It's giving large amounts of power to the constituent parts of England so that they can do something more useful with it than Westminster does. On the whole the people of Manchester have a much better idea of what is good for Manchester than the people of Kent have.
I am afraid that if the way county and district councils are run is any measure then all you will be doing is wasting a huge amount of money.
It is utterly unnecessary when we can simply deal with the WLQ with EVEL.
We only need to look at Tower Hamlets, Haringey or Rotherham to see the level of competence that exists at sub-national government. Plus there's the fact that people will vote for these regional parliaments based on national trends, so there'll be little accountability for them. This is magnified by the fact that there's no media for, say, the South East of England.
The existing regions might work for statistics but they are stupid for governance purposes. Essex has more in common with Kent than it does with Norfolk. Why should the Northwest get control of Liverpool and Manchester, yet the home counties be cut off from London. The discussion in London is whether the Mayor should get control of commuter routes, which seems highly dodgy if people in Buckinghamshire or Surrey don't get a vote for the guy. Lincolnshire is sliced between regions for no good reason. Cornwall doesn't get on with Devon. Etc etc, the whole regional proposal is foolish.
There used to by a moderator ruling asking us not to engage in tedious guessing games about which anonymous poster is really another anonymous poster. Could we have it back? Who cares if Fred is really George? It's one of those in-group things that puts off new posters.
When a poster claims that he can no longer post here because it's too right wing and unpleasant for him, but returns later the same day under a pseudonym to continue posting. Then rinses and repeats, frequently, I find that incredibly dishonest. If such blatant sock puppetry isn't stopped by the mods, then I feel it's fair enough to point it out.
What on Earth are you talking about?
Is that you Bobbajobbafettahandodges? It sure looks like you...
I notice all this years extraordinary political events have seen PB's Alexa ranking getting close to being within the top 100,000 website's on the internet!
Mike will have ad networks beating his door down soon...
As technical admin on this site, can I just say big traffic spikes are a f*cking pain. My phone starts beeping when the site goes down, wherever I am in the world, and then I have to find a way to access to the server. Of course, when the site is down, there are 800 people all hitting F5 simultaneously to see if the site is still up, which means that the site doesn't come up automatically... and ssh access is slow as molasses, or worse. Of course, I can always reboot the machine remotely... but that runs the serious risk of causing data loss.
For Thursday night, I will bring two additional servers on-line (thanks, Amazon!), and hope for the best...
We already have devolved government in England - in London. It works very well. Why not a similar system in Manchester?
A ludicrous assertion. Compare the powers of the Greater London Authority with the Scottish Parliament. The former is a Crossmanite scheme of centralising the powers of local authorities, whereas the latter can make primary legislation. Creating seven equivalents to the GLA in the rest of England is no solution at all to the West Lothian question.
Why not both? Have devolved governance for our larger metropolitan areas, and also have EVfEL for England as a whole.
Just got an e-mail from Dave reprising some of his speech and asking me to help him save the UK. Obviously someone hasn't told him about my modest efforts to date. I think the phone banks for No just got a serious boost. Excellent.
It's giving large amounts of power to the constituent parts of England so that they can do something more useful with it than Westminster does. On the whole the people of Manchester have a much better idea of what is good for Manchester than the people of Kent have.
I am afraid that if the way county and district councils are run is any measure then all you will be doing is wasting a huge amount of money.
It is utterly unnecessary when we can simply deal with the WLQ with EVEL.
We only need to look at Tower Hamlets, Haringey or Rotherham to see the level of competence that exists at sub-national government. Plus there's the fact that people will vote for these regional parliaments based on national trends, so there'll be little accountability for them. This is magnified by the fact that there's no media for, say, the South East of England.
The existing regions might work for statistics but they are stupid for governance purposes. Essex has more in common with Kent than it does with Norfolk. Why should the Northwest get control of Liverpool and Manchester, yet the home counties be cut off from London. The discussion in London is whether the Mayor should get control of commuter routes, which seems highly dodgy if people in Buckinghamshire or Surrey don't get a vote for the guy. Lincolnshire is sliced between regions for no good reason. Cornwall doesn't get on with Devon. Etc etc, the whole regional proposal is foolish.
It's giving large amounts of power to the constituent parts of England so that they can do something more useful with it than Westminster does. On the whole the people of Manchester have a much better idea of what is good for Manchester than the people of Kent have.
We already have devolved government in England - in London. It works very well. Why not a similar system in Manchester?
If England wants to devolve power, that's fine. What's not fine is for the UK to directly devolve power to English regions. It's as if we said to Scotland "you're much bigger than Northern Ireland and Wales, we are going to split you into two before devolution".
Exactly right. Parliament wouldn't care split Scotland into Highlands and Lowlands. Yet they're happy to cut up England all over.
Does anyone know if there is a way to see the Betfair market without going via their site - it's blocked at work? I don't actually need to be able to bet.
Oddschecker...
Thanks. I suspect that one is banned too. Any other possibilities?
It's giving large amounts of power to the constituent parts of England so that they can do something more useful with it than Westminster does. On the whole the people of Manchester have a much better idea of what is good for Manchester than the people of Kent have.
I am afraid that if the way county and district councils are run is any measure then all you will be doing is wasting a huge amount of money.
It is utterly unnecessary when we can simply deal with the WLQ with EVEL.
We only need to look at Tower Hamlets, Haringey or Rotherham to see the level of competence that exists at sub-national government. Plus there's the fact that people will vote for these regional parliaments based on national trends, so there'll be little accountability for them. This is magnified by the fact that there's no media for, say, the South East of England.
The existing regions might work for statistics but they are stupid for governance purposes. Essex has more in common with Kent than it does with Norfolk. Why should the Northwest get control of Liverpool and Manchester, yet the home counties be cut off from London. The discussion in London is whether the Mayor should get control of commuter routes, which seems highly dodgy if people in Buckinghamshire or Surrey don't get a vote for the guy. Lincolnshire is sliced between regions for no good reason. Cornwall doesn't get on with Devon. Etc etc, the whole regional proposal is foolish.
Eddie Izzard has been leading a BT rally in Trafalgar Sq. Given his record with AV, joining the € and backing Gordon Brown. Should we all be lumping on Yes?
Why not both? Have devolved governance for our larger metropolitan areas, and also have EVfEL for England as a whole.
If the people of England want to replicate the GLA-model throughout the country that is, of course, their choice. What should not be subject to dispute is that English local government is a matter for the English, just as Scots local government is a matter for the Scots, and Welsh local government a matter for the Welsh. The UK Parliament has no right to attempt to avoid the West Lothian question by imposing on the people of England regional government.
WLQ is such a small problem. The bigger issue for England is how to govern England better. Less Westminster is a very necessary part of the answer.
Fine, but I don't want to roll back the state at Westminster only to get a much greater level of bureaucracy at a regional level I don't identify with. We already have governance at the parish, district, county, national and European levels. Why on Earth do we need another one?
After a terrible week for Con last week with YouGov (average Lab lead 4.8), Ashcroft (7) and Opinium (8), today is much more encouraging - ICM (2), Populus (1) and Ashcroft (0).
I was only thinking that myself .... quite a turnaround in a few days. YouGov still to come later this evening.
Nothing much has happened in the last few days to justify a change - other than maybe Cameron visibility re Scotland.
So I don't think Con supporters should get their hopes up too much - a lot of the changes are probably just random variation. But at the same time it's mildly encouraging.
Well, we'll just have to disagree. The WLQ does need answering; on that, I think we can agree. And while I disagree with Ferguson's argument, which essentially comes down to that we shouldn't have an English parliament because the London media is lazy, I do think he's stumbled across something resembling the true problem.
An separate English parliament would too closely resemble the UK one to be anything other than a rival and near-duplicate; an English parliament comprising only English MPs of the UK parliament would cause too many tensions within Westminster with differing mandates and the ridiculous position that a government could win votes of confidence and pass budgets to stay in office and raise money, but had policies imposed upon it by the 'opposition' as to how to spend that money.
Westminster should have a single purpose: the Federal Parliament of the United Kingdom. Devolution, which must happen to rebalance the equation with Wales and N Ireland, never mind what happens in Scotland, should be to English regions. If there needs to be further discussion on where the borders should be, fine - but that doesn't change the central point.
The WLQ can be answered without either an English Parliament or regionalisation. All it needs is an EVEL in the current Parliament. This should have been a priority for the Tories from the start of this Parliament but I suspect they would not have run with this because of the effect it might have had on the Independence vote.
I dislike EVEL as a solution as you could easily have a situation where Labour ministers head all the departments but are incapable of getting any legislation through because while they have a majority at UK level, on which a vote of confidence is based, they have none in England. I don't think it would be a tenable situation.
Let Westminster deal with defence, the economy, foreign affairs, and matters of genuine UK-wide concern, and devolve the rest.
Sorry but for me the Balkanisation of England would be the very worst thing we could do. Adding yet another useless tier of government is a ludicrous idea, as is the idea that we should do so just to deal with the Scottish problem when there are much simpler and more constructive ways to do this.
To some extent, that tier already exists and this would simply be adding a greater degree of democratic control and accountability to it. But there's no reason why it should be simply an 'extra' layer of politicians: the Commons could be cut down to 400 MPs, the Lords to 200 max, and the two-tier local authorities areas cut down to unitaries. I'm sure that would produce fewer politicians.
Why not both? Have devolved governance for our larger metropolitan areas, and also have EVfEL for England as a whole.
If the people of England want to replicate the GLA-model throughout the country that is, of course, their choice. What should not be subject to dispute is that English local government is a matter for the English, just as Scots local government is a matter for the Scots, and Welsh local government a matter for the Welsh. The UK Parliament has no right to attempt to avoid the West Lothian question by imposing on the people of England regional government.
I agree. We should bring in EVfEL to solve the West Lothian Question. Then the English Grand Committee should look at city governance and bring in a new structure there.
Socrates, the Prescott regions are indeed largely useless, in part because the citizenry do not identify with them and so would not be engaged with the decisions of a regional authority or the outcomes of a policy. It's different in London and would be in northern cities and other places. The criminal law need not be devolved (hence EngParl in some form), but the decisions that affect most of Whitehall's spending departments (health, education, trade) could be devolved.
But those areas have very limited powers, what is not (necessarily) required is another level of politicians but genuine powers devolved to the appropriate level.
If Greater Manchester want to lower income tax but introduce a hotels tax then why should they not be able to do so?
This is how most developed countries operate, decisions are made close to the people, not by civil servants hundreds of miles away with limited knowledge of the areas they are making decisions about.
WLQ is such a small problem. The bigger issue for England is how to govern England better. Less Westminster is a very necessary part of the answer.
Fine, but I don't want to roll back the state at Westminster only to get a much greater level of bureaucracy at a regional level I don't identify with. We already have governance at the parish, district, county, national and European levels. Why on Earth do we need another one?
Who in the English regions is calling for an extra layer of government? In Manc they certainly are not, they just want to have the same powers as the local authorities in Geneva, Munich, Turin, Barcelona etc.
I agree. We should bring in EVfEL to solve the West Lothian Question. Then the English Grand Committee should look at city governance and bring in a new structure there.
David Herdson is right that English votes for English laws is, on its own, incoherent. Suppose for instance that Labour had a majority of MPs, but the Conservatives a majority of English MPs. How could HM Principal Secretary of State for Education or Health, whose responsibilities do not extend west of the Severn or north of the Tweed, legitimately be a Labour MP? A separate English administration is needed as well.
Socrates, the Prescott regions are indeed largely useless, in part because the citizenry do not identify with them and so would not be engaged with the decisions of a regional authority or the outcomes of a policy. It's different in London and would be in northern cities and other places. The criminal law need not be devolved (hence EngParl in some form), but the decisions that affect most of Whitehall's spending departments (health, education, trade) could be devolved.
Why on Earth should London have a separate education system from the home counties? We'd end up with all sorts of politically correct crap to appease the immigrant communities that have been shipped in due to Labour's open borders. In the US, they're trying to go the other way with Common Core to make up for their stupidly disaggregated system.
Why on Earth should London have a separate education system from the home counties?
Why should people from rural areas (with one local school) have an absurdly metropolitan choice agenda thrust upon them? One policy for the whole of England has been crazy.
Well, we'll just have to disagree. The WLQ does need answering; on that, I think we can agree. And while I disagree with Ferguson's argument, which essentially comes down to that we shouldn't have an English parliament because the London media is lazy, I do think he's stumbled across something resembling the true problem.
An separate English parliament would too closely resemble the UK one to be anything other than a rival and near-duplicate; an English parliament comprising only English MPs of the UK parliament would cause too many tensions within Westminster with differing mandates and the ridiculous position that a government could win votes of confidence and pass budgets to stay in office and raise money, but had policies imposed upon it by the 'opposition' as to how to spend that money.
Westminster should have a single purpose: the Federal Parliament of the United Kingdom. Devolution, which must happen to rebalance the equation with Wales and N Ireland, never mind what happens in Scotland, should be to English regions. If there needs to be further discussion on where the borders should be, fine - but that doesn't change the central point.
The WLQ can be answered without either an English Parliament or regionalisation. All it needs is an EVEL in the current Parliament. This should have been a priority for the Tories from the start of this Parliament but I suspect they would not have run with this because of the effect it might have had on the Independence vote.
I dislike EVEL as a solution as you could easily have a situation where Labour ministers head all the departments but are incapable of getting any legislation through because while they have a majority at UK level, on which a vote of confidence is based, they have none in England. I don't think it would be a tenable situation.
Let Westminster deal with defence, the economy, foreign affairs, and matters of genuine UK-wide concern, and devolve the rest.
If Labour lack a majority in England why should they be able to pass English only legislation and why should they head English only departments?
The PM is a Tory but the head of Department for Welsh health care sure isn't. Why can't there be a Labour PM for UK wide issues but under EVEL a Tory government for devolved matters if that's the way people voted? Scotland and Wales have that situation.
One parliament with some part-time members acting for two governments is a new one to me but I don't think that would work either with potentially parties swapping backwards and forwards across the House depending on what the Bill in question was.
Indeed, why can local people have a greater influence over the decisions that affect their live.
If Merseysider elect people who offer a different electoral system than those in London then why should they have something they do not want imposed from hundreds of miles away?
Why on Earth should London have a separate education system from the home counties?
Why should people from rural areas (with one local school) have an absurdly metropolitan choice agenda thrust upon them? One policy for the whole of England has been crazy.
Why on Earth should London have a separate education system from the home counties?
Why should people from rural areas (with one local school) have an absurdly metropolitan choice agenda thrust upon them? One policy for the whole of England has been crazy.
One parliament with some part-time members acting for two governments is a new one to me but I don't think that would work either with potentially parties swapping backwards and forwards across the House depending on what the Bill in question was.
You could pass an Act of Parliament creating a separate English Parliament, which used the existing premises and whose members were existing English MPs. The English Parliament could sit for two or three days a week, the Union Parliament for the remainder.
I agree. We should bring in EVfEL to solve the West Lothian Question. Then the English Grand Committee should look at city governance and bring in a new structure there.
David Herdson is right that English votes for English laws is, on its own, incoherent. Suppose for instance that Labour had a majority of MPs, but the Conservatives a majority of English MPs. How could HM Principal Secretary of State for Education or Health, whose responsibilities do not extend west of the Severn or north of the Tweed, legitimately be a Labour MP? A separate English administration is needed as well.
If you want to go that way you don't need a Secretary of State for Education at the UK level, as education would be a devolved matter.
It's giving large amounts of power to the constituent parts of England so that they can do something more useful with it than Westminster does. On the whole the people of Manchester have a much better idea of what is good for Manchester than the people of Kent have.
I am afraid that if the way county and district councils are run is any measure then all you will be doing is wasting a huge amount of money.
It is utterly unnecessary when we can simply deal with the WLQ with EVEL.
We only need to look at Tower Hamlets, Haringey or Rotherham to see the level of competence that exists at sub-national government. Plus there's the fact that people will vote for these regional parliaments based on national trends, so there'll be little accountability for them. This is magnified by the fact that there's no media for, say, the South East of England.
The existing regions might work for statistics but they are stupid for governance purposes. Essex has more in common with Kent than it does with Norfolk. Why should the Northwest get control of Liverpool and Manchester, yet the home counties be cut off from London. The discussion in London is whether the Mayor should get control of commuter routes, which seems highly dodgy if people in Buckinghamshire or Surrey don't get a vote for the guy. Lincolnshire is sliced between regions for no good reason. Cornwall doesn't get on with Devon. Etc etc, the whole regional proposal is foolish.
No it's not, you're just not thinking small enough. Try telling the people of Essex they have anything in common with Kent. Both Kent and Essex have populations of 1.7 million, there are twelve smaller states of the USA. Cornwall has a similar population to Luxemburg which is a constituent member of the EU.
What is necessary is choosing those issues that are left to a residual English government, some transport (trains, motorways) might be one of them.
At the moment an English Parliament would not have control over the criminal Justice system. As it is and England and Wales system it will still need to be handled at a UK level. Even if it were to be devolved to Wales it would take well over a decade. Wales has not got the capacity to run a separate legal system at the moment, let alone afford the costs of running its own prison estate. Devo max to Scotland is simple as it has always been governed differently. Devo max to England and Wales is far more complicated due to our integration.
Why on Earth should London have a separate education system from the home counties?
Why should people from rural areas (with one local school) have an absurdly metropolitan choice agenda thrust upon them? One policy for the whole of England has been crazy.
Twitter John Stevens @johnestevens 19m The National Union of Journalists has said reporters must be allowed to cover Scotland's independence debate without fear of intimidation
I remember a couple of hours of that day quite clearly. I was standing on the corner of Upper St and Canonbury Street in Islington visiting my grandparents who lived at 260 Upper St (with my parents of course) when there was a heavy drone of German aircraft coming nearer, it seemed. The time was about midday as we were due for lunch. Going upstairs into my grandma's kitchen, I looked out of the window to see high up overhead the contrails of planes like wheeling silver dots, now heading away from my eyesight. No bombs were dropped in my hearing, that I remember, but the all clear didn't sound until 5 o'clock. I was six years old.
Thank you Mike. The number who can give us an eye-witness account are dwindling, and it's good to be reminded.
It's giving large amounts of power to the constituent parts of England so that they can do something more useful with it than Westminster does. On the whole the people of Manchester have a much better idea of what is good for Manchester than the people of Kent have.
I am afraid that if the way county and district councils are run is any measure then all you will be doing is wasting a huge amount of money.
It is utterly unnecessary when we can simply deal with the WLQ with EVEL.
We only need to look at Tower Hamlets, Haringey or Rotherham to see the level of competence that exists at sub-national government. Plus there's the fact that people will vote for these regional parliaments based on national trends, so there'll be little accountability for them. This is magnified by the fact that there's no media for, say, the South East of England.
The existing regions might work for statistics but they are stupid for governance purposes. Essex has more in common with Kent than it does with Norfolk. Why should the Northwest get control of Liverpool and Manchester, yet the home counties be cut off from London. The discussion in London is whether the Mayor should get control of commuter routes, which seems highly dodgy if people in Buckinghamshire or Surrey don't get a vote for the guy. Lincolnshire is sliced between regions for no good reason. Cornwall doesn't get on with Devon. Etc etc, the whole regional proposal is foolish.
Each of those specific questions could be dealt with through local referendums asking people which region they want to be part of, with the exception of the South East doughnut which I accept is an anomaly but frankly there will always be some anomalies.
I agree. We should bring in EVfEL to solve the West Lothian Question. Then the English Grand Committee should look at city governance and bring in a new structure there.
David Herdson is right that English votes for English laws is, on its own, incoherent. Suppose for instance that Labour had a majority of MPs, but the Conservatives a majority of English MPs. How could HM Principal Secretary of State for Education or Health, whose responsibilities do not extend west of the Severn or north of the Tweed, legitimately be a Labour MP? A separate English administration is needed as well.
If you want to go that way you don't need a Secretary of State for Education at the UK level, as education would be a devolved matter.
Indeed, we shouldn't have one at the moment. The post should be called "education minister for England" and not sit in the Cabinet.
What's clear is a No vote will fairly quickly move the constitutional agenda on to England, post the GE and whatever Devo max is agreed with/on Scotland over the next few months.
A Yes largely resolves it as the Wales/NI anamolies would be so small as to be resolvable without too much colossal upheaval for England.
Just read the first few lines of Ferguson's idiocy on why an English Parliament would be terrible. For the sake of time (I should be working) and loathing I stopped reading, but did enjoy the very sensible comments by Mr. Slackbladder and Mr. T.
Well, we'll just have to disagree. The WLQ does need answering; on that, I think we can agree. And while I disagree with Ferguson's argument, which essentially comes down to that we shouldn't have an English parliament because the London media is lazy, I do think he's stumbled across something resembling the true problem.
An separate English parliament would too closely resemble the UK one to be anything other than a rival and near-duplicate; an English parliament comprising only English MPs of the UK parliament would cause too many tensions within Westminster with differing mandates and the ridiculous position that a government could win votes of confidence and pass budgets to stay in office and raise money, but had policies imposed upon it by the 'opposition' as to how to spend that money.
Westminster should have a single purpose: the Federal Parliament of the United Kingdom. Devolution, which must happen to rebalance the equation with Wales and N Ireland, never mind what happens in Scotland, should be to English regions. If there needs to be further discussion on where the borders should be, fine - but that doesn't change the central point.
The WLQ can be answered without either an English Parliament or regionalisation. All it needs is an EVEL in the current Parliament. This should have been a priority for the Tories from the start of this Parliament but I suspect they would not have run with this because of the effect it might have had on the Independence vote.
I dislike EVEL as a solution as you could easily have a situation where Labour ministers head all the departments but are incapable of getting any legislation through because while they have a majority at UK level, on which a vote of confidence is based, they have none in England. I don't think it would be a tenable situation.
Let Westminster deal with defence, the economy, foreign affairs, and matters of genuine UK-wide concern, and devolve the rest.
It happens to the best of us David - I carefully crafted a Betting Post on here one evening last week and then the very next morning it was presented as the thread writer's (you know who you are) original thinking, without so much as a hat tip ..... shocking!
There is a very simple answer to all this. Reduce the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster. Why doesn't this idea get taken seriously?
Because it's the worst of both worlds. Scots MPs get to vote on issues that don't concern them, while the people of Scotland are underrepresented on UK issues.
'Peoples' of England is quite wrong. We are one people.
Mr. Tyndall, I'm unconvinced English votes on English laws would work. An improvement on what we have now, but not, I fear, sufficient. Would a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs order them to hold back and risk defeat after defeat? I find it incredible.
It would not be a choice. For it to work it would need a law that proscribed MPs from Scottish seats voting on any laws or issues that were devolved to Holyrood.
Two problems:
1. ministers make executive decisions all the time; you would allow a minister that only became one because of Scottish MPs to make decisions about England 2. many (most) laws, even when they primarily affect England, will contain provisions that relate to Scotland (i.e. university teaching funding and policy is devolved, but research funding is not)
After a terrible week for Con last week with YouGov (average Lab lead 4.8), Ashcroft (7) and Opinium (8), today is much more encouraging - ICM (2), Populus (1) and Ashcroft (0).
I was only thinking that myself .... quite a turnaround in a few days. YouGov still to come later this evening.
Nothing much has happened in the last few days to justify a change - other than maybe Cameron visibility re Scotland.
So I don't think Con supporters should get their hopes up too much - a lot of the changes are probably just random variation. But at the same time it's mildly encouraging.
I think last week was about Gordon saving the Union, and this week is about Cameron saving it again and talking hawkishly about ISIS. Like others I'd wait for the referendum and the conferences and a couple of weeks thereafter to see where we really are.
It's giving large amounts of power to the constituent parts of England so that they can do something more useful with it than Westminster does. On the whole the people of Manchester have a much better idea of what is good for Manchester than the people of Kent have.
I am afraid that if the way county and district councils are run is any measure then all you will be doing is wasting a huge amount of money.
It is utterly unnecessary when we can simply deal with the WLQ with EVEL.
We only need to look at Tower Hamlets, Haringey or Rotherham to see the level of competence that exists at sub-national government. Plus there's the fact that people will vote for these regional parliaments based on national trends, so there'll be little accountability for them. This is magnified by the fact that there's no media for, say, the South East of England.
The existing regions might work for statistics but they are stupid for governance purposes. Essex has more in common with Kent than it does with Norfolk. Why should the Northwest get control of Liverpool and Manchester, yet the home counties be cut off from London. The discussion in London is whether the Mayor should get control of commuter routes, which seems highly dodgy if people in Buckinghamshire or Surrey don't get a vote for the guy. Lincolnshire is sliced between regions for no good reason. Cornwall doesn't get on with Devon. Etc etc, the whole regional proposal is foolish.
Each of those specific questions could be dealt with through local referendums asking people which region they want to be part of, with the exception of the South East doughnut which I accept is an anomaly but frankly there will always be some anomalies.
well why not give people in the South East the same choice? Living in Hampshire, I am not sure that being forced to be part of a region including Oxford and Milton Keynes does anything to bring government decisions closer to home. Whereas the traditional county of Hampshire is surely big enough to run its own affairs.
It happens to the best of us David - I carefully crafted a Betting Post on here one evening last week and then the very next morning it was presented as the thread writer's (you know who you are) original thinking, without so much as a hat tip ..... shocking!
I notice all this years extraordinary political events have seen PB's Alexa ranking getting close to being within the top 100,000 website's on the internet!
Mike will have ad networks beating his door down soon...
As technical admin on this site, can I just say big traffic spikes are a f*cking pain. My phone starts beeping when the site goes down, wherever I am in the world, and then I have to find a way to access to the server. Of course, when the site is down, there are 800 people all hitting F5 simultaneously to see if the site is still up, which means that the site doesn't come up automatically... and ssh access is slow as molasses, or worse. Of course, I can always reboot the machine remotely... but that runs the serious risk of causing data loss.
For Thursday night, I will bring two additional servers on-line (thanks, Amazon!), and hope for the best...
We all really appreciate your hard word in keeping the show on the road.
I was at the Trafalgar Square rally. Entire place was packed. Pretty impressive for something that letsstaytogether only decided to organise 3 days ago, as I understand it.
Will it have any effect? Probably not. But at least the Scots know that we do care, and we don't want them to go.
My brother was there too, he said it was great.
May not make a difference but, it certainly won't have hurt.
SeanT Well done, you have done your bit for the cause, tried to get some friends who work in London and my sister to go too, though sadly she had a work do. Good to see there was a big attendance and congratulations to Dan Snow for organising it!
To some extent, that tier already exists and this would simply be adding a greater degree of democratic control and accountability to it. But there's no reason why it should be simply an 'extra' layer of politicians: the Commons could be cut down to 400 MPs, the Lords to 200 max, and the two-tier local authorities areas cut down to unitaries. I'm sure that would produce fewer politicians.
So we have the worst of all worlds. Those issue which should ideally be dealt with at a national level such as health and education would be devolved down to a postcode lottery of regionalisation whist those issues which are ideally dealt with at a local level of county or district would be shoved up to a regional level which would inevitably be dominated by the cities.
Of course the best result would be to have an Independent Scotland and leave the English constitutional settlement as it is which would make all of this talk of regional government unnecessary.
Same to be found in other places like Switzerland that operate pretty well.
I still don't see why we can't have a reciprocal agreement on Scots MPs not voting on devolved matters in England.
Can't win a majority in England or come to an accommodation with enough MPs there for a coalition? So what. You don;t deserve to govern Britain anyway.
I notice all this years extraordinary political events have seen PB's Alexa ranking getting close to being within the top 100,000 website's on the internet!
Mike will have ad networks beating his door down soon...
As technical admin on this site, can I just say big traffic spikes are a f*cking pain. My phone starts beeping when the site goes down, wherever I am in the world, and then I have to find a way to access to the server. Of course, when the site is down, there are 800 people all hitting F5 simultaneously to see if the site is still up, which means that the site doesn't come up automatically... and ssh access is slow as molasses, or worse. Of course, I can always reboot the machine remotely... but that runs the serious risk of causing data loss.
For Thursday night, I will bring two additional servers on-line (thanks, Amazon!), and hope for the best...
I thought it was all done by magic. There's my illusions shattered.
It's giving large amounts of power to the constituent parts of England so that they can do something more useful with it than Westminster does. On the whole the people of Manchester have a much better idea of what is good for Manchester than the people of Kent have.
I am afraid that if the way county and district councils are run is any measure then all you will be doing is wasting a huge amount of money.
It is utterly unnecessary when we can simply deal with the WLQ with EVEL.
We only need to look at Tower Hamlets, Haringey or Rotherham to see the level of competence that exists at sub-national government. Plus there's the fact that people will vote for these regional parliaments based on national trends, so there'll be little accountability for them. This is magnified by the fact that there's no media for, say, the South East of England.
The existing regions might work for statistics but they are stupid for governance purposes. Essex has more in common with Kent than it does with Norfolk. Why should the Northwest get control of Liverpool and Manchester, yet the home counties be cut off from London. The discussion in London is whether the Mayor should get control of commuter routes, which seems highly dodgy if people in Buckinghamshire or Surrey don't get a vote for the guy. Lincolnshire is sliced between regions for no good reason. Cornwall doesn't get on with Devon. Etc etc, the whole regional proposal is foolish.
Each of those specific questions could be dealt with through local referendums asking people which region they want to be part of, with the exception of the South East doughnut which I accept is an anomaly but frankly there will always be some anomalies.
well why not give people in the South East the same choice? Living in Hampshire, I am not sure that being forced to be part of a region including Oxford and Milton Keynes does anything to bring government decisions closer to home. Whereas the traditional county of Hampshire is surely big enough to run its own affairs.
Fair enough. I'm far from wedded to the existing administrative regions; it's just that I couldn't think up a decent proposal for the SE but if that would work, fine.
I see the new voters registering for Yes just a touch hard to believe in totality. From a basic, non aligned standpoint.
Surely two things should be considered:
1) 16 and 17 year olds registering en masse now that they can. Would've thought nearly all of them would sign up. 2) It's a decision for everyone's future. Yes or no, surely everyone wants a say?
No slight on anyone. I personally, just find it hard to believe that nearly every new voter is a Yes on the extreme I've seen to the majority signing on the more considered side to sign up for Yes.
It may be the case that what I've just criticised becomes the case, and that's fine. Just from a logical standpoint, I can't see it because, it's a referendum on the future of a nation.
Surely everyone, wants a say, whatever way they vote, No and Yes?
I think about 10% of the population move house every year. The last time Electoral Roll was updated was last autumn, so at least some of the new registrations will be people updating their records and not wanting to miss out on this most important vote. It also means, I think, that a turnout rate above 90% is impossible because of people who no longer live there or have died. In which case an 80% turnout is effectively 90% - unless I have completely misunderstood the calculations - which is entirely possible
Have you considered the point that some of those 'new' voters are adults who dropped off the roll over the years through neglecting to register (e.g. after moves)? The classic example is the voter in a seat which is solid Labour (or has been) but with miserable turnout. The lefties and Greens in Yes have been encouraging such registrations, and so too the No campaign.
One argument - so it runs - is that part of this registration is due to disenchantment with the current setup, so if they have registered they are more likely to vote for change than bother confirming the status quo. On the other hand, the opposite could be argued, now that we are in a vote where everyone's vote counts and would make a difference. But we will see who is right come Friday.
So, with all these extra registered voters, Scotland may gain MPs in the next round of boundary changes? (assuming a No vote)
And IIRC the average constituency population is rather higher than England
You dont remember correctly.
Indeed not - I meant to say the opposite as I hoped the rest implied. Idiot.
Oh Richard, the health service suffers enormously from the absurd central control imposed by Whitehall. In Denmark it's controlled locally, is more responsive to local needs and generally better.
It happens to the best of us David - I carefully crafted a Betting Post on here one evening last week and then the very next morning it was presented as the thread writer's (you know who you are) original thinking, without so much as a hat tip ..... shocking!
I hope that wasn't me?!
No David, it wasn't ...... that doesn't leave many does it, by a process of elimination!
To some extent, that tier already exists and this would simply be adding a greater degree of democratic control and accountability to it. But there's no reason why it should be simply an 'extra' layer of politicians: the Commons could be cut down to 400 MPs, the Lords to 200 max, and the two-tier local authorities areas cut down to unitaries. I'm sure that would produce fewer politicians.
So we have the worst of all worlds. Those issue which should ideally be dealt with at a national level such as health and education would be devolved down to a postcode lottery of regionalisation whist those issues which are ideally dealt with at a local level of county or district would be shoved up to a regional level which would inevitably be dominated by the cities.
Of course the best result would be to have an Independent Scotland and leave the English constitutional settlement as it is which would make all of this talk of regional government unnecessary.
Very little political-speak annoys me as much as the phrase 'postcode lottery'. It's not a lottery as long as there is political control by democratically-accountable individuals.
Same to be found in other places like Switzerland that operate pretty well.
The UK is 4 home unions with one dominant one, the England. So a federal structure on those lines would still give prominance to england. The German states are more even. 16. Why break up England? Is Scotland willing to be broken up into say 4? No.
The German system is not like ours and I suspect the Scots would not want to be run on a similar line. It would probably mean autonomy for Glasgow and Edinburgh and not suit the Scottish nationalists since it would break up Scotland as well as England. Do we really want to spend months years tearing up our local authority structure and inventing a new one which will probably please nobody?
Same to be found in other places like Switzerland that operate pretty well.
But Germany does not have anything the size of an England. Bavaria or NRW are the biggest and must be about 15-20% each of the total not 85% ( 90% without Scotland). Pleasant historical accident due to late unification for Germany of course combined with the Allies officially abolishing Prussia in 1947 which was Germany's nearest thing to England in terms of relative size.
I'd be dead against carving England up so it "fits" ( with maybe just maybe London being an exception). But that does mean a British government in a Devo Max all round world would be doing foreign affairs/EU, immigration, overarching economics, defence and not much else.
'Peoples' of England is quite wrong. We are one people.
Mr. Tyndall, I'm unconvinced English votes on English laws would work. An improvement on what we have now, but not, I fear, sufficient. Would a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs order them to hold back and risk defeat after defeat? I find it incredible.
It would not be a choice. For it to work it would need a law that proscribed MPs from Scottish seats voting on any laws or issues that were devolved to Holyrood.
Two problems:
1. ministers make executive decisions all the time; you would allow a minister that only became one because of Scottish MPs to make decisions about England 2. many (most) laws, even when they primarily affect England, will contain provisions that relate to Scotland (i.e. university teaching funding and policy is devolved, but research funding is not)
They are not problems, you are simply not thinking radically enough about this.
1. No Minister for a devolved portfolio could come from Scotland.It doesn't matter if their party only won because of Scottish MPs. We have to compromise somewhere if we remain a single nation.
2. Devolve those areas as well. To use your example, why should teaching funding be devolved but research funding not? Devolve all university decisions or none of them.
Currently all the parties are so desperate to keep Scotland in the Union they are allowing the tail to wag the dog. Which is one reason why it would be better all round if Scotland and England had an amicable separation and were each allowed to pursue their own systems of governance suited to the needs and desires of their own people.
On Scotland what is needed is devomax for Holyrood, maybe Cardiff and Belfast too, and English votes for English laws at Westminster. If polls start to show demand for regional assemblies in England, especially in the north, then that can be on the cards too, after all we already have the London Assembly!
SeanT Well done, you have done your bit for the cause, tried to get some friends who work in London and my sister to go too, though sadly she had a work do. Good to see there was a big attendance and congratulations to Dan Snow for organising it!
The organisers were worried about 200 people would show up, as it was all so late-in-the-day, and so - well - unBritish.
But I reckon they got 5,000-10,000 - basically as many as you can squeeze into Trafalgar Square without causing mayhem. It was packed, with a very upbeat atmosphere.
The cybernats are pouring hate all over it, on Twitter, which is always a sign that they're a little worried.
If it has any effect at all, it will be to motivate the NO voters up north rather than persuade any DKs, let alone any YESsers.
Don't knock the effect on the don't knows. A lot of love from England will make a difference.
Also encouraging the Yes brigade to show their nasty side once again does no harm either. That is a major issue on the doorsteps.
On Scotland what is needed is devomax for Holyrood, maybe Cardiff and Belfast too, and English votes for English laws at Westminster. If polls start to show demand for regional assemblies in England, especially in the north, then that can be on the cards too, after all we already have the London Assembly!
I still don;t see how this works because some parts of the UK cannot pay for themselves and are being heavily subsidized by other parts. What's the point of granting tax powers to a country like Wales, which has no wealth and a tiny tax base anyway? Ditto Northern Ireland
After a terrible week for Con last week with YouGov (average Lab lead 4.8), Ashcroft (7) and Opinium (8), today is much more encouraging - ICM (2), Populus (1) and Ashcroft (0).
Unbelievable pb mentality... just accept the Labour lead has increased.
Glasgow is expected by the PA to come through at 5am. But I think it's going to be neck-and-neck there, which will probably mean a delay of at least 3 hours.
So the final result probably won't be in until about 8-9am.
However the result may be obvious by then if one side is already ahead by a substantial margin.
I am suggesting that like Germany, Switerland, France, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, China, Belgium, Netherlands and every single other country on the planet decisions that affect areas should be made as close to those areas as possible.
All those countries have a 'federal' government and strong local areas with huge powers over local issues.
Why can this not work in the UK?
It was only post WW2 that we created this for Germany, why can we not have the same given it has clearly worked so well over there.
Take a trip to just about any major western European city outside of the UK and compare the local transport infrastructure in these cities to the UK equivalent.
Where people have the option to make decisions locally they are often very different from those imposed from hundreds of miles away, this inability to make decisions locally is holding our cities back, massively.
Same to be found in other places like Switzerland that operate pretty well.
The UK is 4 home unions with one dominant one, the England. So a federal structure on those lines would still give prominance to england. The German states are more even. 16. Why break up England? Is Scotland willing to be broken up into say 4? No.
The German system is not like ours and I suspect the Scots would not want to be run on a similar line. It would probably mean autonomy for Glasgow and Edinburgh and not suit the Scottish nationalists since it would break up Scotland as well as England. Do we really want to spend months years tearing up our local authority structure and inventing a new one which will probably please nobody?
Same to be found in other places like Switzerland that operate pretty well.
But Germany does not have anything the size of an England. Bavaria or NRW are the biggest and must be about 15-20% each of the total not 85% ( 90% without Scotland). Pleasant historical accident due to late unification for Germany of course combined with the Allies officially abolishing Prussia in 1947 which was Germany's nearest thing to England in terms of relative size.
I'd be dead against carving England up so it "fits" ( with maybe just maybe London being an exception). But that does mean a British government in a Devo Max all round world would be doing foreign affairs/EU, immigration, overarching economics, defence and not much else.
the only sensible way to square the circle is a confederation including Can Oz and NZ, Ireland too if it;s interested.
This would involve leaving the EU but would be the world's biggest country by area, 3rd biggest economy and have 130 million people. England would be the biggest member but could be outvoted by the rest.
There used to by a moderator ruling asking us not to engage in tedious guessing games about which anonymous poster is really another anonymous poster. Could we have it back? Who cares if Fred is really George? It's one of those in-group things that puts off new posters.
Well said Boris and good luck in your West London marginal...
SeanT From the images I have seen it looked as packed as you say, with a rousing speech by Bob Geldof. The Montreal Unity rally in 1995 probably did swing a few undecideds to No, it was certainly worth the effort and if it infuriates the cybernats all the better for it!
'Peoples' of England is quite wrong. We are one people.
Mr. Tyndall, I'm unconvinced English votes on English laws would work. An improvement on what we have now, but not, I fear, sufficient. Would a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs order them to hold back and risk defeat after defeat? I find it incredible.
It would not be a choice. For it to work it would need a law that proscribed MPs from Scottish seats voting on any laws or issues that were devolved to Holyrood.
Two problems:
1. ministers make executive decisions all the time; you would allow a minister that only became one because of Scottish MPs to make decisions about England 2. many (most) laws, even when they primarily affect England, will contain provisions that relate to Scotland (i.e. university teaching funding and policy is devolved, but research funding is not)
They are not problems, you are simply not thinking radically enough about this.
1. No Minister for a devolved portfolio could come from Scotland.It doesn't matter if their party only won because of Scottish MPs. We have to compromise somewhere if we remain a single nation.
2. Devolve those areas as well. To use your example, why should teaching funding be devolved but research funding not? Devolve all university decisions or none of them.
Currently all the parties are so desperate to keep Scotland in the Union they are allowing the tail to wag the dog. Which is one reason why it would be better all round if Scotland and England had an amicable separation and were each allowed to pursue their own systems of governance suited to the needs and desires of their own people.
While I agree wholeheartedlty with 2, you omit the case where the minister in 1 is only there because of the votes of scottish mps
After a terrible week for Con last week with YouGov (average Lab lead 4.8), Ashcroft (7) and Opinium (8), today is much more encouraging - ICM (2), Populus (1) and Ashcroft (0).
Unbelievable pb mentality... just accept the Labour lead has increased.
With the so-called experts saying that the remaining "don't knows" will break heavily in favour of the status quo (i.e. voting No), I feel that Betfair's Yes band of 40.0% - 45.0% currently offering 3.9 decimal = 11/4 net in real money, represents decent value, but DYOR.
Same to be found in other places like Switzerland that operate pretty well.
But Germany does not have anything the size of an England. Bavaria or NRW are the biggest and must be about 15-20% each of the total not 85% ( 90% without Scotland). Pleasant historical accident due to late unification for Germany of course combined with the Allies officially abolishing Prussia in 1947 which was Germany's nearest thing to England in terms of relative size.
I'd be dead against carving England up so it "fits" ( with maybe just maybe London being an exception). But that does mean a British government in a Devo Max all round world would be doing foreign affairs/EU, immigration, overarching economics, defence and not much else.
the only sensible way to square the circle is a confederation including Can Oz and NZ, Ireland too if it;s interested.
This would involve leaving the EU but would be the world's biggest country by area, 3rd biggest economy and have 130 million people. England would be the biggest member but could be outvoted by the rest.
Carlotta Indeed, he has done little to hide his admiration for Putin and Vladamir will have been hugely grateful for the opportunity a Yes gives to embarrass the West and the UK in particular over the Ukraine
In fact, if you compare California to England, the size of the largest cities (excluding London) the make up of the places is very similar.
No idea why we cannot have similar powers for English cities that Californian cities have other than some idea that only those in London who work in the civil service know what is good for us?
Comments
The existing regions might work for statistics but they are stupid for governance purposes. Essex has more in common with Kent than it does with Norfolk. Why should the Northwest get control of Liverpool and Manchester, yet the home counties be cut off from London. The discussion in London is whether the Mayor should get control of commuter routes, which seems highly dodgy if people in Buckinghamshire or Surrey don't get a vote for the guy. Lincolnshire is sliced between regions for no good reason. Cornwall doesn't get on with Devon. Etc etc, the whole regional proposal is foolish.
For Thursday night, I will bring two additional servers on-line (thanks, Amazon!), and hope for the best...
Sure sounded like it.
Welcome to the party Dave. We've missed you.
Given his record with AV, joining the € and backing Gordon Brown.
Should we all be lumping on Yes?
I half hoped to see some more back and forth tolling.
Alas, not.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/david-camerons-final-plea-to-scottish-voters/
David Cameron has just delivered one of the best speeches of his career in Aberdeen. It was emotional, sincere, clear.
If Greater Manchester want to lower income tax but introduce a hotels tax then why should they not be able to do so?
This is how most developed countries operate, decisions are made close to the people, not by civil servants hundreds of miles away with limited knowledge of the areas they are making decisions about.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/08/22/david-herdson-wonders-how-much-we-can-trust-the-referendum-polls/
Union supporters create huge Cairn of 100,000 stones at Gretna on Scottish border
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756173/The-Union-fights-Thousands-flock-Scottish-cairn-make-emotional-case-against-independence.html
If Merseysider elect people who offer a different electoral system than those in London then why should they have something they do not want imposed from hundreds of miles away?
What is necessary is choosing those issues that are left to a residual English government, some transport (trains, motorways) might be one of them.
John Stevens @johnestevens 19m
The National Union of Journalists has said reporters must be allowed to cover Scotland's independence debate without fear of intimidation
A Yes largely resolves it as the Wales/NI anamolies would be so small as to be resolvable without too much colossal upheaval for England.
Same to be found in other places like Switzerland that operate pretty well.
1. ministers make executive decisions all the time; you would allow a minister that only became one because of Scottish MPs to make decisions about England
2. many (most) laws, even when they primarily affect England, will contain provisions that relate to Scotland (i.e. university teaching funding and policy is devolved, but research funding is not)
May not make a difference but, it certainly won't have hurt.
http://election.pressassociation.com/Declaration_times/scotland_ref_2014_by_time.php
Of course the best result would be to have an Independent Scotland and leave the English constitutional settlement as it is which would make all of this talk of regional government unnecessary.
I still don't see why we can't have a reciprocal agreement on Scots MPs not voting on devolved matters in England.
Can't win a majority in England or come to an accommodation with enough MPs there for a coalition? So what. You don;t deserve to govern Britain anyway.
Much obliged though.
Indeed not - I meant to say the opposite as I hoped the rest implied. Idiot.
I hope that the choice of a cairn does not prove prophetic - given that they were sometimes used for burying someone who had died...
The German system is not like ours and I suspect the Scots would not want to be run on a similar line. It would probably mean autonomy for Glasgow and Edinburgh and not suit the Scottish nationalists since it would break up Scotland as well as England. Do we really want to spend months years tearing up our local authority structure and inventing a new one which will probably please nobody?
I'd be dead against carving England up so it "fits" ( with maybe just maybe London being an exception). But that does mean a British government in a Devo Max all round world would be doing foreign affairs/EU, immigration, overarching economics, defence and not much else.
1. No Minister for a devolved portfolio could come from Scotland.It doesn't matter if their party only won because of Scottish MPs. We have to compromise somewhere if we remain a single nation.
2. Devolve those areas as well. To use your example, why should teaching funding be devolved but research funding not? Devolve all university decisions or none of them.
Currently all the parties are so desperate to keep Scotland in the Union they are allowing the tail to wag the dog. Which is one reason why it would be better all round if Scotland and England had an amicable separation and were each allowed to pursue their own systems of governance suited to the needs and desires of their own people.
Also encouraging the Yes brigade to show their nasty side once again does no harm either. That is a major issue on the doorsteps.
I still don;t see how this works because some parts of the UK cannot pay for themselves and are being heavily subsidized by other parts. What's the point of granting tax powers to a country like Wales, which has no wealth and a tiny tax base anyway? Ditto Northern Ireland
End of.
So the final result probably won't be in until about 8-9am.
However the result may be obvious by then if one side is already ahead by a substantial margin.
I am suggesting that like Germany, Switerland, France, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, China, Belgium, Netherlands and every single other country on the planet decisions that affect areas should be made as close to those areas as possible.
All those countries have a 'federal' government and strong local areas with huge powers over local issues.
Why can this not work in the UK?
It was only post WW2 that we created this for Germany, why can we not have the same given it has clearly worked so well over there.
Take a trip to just about any major western European city outside of the UK and compare the local transport infrastructure in these cities to the UK equivalent.
Where people have the option to make decisions locally they are often very different from those imposed from hundreds of miles away, this inability to make decisions locally is holding our cities back, massively.
This would involve leaving the EU but would be the world's biggest country by area, 3rd biggest economy and have 130 million people. England would be the biggest member but could be outvoted by the rest.
http://www.rorystewart.co.uk/scotland-uk-standing-together/
Similar magnitude to England in size, massively more devolved powers to the cities in California than the cities in England.
Cities having their own tax raising powers, influence over education systems etc etc.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/ten-handy-phrases-for-bluffing-your-way-through-the-constitutional-crisis/
No idea why we cannot have similar powers for English cities that Californian cities have other than some idea that only those in London who work in the civil service know what is good for us?