The great English parliament debate: Devolving England II
- Ten out of Eight Cats – Campaigning Coalitions of Bloggers
- Community or Network? Campaigning Coalitions of Bloggers
- Blogpower Roundup – The Matt Wardman Civil Liberties Edition
- The great English parliament debate: Devolving England II
The raw deal of the English
There is a perceived problem in England that the English are getting the raw end of the deal in the Union. The Scottish have their own Parliament that votes on issues exclusive to them while the English have no such thing. Yet Scottish MPs can vote on English specific issues at Westminster. How can that be right? It just does not seem fair. Well in many ways it is not and it seems there probably should be something done about it. That is until you look at the alternatives.
An English Parliament
The obvious answer here is to create an English parliament. This is one of those ideas that is well meaning, but you can be sure a few years down the line people would be pretty sick of it. It would simply be yet another layer of bureaucracy and government that we can quite frankly do without. For a start there would be the huge extra costs here in wages, expenses and setting up and running the damn thing and a whole other round of elections on top of the local, European and national – all of which suffer from low turnouts as it is.
More importantly, it is hard enough as it is these to get some of our MPs to be accountable, just imagine the government having yet another bunch of second class politicians to blame – because that is what an English parliament would be: a dumping ground for politicians who could not get in on the real deal of Westminster and a bunch of fall guys for others to blame when things go wrong. An English Parliament would be an under-employed talking shop at great expense to the tax payer and of little use to the voter.
English only votes
Well why not just have English-only-votes then, using our current mob of Westminster MPs? Well do you suggest that our executive, the cabinet, only consists of English MPs? Does that mean we can no longer have a Scottish Prime Minister? I suggest it would. How do we expect our government to come up with policy and then not be allowed to push it through the English parliament? Would we really expect Alastair Darling, as Chancellor and Edinburgh South MP, to have an economic policy only relevant to England not to be able to speak on the matter in the England-only debate and not be allowed to vote on the measure either? It would be madness. Would we expect Gordon Brown as PM to stay out of English only matters too? It is just not workable.
The perception issue
Then there is the issue of perception. On the surface the system does appear unfair. But actually it is not nearly as unfair as some like to make out. England has 529 MPs to Scotland’s 59. The chances of Scottish MPs scuppering English only issue are remote. Besides, given the voting records of so many of our MPs, votes that are currently only relevant to England tend to attract so few to Parliament these days anyway, that figure of 59 Scottish MPs pails into insignificance.
Furthermore, the argument relies upon the fact the votes are made on a geographical persuasion. Yet politics in the UK is far more related to an ideological battle of left and right rather than Scotland and England. A Scottish socialist is far more likely vote with a London socialist than a Scottish right winger.
No one is suggesting women only votes for issues that only affect women or rural only votes for votes that only affect the countryside. OK, the difference here is that Scotland does have a Parliament, but the point is English MPs did have a strong influence on Scottish issues, not the other way round. I can see that it is unfair that 529 English MPs could vote on Scotland only issues – those numbers are real show stoppers; but the reverse, while on paper appears unfair, is just not worth the hassle to resolve. In fact, of all the solutions I have heard there even more problems created that have even more complicated and far reaching implications.
The real danger in this debate is that we press ahead with full scale devolution. It would inevitably lead to one of two things: a federal UK or the breakup of the Union. The federal approach is costly and, for the reasons above, simply unnecessary. The breakup of the Union will be a disaster for all those concerned both culturally and economically.
Some suggestions
The problem here is not one of under-representation of the English, but of over-representation of the Scottish now they have their own Parliament. When the Scottish Parliament was formed their number of MPs was reduced by 13, though Scotland is, perhaps, still over-represented. A further small reduction would ensure that the small chance that a so called English vote would ever be scuppered by the Scots is even further reduced and would also put the Scottish people on a par with representation to their English neighbours.
I would also suggest that there is an unwritten and unenforced code of conduct that says that Scottish MPs refrain from voting on English only matters. There will of course be exceptions to this, such as if it fell under a minister’s or shadow minister’s portfolio. But MPs should stick to the spirit of the code when appropriate. It is a far more simple and cost effective solution to what is, in the scheme of things, a relatively small problem.
Wrapping UP
Since devolution began in 1999 we have taken a large step towards to break up of the Union. Suddenly everyone wants their so called fair share which only escalates every time a new measure is made. The backers of an English parliament are playing a dangerous game. Where does it end? The South East demanding independence because they are subsidising the North? It is creating a new form of regional antagonism and localised resentment that could well lead to the breakup of the UK.
I think that devolution to Scotland and Wales has been beneficial to these countries; I do not think that there is such a need for it in England despite the seeming unfairness of the situation. It will create so many more problems than it solves. And while devolution has strengthened national identity in Scotland, Wales and also England, it has been at great expense to the identity of Great Britain as a whole. That will only be further eroded with an English Parliament. There is a problem, but is a small one and sometimes fixing these types of problems just makes things worse. That is why I agree with Lord Irving when he said that the best answer to the West Lothian Question is to stop asking it.
Article Series - Devolving England
- The great English parliament debate: Devolving England II
“If Scotland or England held a referendum it would have to be on independence, not on a parliament for England. If the English voted for independence or the Scots did, then the game changes and Westminster would be the only house and only represent England.”
If England had a referendum and voted for an English Parliament, Westminster would do what the EU are doing to the Irish. Tell them they were really wrong and demand another vote. Democracy eh?
Party Political Parliamentary Democracy
And The Rule Of Party Political Parliamentary Criminal Law
And The Redundant Party Political Parliamentary Status Quo
In The United Kingdom In Physical Reality
Democracy INIT M8*
Tom Carder´s last blog post..About The Hard Party….MANIFESTO
Gosh I had my reply all ready for Dave and Garbo, but you’ve all beaten me to it. However here’s my penny’s worth :
I do a fair bit of debating, and I am familiar with the debaters trick when your opposition wants to debate principles, you just keep demanded details. I can really hear myself in full flight “It sounds all right in principle, but how are you going to make it work – tell me that!†dramatic pause, then turning to the audience “You see – they have no idea! What a stupid concept!!†and sit down with a flourish. Unfortunately I have also lost a number of debates, when the judges were a little more experienced. Their comments were invariably along the lines of “You must engage with debating the principles – details are merely devices that are outcomes of principles. Defeat the principle and you don’t need to debate details.â€
On re-reading your responses it seems you want to debate details – well I am sorry I want to debate principles.
As a principle is it fair and just that people in England have an undemocratic form of government; whereby politicians that they have no part in electing play a major role in framing legislation which is only effective in England. The answer is simply either yes or no.
As a principle, is it fair and just that politicians who legislate only for England, but are not elected by any English voter are unaccountable to the people that their legislation affects? Again Simple answer, it either is or it isn’t.
If the United Kingdom consists of the individual nations of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales (listed alphabetically for the pc brigade), is it fair and just if one of those nations is consistently underfunded in relation to all others? Again it needs only a simple answer.
From your responses, I would say that you agree in principle that the English do suffer significant disadvantages under the present devolved arrangement. Which is why I suspect that you want to debate details!
All your solutions are really interesting but the really simple solution is to ask the people of England themselves, not just me or Toque, or Britologywatch or any other individual – ask the people. It is what is done in a fair and just democracy. A referendum which poses the following questions (for instance) should answer for once and all whether there is any ground support for an English Parliament.
1. Do you agree there should be a Devolved English Parliament in a United Kingdom Federation?
2. Do you agree that there should be an English Parliament for an Independent English Nation?
3. Should there be no change to the status quo?
And seeing that we are at it, we could also throw in Question 4 – Do you agree that England should withdraw from the European Union?, and Question 5 – Do you agree that an English Parliament should ratify the Lisbon Treaty? Cue detailed argument on the wording of the questions, which is a damn waste of time.
Details are unimportant until the people are allowed to speak for themselves on the principles of government. To decide for them not only the type of government they should be allowed but also the formation of that government is paternalistic – and a faint whiff of superiority rises in the air. “We know best, now be good children and just put up with it.â€
Should the creation of an English Parliament be the will of the people, what would you call any government that denied that will? In principle of course!
Such details as to where the parliament is located; whether the House of Lords be disbanded and becomes the United Kingdom’s federal government; whether there is further devolution down the line to counties or country groups all these become strategic planning decisions made by an English parliament, elected by English voters, and accountable to their electorate for those decisions.
You say that you have never ‘heard’ of a case for the English parliament (but you certainly have now) – but why not google it? I did and got the following:
Results 1 – 10 of about 382,000 for Why we need an English Parliament. (0.12 seconds) So perhaps what you actually mean is that you haven’t heard a case for the English Parliament that you agree with.
The problem, as I see it, is that dedicated unionists refuse to see the inequality as a problem, just a price to pay for the benefit of the union. And so I challenge you to explain to Mrs Smith, having a cup of coffee in her kitchen on Compton Road in Birmingham – just why her daughter is faced with such a debt on graduating from university. Just why it is that her sister, recently diagnosed with cancer cannot receive the drugs that are freely available to residents in Scotland. Perhaps you can also explain why it is in the best union interest for her husband to face losing his job, just to ensure that someone in Edinburgh doesn’t have to lose theirs.
She is also confused as to why she had to pay over seven pounds for her prescription after a visit to the doctors on holiday in Shrewsbury, but the Welsh gentleman sitting next to her in the same doctor’s surgery boasts that his is free. She is a silly woman, she just can’t get why the union is so important that these injustices have to be accepted.
And finally tell her why she has to put up with being abused by her politicians and her state broadcaster. Jack Straw with his comments that the English are “potentially very aggressive, very violentâ€. Tony Blair who was happy to “sacrifice England for the sake of the union” David Cameron who boasts to the people of Scotland that “there is a lot of Scottish blood running through these veins†in a country where his party holds just one seat; and yet refers to the 85% of people who do support him as “Sour little Englandersâ€. (you see Dave I have problems with the politicians not just the party – but it is Labour who are in government and who can do something about it – and yes my examples are emotionally based, but that is the nature of the problem)
And just to add the icing on the cake she actually listened to a programme called “Made in England†on Radio 4 – introduced by a Scotsman of course. His considered opinion of the English? He describes the English as†dysfunctional, celebrity obsessed, cultureless, fragmented, unfair, low on moral ambition, high in self regard, insecure, bigoted, lazy, sentimental and violent†plus he sums up by saying “England is a dangerous fantasy and comic confection at the same time.†Can you imagine what would have happened if this had been said about the Scots by, say, Jeremy Clarkson!
Mrs Smith is upset, and getting a little angry by now, especially when she has been told that the country she loves no longer exists (in a legal sense that is) In fact O’Hagan says “England is dead and gone – it’s with George Orwell in the grave.†and Dave and Garbo agree it seems.
She doesn’t understand why everything that was English is now branded British, including English History – the Magna Carta, the defeat of the Spanish Armada, Bayeux Tapestry are now all supposed to be British achievements. She is a simple soul and cannot understand why anyone would hate her or her country so much that they are trying to airbrush it out of existence. So please explain to her just why this union is so important that she now feels of no account in her own country – I can’t.
It’s the Mrs Smith’s in this country that vote and if enough of them get as upset and angry as Mrs Smith then may come the flood.
And before I leave, I gather you missed the reference to Shakespeare in my flood analogy – so here is the quote “There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries.†I am surprised that such erudite gentlemen … well how about if I say that O’Hagan’s reference to George Orwell raises my eyebrows somewhat … but perhaps he doesn’t think it applies to him – tell me would you pick that one? (In principle of course!!!)
Why not paraphrase the 1997 Scottish referendum question:
1. I agree that there should be a English Parliament; or
2. I do not agree that there should be a English Parliament
I can tell you now what the result would be.
Toque´s last blog post..Andrew O’Hagan on England
Toque: “I presume you agree that if Scotland raises its own taxes to pay for its devolved programme their MPs should lose all voting rights on devolved legislation?”
Probably, yes, but fiscal independence (Scotland raising and spending its own taxes without subsidy) won’t happen. It would be the worst possible outcome for people in Scotland: they would become poorer in the long run without the reward of independence to go with it, and I can’t see them voting for it if put at a referendum. Scotland, because of North Sea oil, is at present approximately in fiscal balance, but it won’t be in 20 years’ time. I don’t think it would get a very warm reception if in 20 or 25 years’ time a Scottish government came back and said, “You know about this fiscal independence thing, err, could we have some dosh please”.
I approach this from a different direction, which is that I would like to see the United Kingdom survive, and I despair of the Labour government’s complete inability to deal with the problems they have created, a kind of “surely you don’t believe we really meant it” denial.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not desperately opposed to an English Parliament and in the end it may well come to that, but nor am I particularly well disposed to it. I am not a natural Tory but on the issue of picking up the pieces of the devolution cock-up I think they have it about right, save on one point. I do believe at the end of the day that you have to trust the people’s judgement, and therefore ask them what they want. I do not have much time for the view that you shouldn’t ask people in England if they want a Parliament because there is a risk that you would get the wrong answer. This is essentially the Labour party view and they would never offer a referendum on the point; the Tory party would not be quite so disinclined but even so I wouldn’t trust them to do it unless really pushed to do so. The Labour party have lost people’s trust at the moment but the Tories in particular should have more faith in the power of their argument. If having done so people in England still say they would like a Parliament than so be it.
I really don’t have an argument with anyone who thinks the people should be consulted, all else is detail.
Once Westminster bends its knee to ask the people of England for their consent, everything changes. It is the people who are in charge, the people who are sovereign, even if only for a day, and even if they choose the Crown in a UK Parliament.
The very act of asking the people will be an admission by the Establishment that England is a nation, and the English people are sovereign. And even if we don’t chose the English parliament that I want, I will feel that we have won. And we will have.
It may be that the English are prepared to live with constitutional anomalies, and preferential treatment and patronage for the smaller nations. But that is our decision to take; only the English can answer the English Question, and until we do the union can not be stable because it is not a union by consent or popular design.
Toque´s last blog post..Englishness de rigeur at the Labour Party Conference
Toque: Just to be clear I do not go along with the “preferential treatment and patronage for the smaller nations” stuff, nor the perpetual mantra about England being picked on. I find that after reading too much of it I start wanting to throw up. Picking on people in England has not happened yet significantly, but I have set out the circumstances in which it could happen, and certainly would be generally perceived to be happening (electoral imbalances), which need to be dealt with. And whilst as I say I am not desperately opposed to an English Parliament, nor do I particularly want an additional layer of political careerists telling me what to do or what I should think.
I think there are very simple solutions to making the best of what Labour devolution folly has done, so as to keep the Union intact, such as the one I have already mentioned, which I prefer to the Kenneth Clarke’s proposals which are an alternative. The way forward in my view is to implement one of these (which I am glad to say the next government is likely to do), and after a couple of years of running this way ask people in England whether they want more. I strongly suspect the answer would be no.
As a proponent of an English Parliament, you probably want the same scenario to arise from an election as the SNP do, thus creating a constitutional crisis. Sadly, Gordon Brown will probably inadvertently give it to you if the Tories do not win the next election – he would have a slim majority relying wholly on Scottish members.
Of course, as a proponent of an English parliament I want the constitutional crisis to arrive as quickly as possible, to de-legitimise the UK state ASAP. But that’s a position that I reluctantly arrive at after being ignored for ten years or fobbed off with ridiculous unworkable solutions like EVoEL by complete <a href=”http://toque.co.uk/blog/?page_id=745″morons.
The next government may mitigate the WLQ in the short-term, but they will not find favour in Scotland. English and Scottish nationalists will just play off each other, with the sense of grievance shifting more to Scotland (especially now the Treasury’s coffers are empty).
The ideal scenario would be a hung parliament, so that the potential for non-English MPs to pervert English democracy is maximised. A self-denying ordinance, or some form of English Votes, would quickly have Scottish Labour voters wondering why they bothered to vote Labour at the general election was. Whatever scenario you envisage, including a unionist alliance (Lib, Lab, Con), it plays into the hands of the separatists by putting the future of the Union centre stage.
nor do I particularly want an additional layer of political careerists telling me what to do or what I should think.
Neither do I, wich is why I don’t propose such a thing. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish self-government created an extra layer of politicians. English self-government can’t remove that, but it can substantially slim down the British layer and remove the very thing that the politics of nationalism is all about: Grievance.
Toque´s last blog post..Englishness de rigeur at the Labour Party Conference
Toque: You certainly seem to have adopted the politics of grievance, I can agree on that. Unhappily I think you are going to have to put me down in a little black book as an enemy of the people on that score.
[...] a vigorous the debate from Garbo’s last article: “The great English parliament debate: Devolving England II” (58 comments and [...]
[...] claims that we don’t need an English Parliament, and can’t have one due to them complications; [...]
@Lost in space: I’m already an enemy of the proletariat (apparently), so it might be good to be an enemy of the people as well
[...] claims that we don’t need an English Parliament, and can’t have one due to them complications; [...]
[...] Wire’s series on ‘Devolving England’. It follows on from pieces by Dave Cole, Garbo, Matt Wardman and the Thunderdragon. If you would like to contribute a piece, please blog AT [...]
[...] Following on, Garbo looks at prospects for an English Parliament. [...]
[...] more regional democracy in the UK, reform is needed but we don’t need more politicians, making some small tweaks but generally sticking with the status quo or not bothering do anything because our government has no powers to devolve any more anyway as [...]
An English parliament would be a nonsense. You cannot have a federation in which one of the four states contains 85% of the population. As a Yorkshireman, I feel no more affinity with southern England than with Scotland. I don’t think there is an English nation in any meaningful sense. Or rather, perhaps there is, but if so it only includes the southern part of England.
What is needed to make sense of the whole mess is a federation of regions and nations. To those who say they see no need for regional government in the north of England, I would point to the huge improvements that Scotland and Wales are now achieving in transport provision (railway reopenings, new stations, electrification, tram schemes going ahead where in England they are blocked by Whitehall). If the north of England had similarly devolved transport powers, you may be certain that there would be more done for the east-west (e.g. trans-Pennine) trunk services than we can expect from London government, which is focused mainly on links to and from London.
A major reason for devolved government is to achieve decentralisation. Government of the whole of England by London would not by any noticeably less centralised than is government of Britain by London.
peezedtee´s last blog post..Whither the railways?
>What is needed to make sense of the whole mess is a federation of regions and nations.
That was the aim at the time of the devlution of powers to Wales/Scotland in the late 1990s, and it was stopped in its tracks by a 696,519 votes to 197,310 defeat in a refendum in the North East.
Unless you are proposing a two-region idea along the lines of North and South Provinces.
For me National Government AND regional government AND County Councils AND District Councils is just too much political overhead.
I’m quite drawn to the idea of having some regional structure, as I think the current regions are quite well drawn, and are roughly areas that people identify with. In my region (East Midlands) we are seeing some decent co-ordination of Transport Policy – with ideas coordinated between Nottingham/Derby/Leicester.
On the “London won’t deliver for the North” point, I note that they delivered the M62.
Matt
Question for he last two posts, would an English regional assembly have exactly the same powers currently devolved to the Scottish Assembly?
Sorry to elaborate, I put English but meant for example; The North East Regional Assembly or the East of England Regional Assembly etc.
Would they have bee granted exactly the same powers as the Scottish one?
>Question for he last two posts, would an English regional assembly have exactly the same powers currently devolved to the Scottish Assembly?
I don’t see how it could have exactly the same structure, since Scotland has a separate legal system, so there would be some diversity. We already tolerate a diverse system of councils based roughly around areas that people “identify with” – unitary, two tier etc.
Certainly the existing system is a mess, and needs a lot of change. I’m in favour of a pragmatic approach rather than imposing the same thing everywhere, but with far more equality for Eng vs Sco vs Wal vs NI than we see at present.
I think that to say “exactly the same” is too much of a straightjacket and would cause a different set of problems.
I’ve been trying to pull a post together about what changes I would like to see after my previous tour through levels of government, but it isn’t finished yet. Here are a few thoughts.
Tentatively:
* More power to Parish Councils re: local environment.
* Much more power to town/area level district councils. Make Districts basically responsible for raising at leat 50-60% of their funds locally.
* Emasculate County Councils and turn them more into co-ordinating bodies, maybe even appointed by District Councils rather than direct elections. OTOH in some areas (London Boroughs?) something of roughly County size may be the natural unit of government.
* Ditto Regions, which seem to work well in some ways (speaking from the East Midlands). It may be that some County Functions (e.g., A roads?) could move to regional level.
* More equal national (i.e, Eng/Sco etc) level Parliaments. My current thought experiment is abolish all the AMs and MSPs and have the relevant MPs sit in Holyrood/Cardiff/Stormont for one or two days a week or one week a month. Speaking to a blog-debate in the Senedd on Tuesday, so I may get roasted on this one.
* I’m quite drawn by the idea that the European Parliament is a “Democratic Surplus” and needs removing, rather than beefing up in an attempt to cover a “Democratic Deficit”. So tempted to say abolish EP and turn EU into more of a co-ordinating body rather than an embryonic country. Would be fun trying to achieve that.
By my reckoning that reduces our tiers of elected politicians to three – Parish, District, National (or four if we still keep the EP) – rather than about 6.
Texas has a population of 24 million and a state legislature that formally meets once every two years: that looks like a good example of “reducing politicians’ capability to tinker”.
Matt Wardman:
Tommy’s question: “Would an English regional assembly have exactly the same powers currently devolved to the Scottish Assembly?”
Your answer: “I don’t see how it could have exactly the same structure, since Scotland has a separate legal system, so there would be some diversity.”
——————————————————
This confuses two different issues. There is no reason (other than that regional assemblies seem to me to be a waste of space) why the same matters devolved in Scotland should not be devolved in England. It has nothing to do with Scotland’s different legal system, which has for 300 years and until recently received its legislative expression at Westminster together with England and Wales.
To illustrate the point further, Wales has the same legal system as does England, and the Welsh Assembly will obtain nearly identical devolved legislative powers to those of the Scottish Parliament if a successful Assembly Act referendum is held under Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. (If you haven’t read the 2006 Act it is quite educative to do so.)
The main point is that (in my opinion, maybe not in yours) it would be ridiculous to have 9 regional parliaments and governments in England with substantial legislative powers. The options for dealing with the West Lothian question are (i) to abandon any solution to it and hope that people in England don’t get too upset (possibly also with relatively powerless regional assemblies as at present, but elected rather than appointed), (ii) implement some way in which English and Welsh MPs can block legislation at Westminster which is not approved by the majority of MPs which represent them (see my suggestions above), (iii) provide an English Parliament and implement Assembly Act powers immediately for the Welsh Assembly, or (iv) have maybe three (for the North, the Midlands and the South) or at most four regional governments/Parliaments in England with substantial powers modelled on those of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
At present the Labour and Liberal parteis go for option (i), and the Conservatives option (ii). No mainstream party supports options (iii) and (iv), and are unlikely to given that it would wrest real power from the centre. Whitehall and Westminster are willing to give up Scotland and Wales, but are will not willing to give up England.
“Texas has a population of 24 million and a state legislature that formally meets once every two years: that looks like a good example of “reducing politicians’ capability to tinkerâ€.”
Are you seriously proposing Texas as a model of good government?
peezedtee´s last blog post..Whither the railways?
“At present the Labour and Liberal parteis go for option (i), and the Conservatives option (ii). No mainstream party supports options (iii) and (iv), and are unlikely to given that it would wrest real power from the centre.”
In fact, Liberal policy was for a long time option (iv) — regional assemblies in England with substantial powers (I don’t think they have to be exactly the same as for Scotland). If that is no longer Lib Dem policy, it’s probably because Simon Hughes, being a Welsh nationalist with a small n, is also an English nationalist.
This has all been gone into so many times over such a long period. I don’t know why we keep having to reinvent the wheel. Just read the Kilbrandon report (1973). Nothing significant has changed since then. The Crowther-Hunt/Peacock minority report is my preferred option. (Incidentally, their opinion survey found that there was a greater demand in the North of England for “greater control over our own affairs” than in Wales.)
As for the failure of Prescott’s regional assembly referendum in the North-East, that was pathetically badly sold to the public. Nobody ever explained the reasoning behind it.
peezedtee´s last blog post..Whither the railways?
“* I’m quite drawn by the idea that the European Parliament is a “Democratic Surplus†and needs removing, rather than beefing up in an attempt to cover a “Democratic Deficitâ€.”
Good god. Do you have any idea what goes on in the European Parliament? There is a stronger case for abolishing the UK level of government than the European one. In practice, either course of action is completely unrealistic. We have a European level, it is essential, and its democratic accountability needs increasing, not reducing.
We all want to do away with unnecessary bureaucracy. What people seem unable to grasp is that the Regional level already largely exists in practice but is entirely undemocratic. The regional level should be beefed up by radically decentralising power downwards from Westminster/Whitehall. There must be no net increase in the number of civil servants.
peezedtee´s last blog post..Whither the railways?
“Unless you are proposing a two-region idea along the lines of North and South Provinces.”
Crowther-Hunt and Peacock in their Memorandum of Dissent to Kilbrandon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilbrandon_Report#Memorandum_of_dissent) proposed five regional assemblies for England and I think that is about right. I remember discussing it with Norman Crowther-Hunt in the Campaign for the North in the late 1970s. I think he agreed with me that it would make most sense to have a big single North embracing the present North-West, North-East and Yorkshire/Humberside regions. This would have about 25 million inhabitants, if memory serves.
peezedtee´s last blog post..Whither the railways?
peezedtee: “In fact, Liberal policy was for a long time option (iv) — regional assemblies in England with substantial powers (I don’t think they have to be exactly the same as for Scotland). If that is no longer Lib Dem policy, it’s probably because Simon Hughes, being a Welsh nationalist with a small n, is also an English nationalist.”
The liberals have a long history of giving whatever answer they think best suits them at the time, without too much attention to principle. In this case the main reason is that Nick Clegg is a career politician of the centralist school. Policy, such as there is one, changed when he became leader.
peezedtee: “As for the failure of Prescott’s regional assembly referendum in the North-East, that was pathetically badly sold to the public. Nobody ever explained the reasoning behind it.”
It failed mainly because the regional assemblies were just puppet bodies with no powers, and such powers as they were to have were taken from the county and district councils and not from central government. They were still subject to central dictation on the only functions they did have (spatial planning and intra-regional transport, taken from the counties) – the best example of that being that on the spatial planning side their main function was to allocate housing within their region to provide a total housing provision dictated by what is now DCLG, rather than to decide total housing provision for themselves within the region. No sensible person could have voted for that.
peezedtee: “We all want to do away with unnecessary bureaucracy. What people seem unable to grasp is that the Regional level already largely exists in practice but is entirely undemocratic.”
This is a reasonable summary of the current Liberal/Nick Clegg line, but it is bogus and most sensible people realise that the current regional assemblies are hopeless and not supported by the public. The Labour party are now moving to city regions, which have a lot more going for them in that they may make a better fist at representing local loyalties. Happily, what the Liberal party think about the issue is largely irrelevant.
In case you should think otherwise, I am strongly in favour of the European Union (and also of the Lisbon treaty). I like to see meaningful bodies with meaningful functions, which is why I am in favour of the treaty and opposed to the former Labour and now present Liberal policies on pointless regions. I might support city regions, depending on whether they did in fact really shift power from the centre to local level, rather than taking functions from the existing local authorities.
” ‘What people seem unable to grasp is that the Regional level already largely exists in practice but is entirely undemocratic.’
This is a reasonable summary of the current Liberal/Nick Clegg line, but it is bogus and most sensible people realise that the current regional assemblies are hopeless and not supported by the public. The Labour party are now moving to city regions, which have a lot more going for them in that they may make a better fist at representing local loyalties.”
Actually I wasn’t talking about the current regional assemblies, about which I tend to agree with you; I was talking about the regional layer of central-government civil service bureaucracy, which has existed for many decades. It needs democratising and many of the decision-making powers exercised by the absurdly overcentralised Whitehall regime need pushing down to the regional level. Transport is par excellence a function that best works at the regional level, and probably the best example of where Whitehall is micromanaging to an excessive degree (for England, but not now for Scotland and Wales). They have even now taken away the power of the PTEs (which represent elected local councils) in the six English conurbations to co-sign railway franchise agreements for their local train services; they are now merely “consulted” and then ignored. An English parliament would make absolutely no difference to this kind of overcentralisation.
peezedtee´s last blog post..My fantasy Cabinet
[...] Following on, Garbo looks at prospects for an English Parliament. [...]
[...] Following on, Garbo looks at prospects for an English Parliament. [...]