welfare State and the prevalent expectation that "the State will look after me" means the idea of undergoing serious privation and getting yourself out of hole you are in, seem rather quaint and foreign to us now. The Welfare State has changed how people feel about themselves, their responsibilities (both to self and to others, and not entirely in a good way). In any event, that ship has sailed, whilst our current society holds together. It's not going anywhere. However … if an incremental rolling back of the vast scope of the Welfare State could be achieved, elective surgeries for example, over the course of a couple of generations say … nah. Can't be done. Be realistic. The more power that a government holds over you, the more power someone who is most likely entirely unsuited to lead holds over you. The greedy owner of Amazon that you might detest intensely is the same kind of person who may be your Prime Minister or, Goat forbid, EU Commission President. It's worth remembering that. Smaller government, or more accurately, government closer to the people being governed, can be seen in Scotland, with its devolved powers. There is over-view by Westminster but in many ways, Scotland is autonomous. Good for them. County Councils, etc are closer to the people under their jurisdiction. Not that this matters much, local councils have very little autonomy. However, imagine if the country was divided into regions - Scotland, Midlands, North East, North West, Anglia, South West. I'm not proposing those as the regions, just using them as hypothetical examples for now. What if a Region has identified an issue that the people living there agreed was important to them, but which has never been addressed to their satisfaction by Westminster? What if London Region were utterly fed up with one or more of its constituencies presenting voter turnouts in excess of 100%? What if London Region wanted to introduce Voter ID for elections to combat voter fraud? What if Anglia is fed up with FPTP distorting how its region is represented in Parliament and wants PR? What if the North East wants to "get tough on crime" with regard to child rapists or murderers or, Hell, speeding motorists? What is the South West wants to eliminate private schools (but the South East does not)? What if the North East is fed up with supertrawlers sailing up to ten miles from the shore, hoovering up local fish stocks as they go? What if they want tp do something (no idea what!) about it? The devil is in the details, always. A counterargument can be made, "Why shouldn't each street have its own laws?". This is a garbage straw man, of course. No one is asking for that. What is being suggested is an approach that eschews one-size-fits-all politics in favour of more power resting closer to the people. I suggest that the aforementioned straw man, "autonomous city street states", is no less and no more ridiculous than the idea of a European Superstate that will soon decide policy at virtually every level on behalf of the UK (if we Remain or rejoin), Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Poland, Hungary ... we cannot even get England and Scotland to agree on how to govern, how are you going to get Germany and Greece to see eye to eye? My examples above could be seen as potentially breaking up the country into fiefdoms. I believe that is an extreme interpretation but not beyond the realms of the possible. What I will say though is, I would like to see our political instincts veer more towards empowering people, devolving authority downwards. What I see in the UK and Europe is the tendency to push all authority upwards to the centre. Surely we can agree that that is the case? I will enjoy a reasoned debate on the points I've raised. I will not expect any agreement for my ideas or suggestions. NB, no totty this time. Get over it.