English Devolution

[George Saint]

Help me out here, please.

I keep hearing people talk about the need to devolve more powers to the cities or regions in England, but what exactly do they mean by it?

Wibble mentioned that the people in Manchester want more powers for the North West, but what is it that they want? Or does more powers actually just mean more money?

I'm open minded about any ideas for change, but equally I don't just want another layer of highly paid professional politicians who do very little except hold meetings in fancy new offices.

Furthermore, I'm concerned that allowing different cities or regions to go off in different directions (in terms of how they prioritise their spending), will just lead to more squabbling and envy.

For example, obviously we southerners are sensible folk, so we'd use our new powers wisely and spend the money on education and healthcare. But the northerners would probably piss their money away building greyhound racing stadiums and giving away free flat caps and racing pigeons to everyone over 30. Then, in ten years time, they'd be bombarding the internet message boards complaining that streets in the south were paved in gold, whereas theirs were covered with pigeon shit. That would only lead to greater demands for division and separation within the UK. (I can say all that without being 'regionalist' because i was actually born in the north )

Anyway, my personal opinion is that we already have too many politicians, doing too little, so why would we want to create more? And, although the Westminster MP's are mostly corrupt khunts, at least there is some chance of the media scrutinising them and the public holding them to account, because there's only around 600 of them. What chance would we have to do that if thousands of dodgy councillors or regional or city leaders were suddenly given a load more powers? They'd no doubt get away with murder. A lot of people can't even be bothered to vote once every four years in a General Election, so they're hardly likely to bother to keep a close check on what the decision makers in their local city or region are up to.

I dunno - like i said, i'm not against change or progress, but i just worry that more powers = more politicians = more khunts.

[thorbotnic]

Help me out here, please.

I keep hearing people talk about the need to devolve more powers to the cities or regions in England, but what exactly do they mean by it?

Wibble mentioned that the people in Manchester want more powers for the North West, but what is it that they want? Or does more powers actually just mean more money?

I'm open minded about any ideas for change, but equally I don't just want another layer of highly paid professional politicians who do very little except hold meetings in fancy new offices.

Furthermore, I'm concerned that allowing different cities or regions to go off in different directions (in terms of how they prioritise their spending), will just lead to more squabbling and envy.

For example, obviously we southerners are sensible folk, so we'd use our new powers wisely and spend the money on education and healthcare. But the northerners would probably piss their money away building greyhound racing stadiums and giving away free flat caps and racing pigeons to everyone over 30. Then, in ten years time, they'd be bombarding the internet message boards complaining that streets in the south were paved in gold, whereas theirs were covered with pigeon shit. That would only lead to greater demands for division and separation within the UK. (I can say all that without being 'regionalist' because i was actually born in the north )

Anyway, my personal opinion is that we already have too many politicians, doing too little, so why would we want to create more? And, although the Westminster MP's are mostly corrupt khunts, at least there is some chance of the media scrutinising them and the public holding them to account, because there's only around 600 of them. What chance would we have to do that if thousands of dodgy councillors or regional or city leaders were suddenly given a load more powers? They'd no doubt get away with murder. A lot of people can't even be bothered to vote once every four years in a General Election, so they're hardly likely to bother to keep a close check on what the decision makers in their local city or region are up to.

I dunno - like i said, i'm not against change or progress, but i just worry that more powers = more politicians = more khunts.

I don't understand English resistance to regional devolution. Any other European state of England's size has regional and local devolution - or, even better, full-fledged federalism - instead, we have a ridiculously centralised and out of touch government. The Westminster powers love to peddle this myth that more politicans = just an extra layer of government chat, but when power is exercised close to the people it affects there are far more opportunities to keep politicians in check and hold them to account: we'd get better politicians, or at least be able to control them better. Westminster under FPTP is as far removed from the electorate as it's possible to be and still claim to be a democratic institution, as far as I'm concerned.

Edited September 21, 2014 by thorbotnic

[Hertsscot]

More snouts round the trough seems to be pretty much the verdict of north east voters when Prescott suggested the idea of a regional assembly.

[Pool Q]

I've really no idea. As far as I'm aware discussion of devolution within England is in the early stages, and there isn't much of a demand for it so far. Previous attempts have more or less died on their erse. What matters is what those in England want. In that context nothing is going to happen soon. The real issue at the moment appears to be the WLQ, English votes for English laws (aka no Scottish MPs voting on laws that apply only to England). For reasons that have been well rehearsed elsewhere the Tories want this, Labour can't agree to it. Once again clearly a lengthy process required to getting some sort of agreement re what is to be put to Parliament (and a referendum in England in the case of devolution proposals?). It's complicated. All of which is why Cameron was in reality ruling out any further devolution to Scotland when he made it conditional on the introduction of English devolution at the same time.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Pool Q

[George Saint]

And Prescott deliberately picked the north east for the first regional assembly vote because he thought they had the strongest regional identity and would be most likely to vote yes out of all the regions.

78% voted No. Now, that's what you call a decisive No vote - none of this 54% pish.

[thorbotnic]

More snouts round the trough seems to be pretty much the verdict of north east voters when Prescott suggested the idea of a regional assembly.

What we were offered was crap, though - the powers the regional assembly would've had were to be taken from local authorities and passed up, not taken from central government and passed down. And that was 10 years ago... a long time in politics. Some on here are arguing for a new independence referendum within 5 years!

[mariokempes56]

I sense the prevailing attitude in England is the sweaties get too many perks and once that's stopped and they don't vote on English issues all will be well.. (copyright mill,express,telegraph etc..). I'd do NOT mean that to offend in any way but that's the media spin we hear.

And if that's all you ever read/hear then there is no space/time for serious debate re true democritisation.

[thorbotnic]

And Prescott deliberately picked the north east for the first regional assembly vote because he thought they had the strongest regional identity and would be most likely to vote yes out of all the regions.

78% voted No. Now, that's what you call a decisive No vote - none of this 54% pish.

Prescott wasn't really supported by the rest of the Labour party leadership at the time - the whole thing was treated as the patronising joke it was. We English need to get past the ridiculous idea that regional government makes us less English, or represents our country being cut up - it's just about having more efficient government. We could reduce the number of MPs by 200 or more if we had proper regional devolution, too (if it's the number of politicians that's troubling you). Our politicians have a (deserved) bad rep because our political system is corrupt - we do not get the parliament we vote for, ever. It's not guaranteed but having public services controlled from a government which is much closer to the electorate can only be a good thing.

Edited September 21, 2014 by thorbotnic

[Orraloon]

I don't think it has got anything to do with what the people of England want. It's all about what Tory backbenchers want. Cameron has to give them something in order to be allowed to give Scotland even the tiniest bit of extra power after his promise in the referendum.

[thorbotnic]

Also: having devolution / federalism based on regions of England is the only way the UK can possibly survive in the long run, anyway. Any other proposition either means turning Scottish / Welsh / NI / London MPs into second-class members (and therefore meaning no UK Prime Minister could come from those countries, practically speaking) or having the ridiculous situation of a separate English parliament which legislates for 86% of the UK population.

[George Saint]

thorbotnic, I'm actually not a very patriotic person anyway, to be honest. I'm fine being English, British and European, but I'm not obsessed by any identity.

I don't mind my area (Hampshire) being part of a South East or South West or Southern Assembly, or the two cities dearest to my heart (Southampton and Portsmouth) having more powers, but I want to know that it's necessary first.

We already have a Southampton city council, Portsmouth city council, Hampshire county council, plus other local councils. It seems to work pretty well at the moment, so far as I can see.

My worry is that by giving more powers to different areas, you risk losing a more joined up approach to things - each area does it's own thing and doesn't necessarily look at the bigger picture.

Look at the problems that Scottish devolution has caused in terms of people in England moaning about the Scots getting free education and free whatever else. They forget that it happens partly because Scotland has decided to spend it's money in a different way to England. I don't want a similar thing happening between different areas of England because it just creates more resentment.

[kumnio]

Tin hat on, I dont think devolution/regional assemblies would be good for England.

England is one country, trying to split powers up just seems daft to me.

I do however agree that Scottish MPs voting on England only issues is ridiculous, Id hazard a guess that most Scots would feel the same. The sooner that is outlawed the better.

[Guest flumax]

people make similar arguements:

Tin hat on, I dont think devolution/regional assemblies would be good for the UK.

The UK is one country, trying to split powers up just seems daft to me.

I do however agree that Scottish MPs voting on England only issues is ridiculous, Id hazard a guess that most Scots would feel the same. The sooner that is outlawed the better.

[kumnio]

people make similar arguements:

If thats the case, then we must amalgamate entirely.

Not even North Brits seem to want that.

[George Saint]

thorbotnic, I agree that the idea of an English parliament is ludicrous, especially so when some people talk about building a new one in York or something. Even if an English parliament was to share the current building in Westminster, you'd inevitably eventually get a conflict between the English and UK parliaments.

What are you suggesting we do instead? You mention regional assemblies, but even they won't exactly be local to everyone. I mean, suppose they put Hampshire in the South West region, where would the SW regional assembly be located? Plymouth? Instead of those Westminster whankers making decisions for us, it would instead be those inbred khunts down in Plymouth. That's how some people would view it, anyway. Not me, of course.

To be serious for one moment - I am open minded about it, but I want it spelled out to me exactly what is being proposed and how it would improve things.

[mariokempes56]

There is one simple solution. Independence for all. Stop fukking about with details re constitutions.

[Guest flumax]

If thats the case, then we must amalgamate entirely.

Not even North Brits seem to want that.

I want to see devolution for England and English regions. However i also think there is a case for Scotland to be treated as region in equal measure to say the east midlands

I am confused as to why north brits do not want this. Surely that is exactly what is needed to respond to the democratic process.

Genuinely there is part of me that believes this should happen, seeing that the majority of scotland voted for scotland to be a region of the UK. I am sure I am still disappointed, but it may be for the best if we got rid of constituent regions and infrastructure e.g. sports teams and leagues. The UK is the only sovereign nation with the anomaly of having regional teams/ top flight leagues. There is no Bavaria, Wallonia, Venezia, Brittany top flight football leagues or national teams.

Italy, Spain and Germany are all similar sized populations to the UK and they have regional government, I can not see why this cant be the case for the UK with all parts equal. Especially seeing that Yorkshire is as populous as Scotland and as such should be treated with equal fairness.

Many will disagree with me, but I did not vote yes for purely nationalist reasons, but for a new way of doing politics. If that happens through dividing the UK in to federal states with localised powers, then that would be brilliant. However I can not see it happen due to the desire for westminster centralised power.

[killie97]

The following piece was written by my brother-in-law who has lived in England for most of his adult life. His comments reflect, in his views, the feelings down south - 'Independence referendum result may have been disappointing but it seems to me this was just the first step towards it. A few months ago the vote was really just seen by westminster as a way to silence the nationalists by the expected thumping No vote. Now, today, there is a constitutional crisis in play given that (a) almost half the people in scotland voted to leave the union and ( the rest of the UK want parliaments and/or stopping (Scottish) mps voting on other (english) matters. More powers in scotland may help dissolve some of the fervour up there for a while but its going to ignite a real backlash down here over the old west lothian question. There is no solution to this since national politicians wont be able to agree due to Labour's reliance on scottish mps in westminster. Also people down south will start to kick up more of a fuss about scotland having more mps at westminster than reflective of the population and the barnett formula giving people up there more than the rest of the country (i know you might argue over that but that's how its already being presented here). Whatever is done now (or fails to be done if they back away from the promises made) I think all these issues will slowly create more and more tension that will end with another election in maybe 10-20 years and this time a general acceptance by people both in scotland and rUK that a split would be for the best. With the older people who supported the union dying out and the younger Yes lot taking over I think they'll win it next time. By the time it comes around there will have been at least another decade to think through things like what to do about the currency . This is all part of a much wider trend of disillusionment that's going on. There are of course all the European secessionists (Catalonia has an unofficial referendum in Nov) but i saw some interesting figures yesterday that in many states of the US as many as 30% of population want to withdraw from the union. People everywhere are getting fed up with large centralised political/banking/etc elites. Interesting times.'

[johnnie x]

SNP MPs generally don't vote on English only issues anyway.

The labour lot well, anything for promotion or to keep their noses in the trough.

[Jie Bie]

Frank Field was on the radio this morning saying the referendum result had set in motion the creation of a Federal UK.

He wants to see the House of Commons converted into an English MP only assembly with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. The House of Lords would be abolished and converted into a democratically elected UK senate. This new senate would be where all non-devolved powers (e.g. defence and foreign affairs) would reside.

From the sounds of things he wants us to follow the German model. I'd be reasonably happy if what he suggested came to pass, but I doubt there's any chance of the above being proposed in a draft bill prior to next years GE.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Jie Bie

[ShedTA]

Frank Field was on the radio this morning saying the referendum result had set in motion the creation of a Federal UK.

He wants to see the House of Commons converted into an English MP only assembly with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. The House of Lords would be abolished and converted into a democratically elected UK senate. This new senate would be where all non-devolved powers (e.g. defence and foreign affairs) would reside.

From the sounds of things he wants us to follow the German model. I'd be reasonably happy if what he suggested came to pass, but I doubt there's any chance of the above being proposed in a draft bill prior to next years GE.

But whats the good of all that if we only get to spend 14% of our own taxes? we can devolve decision making all we want but without control of the financials we remain impotent and still impacted by decisions made elsewhere.

[Pool Q]

Ultimately, because of the asymmetry of the UK state (it was far less so at the time of the Union) where over 80% of the population lives in one component part of it, devolution based around the 'nations' is unworkable. An English parliament will result in English First Ministers and Finance Ministers, who will effectively be more powerful than the UK PM who will have residual (though considerable) powers on Foreign Affairs and Defence. If they are from different parties (perfectly possible), that will be totally unworkable. Additionally, in practice, it will be all but impossible for anyone from outside England to become PM. Tam Dalyell was right, devolution is a one-way street to the break up of the Union. The only other viable alternative is a unitary UK state, perhaps with limited powers devolved to local and regional assemblies.

[DonnyTJS]

Frank Field was on the radio this morning saying the referendum result had set in motion the creation of a Federal UK.

He wants to see the House of Commons converted into an English MP only assembly with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. The House of Lords would be abolished and converted into a democratically elected UK senate. This new senate would be where all non-devolved powers (e.g. defence and foreign affairs) would reside.

From the sounds of things he wants us to follow the German model. I'd be reasonably happy if what he suggested came to pass, but I doubt there's any chance of the above being proposed in a draft bill prior to next years GE.

Screw Frank Field and his bandwagon jumping … some of us have been pointing this out for years: http://taboard.com/archive/index.php?showtopic=137751&p=2147353

The German model wouldn't work, partly for the asymmetric reasons Pool Q points out, and partly from the different histories of the two states. I don't have time to get into this, but it was all foreseeable and so it's shameful that the politicians had nothing more concrete up their Jermyn-Street-tailored sleeves...

[biffer]

I can understand why someone in Southampton looks at the way things are run and believe the model is fine - for that part of the country it is, it works for them and the economic levers are angled towards industries in that area. Problem is that's not the case for a lot of other areas. Devolution is not about what powers you want to give to other people, it's about what powers people want for themselves. The Westminster elite don't yet understand that a top down solution, the kind of politics which they've run for decades, isn't going to answer a genuine bottom up movement. They seem to be incapable of understanding that.

[Toepoke]

I could only see a federal UK working if England is carved up into several regions.