And if the North of England ruled itself, it would have had a large Labour majority. So what? In a GE I am voting for who I want to be running the whole United Kingdom, not an arbitrary subset of constituencies.
The North East was offered that. And even with Tony Blair (a local MP) selling it we totally and utterly rejected it. The problem is that while many people here hate their local councillors they really hate the ones next door. 50 years of bad management doesn't encourage people to vote to give them more powers.
The other problem with regional government is that there isn't a regional media to cover it in most places. That is a recipe for unaccountable politicians and bad government.
Another issue is that apart from Yorkshire, many of the other regions are artificial creations cobbled together with no shared identity, in particular the SE monstrosity which stretches all the way from Banbury to Dover with little common interest. If you had to have regional government then I would suggest regions as follows:
Devonwall - Devon+Cornwall - 1.6 million people - Assembly in Plymouth West Country - Bristol, Somerset, Gloucs, Wilts - 2.8 million - Bristol South Coast - Dorset, Hampshire, IOW - 2.6 million - Southampton Thames Valley - Berks, Bucks, Oxon - 2.3 million - Aylesbury? South East Coast - Surrey, E&W Sussex, Kent - 4.4 million - Maidstone? London - 8 million - London North home counties - Beds, Herts, Essex - 3.4 million - Stevenage? East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs - 2.4 million - Norwich East Midlands - As is - 4.8 million - Nottingham West Midlands - West Midlands county - 2.7 million - Birmingham South Mercia - Worcs, Hereford, Warks -1.3 million - Worcester North Mercia - Shropshire, Staffs - 1.6 million - Stoke Yorkshire - Yorkshire - 5 million - Leeds Northern England - Northumberland, Durham, Cumbria, T&W - 2.8 million - Newcastle North West - Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside - 6.4 million
No bloody way am I being ruled by those in Nottingham. Or Derby for that matter. They will have to accept the Iron hand of Leicester or be crushed!
Ratae was the Oppida for central Eastern England so there would be some (pre) historic justification for it. :-)
Matters devolved to Scotland, Wales and NI are voted on by representatives elected by proportional representation. First-past-the-post was deliberately shunned here so that no one party could dominate without majority support. Fairness surely dictates the same for England.
Interesting, but fatally flawed in that the Sanity House would end up bigger than the present HoC as the people inside struggled to keep up with the amount of work flowing from the 4 countries Assemblies. They would also have to keep up with the amount of work from the cross border trade and business agreements.
I don't think so. I think you would find that an awful lot of the sanity check work would just be passed through on the nod (as many things currently are). Only if there was something people really objected to would it be debated and delayed...
The Eastern Daily Press covers much of the region and as I say might take the opportunity to expand their coverage into Essex. Anyway, as I say, nature abhors a vacuum... Archant dominate the local free press and might jump in too. BBC regional news is very strong and ITV has a half an hour a day.
The East Midlands? No idea. Not even sure where that is exactly.
The East Midlands contains Leics, Notts, Derbys, and generally includes Northants Lincs and Rutland.
We have a population similar to Scotland, but some of the lowest numbers of percapita spend in the country on health and education. Nonetheless while functioning as a region for some purposes, we are not for others. The folk of Rutland and East Leicestershire are more like the home counties than North Derbyshire, and the folk of Skegness more like the folk of Margate.
The East Midlands is a region. England is our nation.
Derbyshire's an interesting one. I was born in the south of the county, by the T&M canal, and was brought up in that area. When I was a teenager I spent vast amounts of time in the Peak District, which was a different world from south Derbyshire. Then I went to Glossop, and realised that it was different again. Accents, lifestyle, agriculture; there was little commonality.
Most importantly, the populations gravitate towards different places. People in northeastern Derbyshire gravitate towards Sheffield; those in the south Derby, Nottingham and Birmingham. Those in the north Manchester.
Derbyshire's a hodgepodge; yet most people saw themselves as Derbyshire folk.
However any regional splitting of the country would really have to split Derbyshire asunder because of those differences. How could a town just a few miles from Manchester be in the East or West Midlands?
Derbyshire is hardly far from Nottingham, where an East Midlands authority would most likely be based. In the past, Yorkshire CCC had no difficulty in determining that folk born in Derbyshire but living close to Sheffield could not play cricket for Yorkshire. And when I worked for Derby City Council in the past, I did see evidence of there already being a regional identity. The three cities of Derby, Nottingham and Leicester worked closely together at its core. And there was rapid backtracking in response to widespread outrage when East Midlands Airport wanted to identify more closely with Nottingham by changing its name. Devolution of real powers to the region would quickly enhance a regional sense of identity.
You have to put a border somewhere and the choice is the one that causes the least difficulty. Because the UK administrative regions exist and are widely used still, for example recently in European elections, it's a case of working with what we've got.
If EV4EL really comes in with an English Parliament, then I predict the UK will indeed break up in 25 years.
For a simple reason, if all the 4 countries does everyting more or less on their own, what will be the point of the Union ?
Well, that's a bit of a damn fool question. What is the point of the USA? The Bundesrepublik Deutschland? Both have a federal system with significant powers devolved to their states, and still have a strong national government.
That's because USA, Germany, Canada and Australia etc. have no one constituent state that dominates. Federations such as Yugoslavia and USSR where Serbia and Russia dominated, respectively, did not last.
The most separatist part of the UK has just decided it is fine with remaining part of a state where another part has domination on issues like macroeconomics and foreign policy. It's thus not an issue, other than in the minds of left-wingers that want to deny England home rule.
Oh, it will be fine for a while, until either the English decide that a Scottish PM is unacceptable, or the Scots work out that a Scot can never be UK PM again.
That's exactly my point. Unless we have a federal structure with a separate English Parliament / Assembly for EV4EL, effectively the Scots [ and by implication the Welsh and the N Irish ] might as well be told, none of you can ever be Prime Minister.
If EV4EL really comes in with an English Parliament, then I predict the UK will indeed break up in 25 years.
For a simple reason, if all the 4 countries does everyting more or less on their own, what will be the point of the Union ?
Well, that's a bit of a damn fool question. What is the point of the USA? The Bundesrepublik Deutschland? Both have a federal system with significant powers devolved to their states, and still have a strong national government.
That's because USA, Germany, Canada and Australia etc. have no one constituent state that dominates. Federations such as Yugoslavia and USSR where Serbia and Russia dominated, respectively, did not last.
Well, the UK has one constituent part that dominates, that's inescapable because England is so big. Federalism would remove the ability of England to dominate the other constituent parts on domestic issues.
You can't really call Yugoslavia and the USSR federal countries, they were centralised Communist states which effectively started out as Serbian and Russian empires, Yugoslavia had only existed since 1918 and is much more diverse than the UK in terms of native languages and religions - and history, given that parts had been Ottoman and others Austrian or Hungarian.
Australia, Canada and the USA have some quite large discrepancies in population. NSW has a third of the population of the country, and has 15 times the population of the smallest state, Tasmania. In Canada, Ontario again has (just over) a third of the population and has nearly 100 times the population of the smallest province. In the USA California has over 10% of the population (Texas only slightly fewer) about 75 times the population of Wyoming.
So given the very different cultural and historical histories of the four nations that make up the UK, I think there is a degree of diversity that can very easily be managed within a federal state.
If EV4EL really comes in with an English Parliament, then I predict the UK will indeed break up in 25 years.
For a simple reason, if all the 4 countries does everyting more or less on their own, what will be the point of the Union ?
Well, that's a bit of a damn fool question. What is the point of the USA? The Bundesrepublik Deutschland? Both have a federal system with significant powers devolved to their states, and still have a strong national government.
That's because USA, Germany, Canada and Australia etc. have no one constituent state that dominates. Federations such as Yugoslavia and USSR where Serbia and Russia dominated, respectively, did not last.
The most separatist part of the UK has just decided it is fine with remaining part of a state where another part has domination on issues like macroeconomics and foreign policy. It's thus not an issue, other than in the minds of left-wingers that want to deny England home rule.
Oh, it will be fine for a while, until either the English decide that a Scottish PM is unacceptable, or the Scots work out that a Scot can never be UK PM again.
In a proper federal system with an English parliament, the English would be fine with a Scottish PM.
And if the North of England ruled itself, it would have had a large Labour majority. So what? In a GE I am voting for who I want to be running the whole United Kingdom, not an arbitrary subset of constituencies.
The North East was offered that. And even with Tony Blair (a local MP) selling it we totally and utterly rejected it. The problem is that while many people here hate their local councillors they really hate the ones next door. 50 years of bad management doesn't encourage people to vote to give them more powers.
The other problem with regional government is that there isn't a regional media to cover it in most places. That is a recipe for unaccountable politicians and bad government.
Another issue is that apart from Yorkshire, many of the other regions are artificial creations cobbled together with no shared identity, in particular the SE monstrosity which stretches all the way from Banbury to Dover with little common interest. If you had to have regional government then I would suggest regions as follows:
Devonwall - Devon+Cornwall - 1.6 million people - Assembly in Plymouth West Country - Bristol, Somerset, Gloucs, Wilts - 2.8 million - Bristol South Coast - Dorset, Hampshire, IOW - 2.6 million - Southampton Thames Valley - Berks, Bucks, Oxon - 2.3 million - Aylesbury? South East Coast - Surrey, E&W Sussex, Kent - 4.4 million - Maidstone? London - 8 million - London North home counties - Beds, Herts, Essex - 3.4 million - Stevenage? East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs - 2.4 million - Norwich East Midlands - As is - 4.8 million - Nottingham West Midlands - West Midlands county - 2.7 million - Birmingham South Mercia - Worcs, Hereford, Warks -1.3 million - Worcester North Mercia - Shropshire, Staffs - 1.6 million - Stoke Yorkshire - Yorkshire - 5 million - Leeds Northern England - Northumberland, Durham, Cumbria, T&W - 2.8 million - Newcastle North West - Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside - 6.4 million
No bloody way am I being ruled by those in Nottingham. Or Derby for that matter. They will have to accept the Iron hand of Leicester or be crushed!
Ratae was the Oppida for central Eastern England so there would be some (pre) historic justification for it. :-)
Oppidum surely ...
Never was very good at Latin :-)
TBF I know the place well and was wondering if there was a new archaeological discovery I had missed!
You have to put a border somewhere and the choice is the one that causes the least difficulty. Because the UK administrative regions exist and are widely used still, for example recently in European elections, it's a case of working with what we've got.
But that's the failure in your logic. You don't need to put an arbitrary border in anywhere because we can just have an English parliament.
And if the North of England ruled itself, it would have had a large Labour majority. So what? In a GE I am voting for who I want to be running the whole United Kingdom, not an arbitrary subset of constituencies.
e them more powers.
The other problem with regional government is that there isn't a regional media to cover it in most places. That is a recipe for unaccountable politicians and bad government.
Another issue is that apart from Yorkshire, many of the other regions are artificial creations cobbled together with no shared identity, in particular the SE monstrosity which stretches all the way from Banbury to Dover with little common interest. If you had to have regional government then I would suggest regions as follows:
Devonwall - Devon+Cornwall - 1.6 million people - Assembly in Plymouth West Country - Bristol, Somerset, Gloucs, Wilts - 2.8 million - Bristol South Coast - Dorset, Hampshire, IOW - 2.6 million - Southampton Thames Valley - Berks, Bucks, Oxon - 2.3 million - Aylesbury? South East Coast - Surrey, E&W Sussex, Kent - 4.4 million - Maidstone? London - 8 million - London North home counties - Beds, Herts, Essex - 3.4 million - Stevenage? East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs - 2.4 million - Norwich East Midlands - As is - 4.8 million - Nottingham West Midlands - West Midlands county - 2.7 million - Birmingham South Mercia - Worcs, Hereford, Warks -1.3 million - Worcester North Mercia - Shropshire, Staffs - 1.6 million - Stoke Yorkshire - Yorkshire - 5 million - Leeds Northern England - Northumberland, Durham, Cumbria, T&W - 2.8 million - Newcastle North West - Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside - 6.4 million
No bloody way am I being ruled by those in Nottingham. Or Derby for that matter. They will have to accept the Iron hand of Leicester or be crushed!
Don't worry, we'll help you Leicesterians get treatment for your inferiority complex once we rule you from Derby.
And then use you as cannon-fodder in our eternal battle with Nottinghamshire ... ;-)
I will take this opportunity to point out that Leicester City already have half as many points as the sheep did in their last season in the Prem!
(Tomorrow is the visit of stuttering Man United to the fortress of Leicester City. I recommend canny punters lay an MU win. Look out for Liam Moore in central defence as MOTM, the future of an England defence)
If EV4EL really comes in with an English Parliament, then I predict the UK will indeed break up in 25 years.
For a simple reason, if all the 4 countries does everyting more or less on their own, what will be the point of the Union ?
Well, that's a bit of a damn fool question. What is the point of the USA? The Bundesrepublik Deutschland? Both have a federal system with significant powers devolved to their states, and still have a strong national government.
The Bundestag is an even better example. The members are not members of the Berlin Assembly or any other State assembly as far as I know.
If EV4EL really comes in with an English Parliament, then I predict the UK will indeed break up in 25 years.
For a simple reason, if all the 4 countries does everyting more or less on their own, what will be the point of the Union ?
Well, that's a bit of a damn fool question. What is the point of the USA? The Bundesrepublik Deutschland? Both have a federal system with significant powers devolved to their states, and still have a strong national government.
As long as you have a separate English Parliament, that will work. But you Tories want to be cheapskates. You want the MP to also be the MEnP ?
I am not aware that US Congressmen are also Reps for Maryland and Virginia or even Washington DC.
I am not a Tory :-) and I think EV4EL is only practicable as a short term fix (the rest of this Parliament and possibly the next).
I support symmetric devolution - real federalism - although I am worried about creating too many tiers of government for England.
Too many tiers ? I am tired of hearing this. How many tiers do we have ?
Let's take a Londener:
He/she elects a Councillor, an MP, the Mayor [ I am not counting 2/3 councillors because they are not different tiers ]. An MEP.
Let's take a New Yorker:
He/she elects a NY Councillor, the Mayor .[ I do not know if they have Boroughs like we do or if that falls under the Mayor ], State Representative, State Senator, Governer, House Rep, Senator, President.
I am not counting the Police Chief, Chief Dog Pooh collector etc.
You're wrong about Londoners. We elect both local borough councillors and London Assembly members. And Londoners are some of the people with fewest layers of government in England. Others have parish, district, county, national and European.
The US local municipality system is a complete mess in many players, and famous for being local corrupt party machines. We do not want to aspire to what they have in Chicago, New Orleans or Baltimore.
Any citizen of the United States elect more people to public office than anyone in the UK.
People do not have parish and district. It's one or the other.
The federal structure implies a State Assembly, which we do not have. You could argue that if the London Assembly had more powers we do not need AN ev4el mp.
Looking at Switzerland it is exactly the same with regard to the Swiss Germans.
I would posit the reason being that it isn't an issue in Switzerland is that when you pay your taxes the federal portion is in my experience less than 10% of the combined local and state taxes, of course it does vary by 'state' and I live in one of the most expensive. However, there is tax competition, many people live in Vaud and work in Geneva for that very reason. That's before you even think of mentioning places like Zug.
The Eastern Daily Press covers much of the region and as I say might take the opportunity to expand their coverage into Essex. Anyway, as I say, nature abhors a vacuum... Archant dominate the local free press and might jump in too. BBC regional news is very strong and ITV has a half an hour a day.
The East Midlands? No idea. Not even sure where that is exactly.
The East Midlands contains Leics, Notts, Derbys, and generally includes Northants Lincs and Rutland.
We have a population similar to Scotland, but some of the lowest numbers of percapita spend in the country on health and education. Nonetheless while functioning as a region for some purposes, we are not for others. The folk of Rutland and East Leicestershire are more like the home counties than North Derbyshire, and the folk of Skegness more like the folk of Margate.
The East Midlands is a region. England is our nation.
Derbyshire's an interesting one. I was born in the south of the county, by the T&M canal, and was brought up in that area. When I was a teenager I spent vast amounts of time in the Peak District, which was a different world from south Derbyshire. Then I went to Glossop, and realised that it was different again. Accents, lifestyle, agriculture; there was little commonality.
Most importantly, the populations gravitate towards different places. People in northeastern Derbyshire gravitate towards Sheffield; those in the south Derby, Nottingham and Birmingham. Those in the north Manchester.
Derbyshire's a hodgepodge; yet most people saw themselves as Derbyshire folk.
However any regional splitting of the country would really have to split Derbyshire asunder because of those differences. How could a town just a few miles from Manchester be in the East or West Midlands?
The ceremonial county of Derbyshire (ie including the City of Derby which is a unitary authority) has a population of over a million, bigger than some states of the USA and of the same order as Northern Ireland. It doesn't need to be part of anything bigger.
Matters devolved to Scotland, Wales and NI are voted on by representatives elected by proportional representation. First-past-the-post was deliberately shunned here so that no one party could dominate without majority support. Fairness surely dictates the same for England.
Nope. All PR does (in most of the forms people discuss on here) is entrench the powers of the parties. We want less powers for the parties not more.
PR would actually greatly help the party I currently support but I would still not want it as I believe that overall it is bad for democracy.
Is anyone seriously suggesting we are going to have different rates of Income Tax in different parts of England?
Or how about different rates of National Insurance? VAT? Corporation Tax? Capital Gains Tax? Inheritance Tax?
As for state benefits - how about different state pensions? Different retirement ages?
It is blindingly obvious that none of this is going to happen.
So what are we actually talking about? People need to state exactly what things really might be devolved.
How much would the average member of the public actually notice?
It seems to me this is a debate about idealism - "wouldn't it be great to have lots of things devolved" - but when you start thinking about the detail it's not going to amount to much.
Derbyshire is hardly far from Nottingham, where an East Midlands authority would most likely be based. In the past, Yorkshire CCC had no difficulty in determining that folk born in Derbyshire but living close to Sheffield could not play cricket for Yorkshire. And when I worked for Derby City Council in the past, I did see evidence of there already being a regional identity. The three cities of Derby, Nottingham and Leicester worked closely together at its core. And there was rapid backtracking in response to widespread outrage when East Midlands Airport wanted to identify more closely with Nottingham by changing its name. Devolution of real powers to the region would quickly enhance a regional sense of identity.
You have to put a border somewhere and the choice is the one that causes the least difficulty. Because the UK administrative regions exist and are widely used still, for example recently in European elections, it's a case of working with what we've got.
"Derbyshire is hardly far from Nottingham,"
It depends which part. The north of the county is much nearer Manchester and Sheffield than Nottingham, and the locals, although generally proud Derbyshire folk, look towards those cities and not the ones to the south.
For instance, Glossop to Manchester takes under half an hour in good conditions; Glossop to Derby or Nottingham about ninety minutes along much worse roads. The same can be said for various Derbyshire villages and Sheffield.
The people there look north, not south. Putting them in an East Midlands authority is nonsensical, and that would man divvying Derbsyhire up through the centre of the Peak District.
It seems the only thing the Scottish referendum will achieve is to prevent Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs from voting on English only matters at Westminster.
Is anyone seriously suggesting we are going to have different rates of Income Tax in different parts of England?
Or how about different rates of National Insurance? VAT? Corporation Tax? Capital Gains Tax? Inheritance Tax?
As for state benefits - how about different state pensions? Different retirement ages?
It is blindingly obvious that none of this is going to happen.
So what are we actually talking about? People need to state exactly what things really might be devolved and it doesn't look to me as if it is going to amount to much.
How much would the average member of the public actually notice?
It seems to me this is a debate about idealism - "wouldn't it be great to have lots of things devolved" - but when you start thinking about the detail it's not going to amount to much.
Well the proposal is very much to have different rates of Income tax between Scotland and the rest of the UK (or at least expanding the ability to have it which already exists), so it is certainly not daft to suggest that a similar ability should apply to England.
The Eastern Daily Press covers much of the region and as I say might take the opportunity to expand their coverage into Essex. Anyway, as I say, nature abhors a vacuum... Archant dominate the local free press and might jump in too. BBC regional news is very strong and ITV has a half an hour a day.
The East Midlands? No idea. Not even sure where that is exactly.
The East Midlands contains Leics, Notts, Derbys, and generally includes Northants Lincs and Rutland.
We have a population similar to Scotland, but some of the lowest numbers of percapita spend in the country on health and education. Nonetheless while functioning as a region for some purposes, we are not for others. The folk of Rutland and East Leicestershire are more like the home counties than North Derbyshire, and the folk of Skegness more like the folk of Margate.
The East Midlands is a region. England is our nation.
Derbyshire's an interesting one. I was born in the south of the county, by the T&M canal, and was brought up in that area. When I was a teenager I spent vast amounts of time in the Peak District, which was a different world from south Derbyshire. Then I went to Glossop, and realised that it was different again. Accents, lifestyle, agriculture; there was little commonality.
Most importantly, the populations gravitate towards different places. People in northeastern Derbyshire gravitate towards Sheffield; those in the south Derby, Nottingham and Birmingham. Those in the north Manchester.
Derbyshire's a hodgepodge; yet most people saw themselves as Derbyshire folk.
However any regional splitting of the country would really have to split Derbyshire asunder because of those differences. How could a town just a few miles from Manchester be in the East or West Midlands?
The ceremonial county of Derbyshire (ie including the City of Derby which is a unitary authority) has a population of over a million, bigger than some states of the USA and of the same order as Northern Ireland. It doesn't need to be part of anything bigger.
In which case we're talking about not regional assemblies, but giving more powers to counties and UA's, or conglomerations of small ones.
Is anyone seriously suggesting we are going to have different rates of Income Tax in different parts of England?
Or how about different rates of National Insurance? VAT? Corporation Tax? Capital Gains Tax? Inheritance Tax?
As for state benefits - how about different state pensions? Different retirement ages?
It is blindingly obvious that none of this is going to happen.
So what are we actually talking about? People need to state exactly what things really might be devolved.
How much would the average member of the public actually notice?
It seems to me this is a debate about idealism - "wouldn't it be great to have lots of things devolved" - but when you start thinking about the detail it's not going to amount to much.
See below re my comments on Switzerland.
My preference would be to not have 'regions' in England as it's the devil's work (EU) but it could still work just as Switzerland works.
Some things are federal, VAT/TVA but they've already all been worked out.
As a systems developer long ago, I tried not to recreate the wheel.
And if the North of England ruled itself, it would have had a large Labour majority. So what? In a GE I am voting for who I want to be running the whole United Kingdom, not an arbitrary subset of constituencies.
The North East was offered that. And even with Tony Blair (a local MP) selling it we totally and utterly rejected it. The problem is that while many people here hate their local councillors they really hate the ones next door. 50 years of bad management doesn't encourage people to vote to give them more powers.
The other problem with regional government is that there isn't a regional media to cover it in most places. That is a recipe for unaccountable politicians and bad government.
Another issue is that apart from Yorkshire, many of the other regions are artificial creations cobbled together with no shared identity, in particular the SE monstrosity which stretches all the way from Banbury to Dover with little common interest. If you had to have regional government then I would suggest regions as follows:
Devonwall - Devon+Cornwall - 1.6 million people - Assembly in Plymouth West Country - Bristol, Somerset, Gloucs, Wilts - 2.8 million - Bristol South Coast - Dorset, Hampshire, IOW - 2.6 million - Southampton Thames Valley - Berks, Bucks, Oxon - 2.3 million - Aylesbury? South East Coast - Surrey, E&W Sussex, Kent - 4.4 million - Maidstone? London - 8 million - London North home counties - Beds, Herts, Essex - 3.4 million - Stevenage? East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs - 2.4 million - Norwich East Midlands - As is - 4.8 million - Nottingham West Midlands - West Midlands county - 2.7 million - Birmingham South Mercia - Worcs, Hereford, Warks -1.3 million - Worcester North Mercia - Shropshire, Staffs - 1.6 million - Stoke Yorkshire - Yorkshire - 5 million - Leeds Northern England - Northumberland, Durham, Cumbria, T&W - 2.8 million - Newcastle North West - Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside - 6.4 million
No bloody way am I being ruled by those in Nottingham. Or Derby for that matter. They will have to accept the Iron hand of Leicester or be crushed!
Ratae was the Oppida for central Eastern England so there would be some (pre) historic justification for it. :-)
Oppidum surely ...
Never was very good at Latin :-)
Oppida is plural (-us to -i (usually), -a to -ae and -um to -a).
Is anyone seriously suggesting we are going to have different rates of Income Tax in different parts of England?
Or how about different rates of National Insurance? VAT? Corporation Tax? Capital Gains Tax? Inheritance Tax?
As for state benefits - how about different state pensions? Different retirement ages?
It is blindingly obvious that none of this is going to happen.
So what are we actually talking about? People need to state exactly what things really might be devolved and it doesn't look to me as if it is going to amount to much.
How much would the average member of the public actually notice?
It seems to me this is a debate about idealism - "wouldn't it be great to have lots of things devolved" - but when you start thinking about the detail it's not going to amount to much.
Well the proposal is very much to have different rates of Income tax between Scotland and the rest of the UK (or at least expanding the ability to have it which already exists), so it is certainly not daft to suggest that a similar ability should apply to England.
The US has different tax rates in different states and they seem to manage . We already have different council tax rates i- why not different VAT, income tax etc etc? Is called decentralisation - perfectly reasonable IMO.
Following on from MikeL's point, the case against devolving power:
The political scientist Steve Rogers recently studied state legislative elections and found something disheartening and, if you think about it, utterly unsurprising. Since 1910, state house elections almost perfectly track U.S. House elections. The correlation, to be precise about it, is 0.96. Which is to say virtually none of us—even those of us who bother to vote—form judgments of any kind regarding our state legislators. We respond to the national mood, which is shaped by our response to Washington, mainly the president, whose party we punish or reward depending upon national conditions. This means that state legislators operate almost entirely free of any practical accountability from their constituents. Their good deeds will not be rewarded, and only their most flamboyant corruption or illegality will be punished. Their only electoral incentive lies in belonging to the right national political party. The operating conditions of a state legislature are likely to create good government only by accident, if at all. Predatory government functions that would stand little chance of survival in the sustained glare of national politics thrive at the state and local levels
The only solution that is viable and sustainable is for full federalism. 4 national Parliaments which have full sovereignty over their own internal affairs plus a Federal Union government with responsibility for defence, foreign affairs, macroeconomics ....and very little else. If England or any other country wants to further devolve powers to regions, cities or whatever they can do so. Funding would need to be clearly (and fairly and equitably) defined, but it is not rocket science. And tax bills should clearly define where the money is going.
Looking at Switzerland it is exactly the same with regard to the Swiss Germans.
I would posit the reason being that it isn't an issue in Switzerland is that when you pay your taxes the federal portion is in my experience less than 10% of the combined local and state taxes, of course it does vary by 'state' and I live in one of the most expensive. However, there is tax competition, many people live in Vaud and work in Geneva for that very reason. That's before you even think of mentioning places like Zug.
Yes but the history of Switzerland is that the cantons were the original building blocks, they were little fiefs that were technically part of the Empire but in practice independent and who got together to form their own country. There was never such a thing as "German Switzerland" or "French Switzerland", there was Zug, Appenzell, Geneva.
If EV4EL really comes in with an English Parliament, then I predict the UK will indeed break up in 25 years.
For a simple reason, if all the 4 countries does everyting more or less on their own, what will be the point of the Union ?
Well, that's a bit of a damn fool question. What is the point of the USA? The Bundesrepublik Deutschland? Both have a federal system with significant powers devolved to their states, and still have a strong national government.
That's because USA, Germany, Canada and Australia etc. have no one constituent state that dominates. Federations such as Yugoslavia and USSR where Serbia and Russia dominated, respectively, did not last.
The most separatist part of the UK has just decided it is fine with remaining part of a state where another part has domination on issues like macroeconomics and foreign policy. It's thus not an issue, other than in the minds of left-wingers that want to deny England home rule.
Oh, it will be fine for a while, until either the English decide that a Scottish PM is unacceptable, or the Scots work out that a Scot can never be UK PM again.
That's exactly my point. Unless we have a federal structure with a separate English Parliament / Assembly for EV4EL, effectively the Scots [ and by implication the Welsh and the N Irish ] might as well be told, none of you can ever be Prime Minister.
The last Ulster Unionist to be a UK minister was under Heath. This was despite there being a NI parliament at the time. Interestingly, NI MPs were underrepresented at Westminster until Stormont was abolished.
Of course, a Scot or Welshman could be PM if he represented an English constituency. Last example of this was none other than Tony Blair.
Another thing not mentioned in these threads is the disastrous change in counties under eath. One reason for their failure was that county cricket and rugby teams didn't follow suit.
Arbitrary political divisions aren't popular; they have no legitimacy. Take a look at N.Ireland as an example.
The Eastern Daily Press covers much of the region and as I say might take the opportunity to expand their coverage into Essex. Anyway, as I say, nature abhors a vacuum... Archant dominate the local free press and might jump in too. BBC regional news is very strong and ITV has a half an hour a day.
The East Midlands? No idea. Not even sure where that is exactly.
The East Midlands contains Leics, Notts, Derbys, and generally includes Northants Lincs and Rutland.
We have a population similar to Scotland, but some of the lowest numbers of percapita spend in the country on health and education. Nonetheless while functioning as a region for some purposes, we are not for others. The folk of Rutland and East Leicestershire are more like the home counties than North Derbyshire, and the folk of Skegness more like the folk of Margate.
The East Midlands is a region. England is our nation.
Derbyshire's an interesting one. I was born in the south of the county, by the T&M canal, and was brought up in that area. When I was a teenager I spent vast amounts of time in the Peak District, which was a different world from south Derbyshire. Then I went to Glossop, and realised that it was different again. Accents, lifestyle, agriculture; there was little commonality.
Most importantly, the populations gravitate towards different places. People in northeastern Derbyshire gravitate towards Sheffield; those in the south Derby, Nottingham and Birmingham. Those in the north Manchester.
Derbyshire's a hodgepodge; yet most people saw themselves as Derbyshire folk.
However any regional splitting of the country would really have to split Derbyshire asunder because of those differences. How could a town just a few miles from Manchester be in the East or West Midlands?
The ceremonial county of Derbyshire (ie including the City of Derby which is a unitary authority) has a population of over a million, bigger than some states of the USA and of the same order as Northern Ireland. It doesn't need to be part of anything bigger.
Exactly, and that goes for a lot of other places too. Someone up-thread suggested Sussex should be thrown in with Surrey and, get this, Kent. Furthermore the regional capital should be in Maidstone!
I will take this opportunity to point out that Leicester City already have half as many points as the sheep did in their last season in the Prem!
Fair enough. When we take you over you can supply the football team, and we'll supply everything else. Scenery, for instance (although I am rather partial to Bradgate Park, which would be in the third league of Derbyshire scenic attractions).
Looking at Switzerland it is exactly the same with regard to the Swiss Germans.
I would posit the reason being that it isn't an issue in Switzerland is that when you pay your taxes the federal portion is in my experience less than 10% of the combined local and state taxes, of course it does vary by 'state' and I live in one of the most expensive. However, there is tax competition, many people live in Vaud and work in Geneva for that very reason. That's before you even think of mentioning places like Zug.
Yes but the history of Switzerland is that the cantons were the original building blocks, they were little fiefs that were technically part of the Empire but in practice independent and who got together to form their own country. There was never such a thing as "German Switzerland" or "French Switzerland", there was Zug, Appenzell, Geneva.
There was never such a thing as "German Switzerland" or "French Switzerland", there was Zug, Appenzell, Geneva.
I'm not sure whether you mean when Switzerland became one of the oldest parliamentary democracies or you mean the concept doesn't exist.
I'll have to take the former because the latter would be nonsense as what else is Suisse Romande if not the French speaking region of Switzerland?
Not sure what the ancient history matters. The point is that there are four regions, each with different cultures in a federal state and the Swiss aren't anywhere near breaking up even though the countries politics are dominated by the Swiss Germans.
People do not have parish and district. It's one or the other.
Not so. Just about everywhere outside of London has both. Parishes in London were only abolished in 1965 and the right to reconstitute them was introduced in 2007. In some cases Parish councils are replaced by Town Councils but they are the same level of local government.
Although some County and District functions have been merged in unitary authorities, in most shire areas we have 3 sets of councillors - Parish, District and County.
I will take this opportunity to point out that Leicester City already have half as many points as the sheep did in their last season in the Prem!
Fair enough. When we take you over you can supply the football team, and we'll supply everything else. Scenery, for instance (although I am rather partial to Bradgate Park, which would be in the third league of Derbyshire scenic attractions).
Also one of the most important geological and archaeological sites in Britain.
Quite interesting discussions here but one thing I am opposed to are "regional" assemblies simply because I don't think the English and maybe this applies to the other 3 nations as well identify with regional bodies. Here in in the South East excluding London we had the unlamented SEEDA which was abolished by the coalition in 2012 partly because the interests of rural Oxfordshire were quite different say from East Kent, Others have highlighted how Devon and Cornwall don't get on etc. We do identify with our local towns and also maybe to a slightly lesser degree our counties. Therefore if you are devolving more powers locally keep it really local.
As for the national situation I too like the federal solution as the best way to put the 4 nations on an equal footing. One thing I heard mentioned by ordinary Scots was they simply felt dominated by the sheer size of England in population terms and 4 parliaments with a federal government seems the logical way to avoid this in future.
The other problem with regional government is that there isn't a regional media to cover it in most places. That is a recipe for unaccountable politicians and bad government.
Another issue is that apart from Yorkshire, many of the other regions are artificial creations cobbled together with no shared identity, in particular the SE monstrosity which stretches all the way from Banbury to Dover with little common interest. If you had to have regional government then I would suggest regions as follows:
Devonwall - Devon+Cornwall - 1.6 million people - Assembly in Plymouth West Country - Bristol, Somerset, Gloucs, Wilts - 2.8 million - Bristol South Coast - Dorset, Hampshire, IOW - 2.6 million - Southampton Thames Valley - Berks, Bucks, Oxon - 2.3 million - Aylesbury? South East Coast - Surrey, E&W Sussex, Kent - 4.4 million - Maidstone? London - 8 million - London North home counties - Beds, Herts, Essex - 3.4 million - Stevenage? East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs - 2.4 million - Norwich East Midlands - As is - 4.8 million - Nottingham West Midlands - West Midlands county - 2.7 million - Birmingham South Mercia - Worcs, Hereford, Warks -1.3 million - Worcester North Mercia - Shropshire, Staffs - 1.6 million - Stoke Yorkshire - Yorkshire - 5 million - Leeds Northern England - Northumberland, Durham, Cumbria, T&W - 2.8 million - Newcastle North West - Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside - 6.4 million
These are incredibly arbitrary though: who identifies with "the north home counties"? Some of the areas are so tiny, it makes welfare and taxation arbitrage destructive between the places silly. Cumbria is connected north south, not to people with different accents the other side of the Pennines. Mercia and the Midlands were traditionally the same place. Devon and Cornwall hate each other! etc etc
And lived in Herts & Beds, if asked which region of England I was in, I probably would have said "the South East".
The simplest solution would be to start with a proposal based on the existing regions, to take local soundings and hold referendums in the disputed areas. So in the case of Yorkshire (which I'm using because I know it best), NE and N Lincs could be given the opportunity to choose between that and the E Midlands, Middlesbrough between Yorks and the NE, or the areas around Saddleworth and Sedbergh and Dent between Yorks and the NW.
Not everyone would be completely satisfied but a comprehensive consultative exercise ought to produce a good guide for the decision takers as to the way to go.
People do not have parish and district. It's one or the other.
Not so. Just about everywhere outside of London has both. Parishes in London were only abolished in 1965 and the right to reconstitute them was introduced in 2007. In some cases Parish councils are replaced by Town Councils but they are the same level of local government.
Although some County and District functions have been merged in unitary authorities, in most shire areas we have 3 sets of councillors - Parish, District and County.
I stand corrected. But nonetheless, the UK population are the most under represented as far as democracies go. despite everyone talking about we have too many tiers.
In the USA, each State has two Houses apart from local councillors etc we all have. I am not talking about Dog Wardens etc.
As far as all this talk in the Tory party is concerned Labour just needs to develop a Geoff Boycott forward defensive response and keep doing it just like Geoffrey did.As long as they practice hard enough it should be good enough to play out for a draw until May next year.It's one of those Tory obsessions like Europe and moves between complacency and panic as laughing boy Farage rips away at their right flank.The Tories have shown this parliament they can be wheeled around and become the secret assassins in their own party.They have repeatedly behaved in a stupid fashion and can be guaranteed to split even further.Isn't it all dreadful?
Comments
You have to put a border somewhere and the choice is the one that causes the least difficulty. Because the UK administrative regions exist and are widely used still, for example recently in European elections, it's a case of working with what we've got.
You can't really call Yugoslavia and the USSR federal countries, they were centralised Communist states which effectively started out as Serbian and Russian empires, Yugoslavia had only existed since 1918 and is much more diverse than the UK in terms of native languages and religions - and history, given that parts had been Ottoman and others Austrian or Hungarian.
Australia, Canada and the USA have some quite large discrepancies in population. NSW has a third of the population of the country, and has 15 times the population of the smallest state, Tasmania. In Canada, Ontario again has (just over) a third of the population and has nearly 100 times the population of the smallest province. In the USA California has over 10% of the population (Texas only slightly fewer) about 75 times the population of Wyoming.
So given the very different cultural and historical histories of the four nations that make up the UK, I think there is a degree of diversity that can very easily be managed within a federal state.
(Tomorrow is the visit of stuttering Man United to the fortress of Leicester City. I recommend canny punters lay an MU win. Look out for Liam Moore in central defence as MOTM, the future of an England defence)
People do not have parish and district. It's one or the other.
The federal structure implies a State Assembly, which we do not have. You could argue that if the London Assembly had more powers we do not need AN ev4el mp.
Looking at Switzerland it is exactly the same with regard to the Swiss Germans.
I would posit the reason being that it isn't an issue in Switzerland is that when you pay your taxes the federal portion is in my experience less than 10% of the combined local and state taxes, of course it does vary by 'state' and I live in one of the most expensive. However, there is tax competition, many people live in Vaud and work in Geneva for that very reason. That's before you even think of mentioning places like Zug.
PR would actually greatly help the party I currently support but I would still not want it as I believe that overall it is bad for democracy.
Or how about different rates of National Insurance? VAT? Corporation Tax? Capital Gains Tax? Inheritance Tax?
As for state benefits - how about different state pensions? Different retirement ages?
It is blindingly obvious that none of this is going to happen.
So what are we actually talking about? People need to state exactly what things really might be devolved.
How much would the average member of the public actually notice?
It seems to me this is a debate about idealism - "wouldn't it be great to have lots of things devolved" - but when you start thinking about the detail it's not going to amount to much.
It depends which part. The north of the county is much nearer Manchester and Sheffield than Nottingham, and the locals, although generally proud Derbyshire folk, look towards those cities and not the ones to the south.
For instance, Glossop to Manchester takes under half an hour in good conditions; Glossop to Derby or Nottingham about ninety minutes along much worse roads. The same can be said for various Derbyshire villages and Sheffield.
The people there look north, not south. Putting them in an East Midlands authority is nonsensical, and that would man divvying Derbsyhire up through the centre of the Peak District.
My preference would be to not have 'regions' in England as it's the devil's work (EU) but it could still work just as Switzerland works.
Some things are federal, VAT/TVA but they've already all been worked out.
As a systems developer long ago, I tried not to recreate the wheel.
"People do not have parish and district. It's one or the other."
Sorry, but in the area I live we have both a Parish Council and a District council, and a County Council. So, old boy, you are wrong.
Of course, a Scot or Welshman could be PM if he represented an English constituency. Last example of this was none other than Tony Blair.
Another thing not mentioned in these threads is the disastrous change in counties under eath. One reason for their failure was that county cricket and rugby teams didn't follow suit.
Arbitrary political divisions aren't popular; they have no legitimacy. Take a look at N.Ireland as an example.
I'm not sure whether you mean when Switzerland became one of the oldest parliamentary democracies or you mean the concept doesn't exist.
I'll have to take the former because the latter would be nonsense as what else is Suisse Romande if not the French speaking region of Switzerland?
Not sure what the ancient history matters. The point is that there are four regions, each with different cultures in a federal state and the Swiss aren't anywhere near breaking up even though the countries politics are dominated by the Swiss Germans.
Although some County and District functions have been merged in unitary authorities, in most shire areas we have 3 sets of councillors - Parish, District and County.
I should work for Leicester tourist board :-)
As for the national situation I too like the federal solution as the best way to put the 4 nations on an equal footing. One thing I heard mentioned by ordinary Scots was they simply felt dominated by the sheer size of England in population terms and 4 parliaments with a federal government seems the logical way to avoid this in future.
Not everyone would be completely satisfied but a comprehensive consultative exercise ought to produce a good guide for the decision takers as to the way to go.
In the USA, each State has two Houses apart from local councillors etc we all have. I am not talking about Dog Wardens etc.