politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tory and SNP landslides – Blair’s lasting legacy?

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tory and SNP landslides – Blair’s lasting legacy?

 

Read the full story here

Nigelb

Morning.

OldKingCole

Good morning everyone. As the BBC weather site says, it's unseasonably mild.
On topic, thoughtful post, Mr T. Of course, no-one, IIRC, ever seriously contemplated, back in the 20th C, the SNP achieving anywhere near the vote share it now has. I've been interested in politics for many years now and I certainly don't recall a time when the break-up of 'mainland' UK was a serious possibility; what was recognised was a need for 'local government to be more local'. Hence devolution, along with which was a suggestion that should be more local accountability in England, yet local government there has been emasculated, largely by starving it of funds.

ydoethur

Very interesting article Mr Thompson and saying much that was in fact said to Blair at the time. The risk in Scotland was that with the Liberal Democrats so closely aligned to Labour the SNP would rapidly emerge as the opposition, and as they were weak at Westminster their ablest figures would congregate at Holyrood - for Labour it would be the other way around. As in fact happened.

One factor I think you overlook is Wales. For all the reasons you say I do not think Labour in Wales have finished crashing yet. Right now, Labour hold 24 seats there, but on the new boundaries that would drop dramatically to just 14 while the Tories keep 12 (Plaid holding 2).

Of those fourteen seats, two look to me to be vulnerable even if Labour improve nationwide - Newport, which is formed from two very marginal seats and loses a Labour hinterland, and Llanelli, which takes in some Plaid voting parts of Carmarthenshire.

Meanwhile, Labour are in a shambles at Cardiff that makes Scotland look like a picnic. I haven't space to go into details here but I am trying to write a thread header on it. I think there is every chance the Labour vote could continue to decline markedly, which may bring even some of their heartland seats in the Valleys (which in many crucial respects resemble the North of England, although there are also major differences) into play.

So you might have to add another 5-10 seats onto this English calculation: which isn't making the Labour task look any easier.

Sandpit

Fourth, like the Lib Dems in Parliament.

ydoethur

Who was it said the Labour civil war had gone quiet?

Eleven former MPs write a stinging public letter accusing the current leadership of dishonesty, racism and corruption, blaming this for Labour's defeat:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/28/observer-letters-defend-labour-record-in-office

And Yvette Cooper writes a thinly veiled attack on Corbyn, indicating the current Labour leadership is both arrogant and divisive.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/yvette-cooper-labour-badly-election-21178805

Sandpit

Good piece Philip, IMO the obvious solution is to equalise devolution, and create an English Parliament.

Bonus points if it could be done without needing to elect another few hundred full-time representatives with their associated costs, but rather by utilising the existing English MPs sitting somewhere else (doing it on the existing green benches will just annoy the SNP other nations).

Even better, devolve a lot more activities and tax-raising powers down to the Counties, so that they can compete for business.

Another issue for the long-overdue Constitutional Convention.

OldKingCole

ydoethur said:

Who was it said the Labour civil war had gone quiet?

Eleven former MPs write a stinging public letter accusing the current leadership of dishonesty, racism and corruption, blaming this for Labour's defeat:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/28/observer-letters-defend-labour-record-in-office

And Yvette Cooper writes a thinly veiled attack on Corbyn, indicating the current Labour leadership is both arrogant and divisive.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/yvette-cooper-labour-badly-election-21178805

We are at a point in politics where it is unlikely that there will be an election, or even a chance to affect Government policy or actions for a while. It is therefore, surely, a good time, for a party which appears at any rate to have the possibility of being in Government to think about its policies and leadership.

How it does it, and what is said or written in the process may be a different matter. And as someone who might well support Labour, I wish they would sort themselves out on some issues...... notably anti-semitism...... for good and aye.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

The SNP doing well can be attributed in large part to the Scottish Parliament and devolving power to everywhere that isn't England.

The recent Conservative victory (it's being called a landslide but I have vague memories of the 2005 Labour result being described as delivering a strong working majority) is not down to Blair or anything he did. The electoral fiddling for Labour's leadership was the work of Miliband. The idiocy of not understanding their own damned rules was the fault of MPs. It had nothing to do with Blair. Indeed, diverging so far from his area of politics and plunging into the far left is the main reason Labour did so poorly.

YBarddCwsc

ydoethur said:

Meanwhile, Labour are in a shambles at Cardiff that makes Scotland look like a picnic. I haven't space to go into details here but I am trying to write a thread header on it. I think there is every chance the Labour vote could continue to decline markedly, which may bring even some of their heartland seats in the Valleys (which in many crucial respects resemble the North of England, although there are also major differences) into play.

So you might have to add another 5-10 seats onto this English calculation: which isn't making the Labour task look any easier.

I certainly agree that Labour have yet to receive their just desserts for their decades-long hegemony In Wales.

From 1932 to 2007, Fianna Fail received the largest vote in RoI. Then in 2011, they sank to third with 17 per cent of the vote. They are still only polling about half of what they did in their heyday, FF have not recovered.

Labour have won every General Election in Wales since 1922 (& of course every Welsh Assembly election). But, their Fianna Fail moment is surely coming. You can't run a country forever on corruption & failure.

The Labour vote in South Wales -- where their MPs have done nothing for their voters for decades -- is ready to be plucked. But, it still needs an opposition party who can do the plucking.

Who do you see taking these seats?

Sandpit

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Who was it said the Labour civil war had gone quiet?

Eleven former MPs write a stinging public letter accusing the current leadership of dishonesty, racism and corruption, blaming this for Labour's defeat:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/28/observer-letters-defend-labour-record-in-office

And Yvette Cooper writes a thinly veiled attack on Corbyn, indicating the current Labour leadership is both arrogant and divisive.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/yvette-cooper-labour-badly-election-21178805

We are at a point in politics where it is unlikely that there will be an election, or even a chance to affect Government policy or actions for a while. It is therefore, surely, a good time, for a party which appears at any rate to have the possibility of being in Government to think about its policies and leadership.

How it does it, and what is said or written in the process may be a different matter. And as someone who might well support Labour, I wish they would sort themselves out on some issues...... notably anti-semitism...... for good and aye.

But the problem is they’re still not looking at what’s best for the country, they’re looking at how they can have their own little faction become more prominent within the Labour Party.

Maybe they should go down the Michael Howard route, of having a several-month leadership contest where the discussions can be had openly about the direction of the party, in the hope that they come up with someone electable to the country at the end of the process? If they see it as a five or ten year project then they can afford to go with one of the younger members, and let them develop in the LotO role. David Cameron was only 39 when elected leader in 2005.

Personally I can’t see it happening though. The hard left aren’t going anywhere, which is a shame as we need a strong Opposition to keep the government on their toes.

Jonathan

There are no safe seats. The opportunity for Labour And the Lib Dem’s is the soft Tory underbelly in England. We’ve already seen signs of that. With the right leaders they could make further gains.

Everything is upside down.

ydoethur

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

Meanwhile, Labour are in a shambles at Cardiff that makes Scotland look like a picnic. I haven't space to go into details here but I am trying to write a thread header on it. I think there is every chance the Labour vote could continue to decline markedly, which may bring even some of their heartland seats in the Valleys (which in many crucial respects resemble the North of England, although there are also major differences) into play.

So you might have to add another 5-10 seats onto this English calculation: which isn't making the Labour task look any easier.

I certainly agree that Labour have yet to receive their just desserts for their decades-long hegemony In Wales.

From 1932 to 2007, Fianna Fail received the largest vote in RoI. Then in 2011, they sank to third with 17 per cent of the vote. They are still only polling about half of what they did in their heyday, FF have not recovered.

Labour have won every General Election in Wales since 1922 (& of course every Welsh Assembly election). But, their Fianna Fail moment is surely coming. You can't run a country forever on corruption & failure.

The Labour vote in South Wales -- where their MPs have done nothing for their voters for decades -- is ready to be plucked. But, it still needs an opposition party who can do the plucking.

Who do you see taking these seats?

I’m not sure I would make predictions in quite that way about the political future of the Valleys. I think the danger for Labour is that if Plaid continue to eat into their left and Welsh speaking flanks, and the Tories get more and more of the socially conservative vote, these seats become three way marginals, like Ynys Môn. That would both make them very hard to predict and force Labour to concentrate their efforts on defending them rather than trying to win back seats in the North.

ydoethur

Jonathan said:

There are no safe seats. The opportunity for Labour And the Lib Dem’s is the soft Tory underbelly in England. We’ve already seen signs of that. With the right leaders they could make further gains.

Everything is upside down.

Certainly the electorate is far more volatile and sophisticated than in previous years, and far more willing to scrutinise parties and their leaders rather than just vote ‘cos they has always voted that way, like their dads did two hundred years ago.*

I have to say I think this is a good thing.

*I know this is a slight exaggeration.

DecrepiterJohnL

Labour's wipe-out and the rise of the SNP are Blair's fault, or devolution's fault? Up to a point, Lord Copper. You'd need to explain what is different between Wales and Scotland.

Blair and devolution are only half the answer. The other half is Mrs Thatcher using Scotland as a test bed for the hated poll tax and North Sea Oil as a magic money tree, squandering "Scotland's Oil" on subsidising the unemployment she created, on current expenditure rather than investment. Even now in the SNP's case for independence, there is an element of wistfully eyeing Norway's sovereign wealth fund.

This perceived misuse of Scotland's people and resources is what drove the importance of anti-Conservativism in Scotland, and the rise of the SNP. Mrs Thatcher's first two election victories, in 1979 and 1983, included 22 and 21 Scottish seats. This was to fall to one or none between 1997 and 2017.

YBarddCwsc

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

Meanwhile, Labour are in a shambles at Cardiff that makes Scotland look like a picnic. I haven't space to go into details here but I am trying to write a thread header on it. I think there is every chance the Labour vote could continue to decline markedly, which may bring even some of their heartland seats in the Valleys (which in many crucial respects resemble the North of England, although there are also major differences) into play.

So you might have to add another 5-10 seats onto this English calculation: which isn't making the Labour task look any easier.

I certainly agree that Labour have yet to receive their just desserts for their decades-long hegemony In Wales.

From 1932 to 2007, Fianna Fail received the largest vote in RoI. Then in 2011, they sank to third with 17 per cent of the vote. They are still only polling about half of what they did in their heyday, FF have not recovered.

Labour have won every General Election in Wales since 1922 (& of course every Welsh Assembly election). But, their Fianna Fail moment is surely coming. You can't run a country forever on corruption & failure.

The Labour vote in South Wales -- where their MPs have done nothing for their voters for decades -- is ready to be plucked. But, it still needs an opposition party who can do the plucking.

Who do you see taking these seats?

I’m not sure I would make predictions in quite that way about the political future of the Valleys. I think the danger for Labour is that if Plaid continue to eat into their left and Welsh speaking flanks, and the Tories get more and more of the socially conservative vote, these seats become three way marginals, like Anglesey. That would both make them very hard to predict and force Labour to concentrate their efforts on defending them rather than trying to win back seats in the North.

The Valleys seem to me to be ripe for regional parties (like Blaenau Gwent Peoples Voice, The Cynon Valley Party).

I could imagine the Brexit Party vote, and the disgruntled ex-Labour vote, coalescing into a socially conservative, local Valleys-based party.

The Notts/Yorks coalfields have seen similar parties (e.g Ashfield Independents).

But the Valleys are more different from the rest of Wales than Ashfield from the rest of Nottinghamshire, and I could imagine such a local party thriving in S Wales and wresting hegemony from Labour.

ydoethur

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

YBarddCwsc said:

ydoethur said:

Meanwhile, Labour are in a shambles at Cardiff that makes Scotland look like a picnic. I haven't space to go into details here but I am trying to write a thread header on it. I think there is every chance the Labour vote could continue to decline markedly, which may bring even some of their heartland seats in the Valleys (which in many crucial respects resemble the North of England, although there are also major differences) into play.

So you might have to add another 5-10 seats onto this English calculation: which isn't making the Labour task look any easier.

I certainly agree that Labour have yet to receive their just desserts for their decades-long hegemony In Wales.

From 1932 to 2007, Fianna Fail received the largest vote in RoI. Then in 2011, they sank to third with 17 per cent of the vote. They are still only polling about half of what they did in their heyday, FF have not recovered.

Labour have won every General Election in Wales since 1922 (& of course every Welsh Assembly election). But, their Fianna Fail moment is surely coming. You can't run a country forever on corruption & failure.

The Labour vote in South Wales -- where their MPs have done nothing for their voters for decades -- is ready to be plucked. But, it still needs an opposition party who can do the plucking.

Who do you see taking these seats?

I’m not sure I would make predictions in quite that way about the political future of the Valleys. I think the danger for Labour is that if Plaid continue to eat into their left and Welsh speaking flanks, and the Tories get more and more of the socially conservative vote, these seats become three way marginals, like Anglesey. That would both make them very hard to predict and force Labour to concentrate their efforts on defending them rather than trying to win back seats in the North.

The Valleys seem to me to be ripe for regional parties (like Blaenau Gwent Peoples Voice, The Cynon Valley Party).

I could imagine the Brexit Party vote, and the disgruntled ex-Labour vote, coalescing into a socially conservative, local Valleys-based party.

The Notts/Yorks coalfields have seen similar parties (e.g Ashfield Independents).

But the Valleys are more different from the rest of Wales than Ashfield from the rest of Nottinghamshire, and I could imagine such a local party thriving in S Wales and wresting hegemony from Labour.

It could - and, briefly, did, in the case of BGPVP.

But again, the fragmenting of the vote might just make them marginal and volatile.

That in itself would probably do wonders for the dedication and nurture of the Valleys by Cardiff’s politicians...

squareroot2

ydoethur said:

Who was it said the Labour civil war had gone quiet?

Eleven former MPs write a stinging public letter accusing the current leadership of dishonesty, racism and corruption, blaming this for Labour's defeat:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/28/observer-letters-defend-labour-record-in-office

And Yvette Cooper writes a thinly veiled attack on Corbyn, indicating the current Labour leadership is both arrogant and divisive.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/yvette-cooper-labour-badly-election-21178805

Indeed its popcorn time, sit back and watch different strands of Labour fight each other.
The Tories are different, the ERG were kept in solitary confinement during the GE, pretty much never heard a word from any of them.

DecrepiterJohnL

Sandpit said:

Good piece Philip, IMO the obvious solution is to equalise devolution, and create an English Parliament.

Bonus points if it could be done without needing to elect another few hundred full-time representatives with their associated costs, but rather by utilising the existing English MPs sitting somewhere else (doing it on the existing green benches will just annoy the SNP other nations).

Even better, devolve a lot more activities and tax-raising powers down to the Counties, so that they can compete for business.

Another issue for the long-overdue Constitutional Convention.

It is hard to equalise devolution at a country-level because England would be so dominant as to threaten the integrity of the United Kingdom, which is already under considerable strain. Counties are too small and regions for the most part do not really exist in any legal or administrative sense. Heaven knows what the answer is but the temptation to play it for short-term party advantage might prove too hard for flesh-and-blood politicians to resist.

felix

Jonathan said:

There are no safe seats. The opportunity for Labour And the Lib Dem’s is the soft Tory underbelly in England. We’ve already seen signs of that. With the right leaders they could make further gains.

Everything is upside down.

There really isn't much of a soft underbelly there at all. Labour only gained one seat in London and the LDs no net gains at all. Nothing is impossible but your last sentence is the killer point. In addition both of the left leaning parties are consumed by extremist thinking. I mean forget Labour but even the LDs are all over the place on gender issues ands nowhere near the average Jo!

NorthernPowerhouse

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Labour's wipe-out and the rise of the SNP are Blair's fault, or devolution's fault? Up to a point, Lord Copper. You'd need to explain what is different between Wales and Scotland.

Blair and devolution are only half the answer. The other half is Mrs Thatcher using Scotland as a test bed for the hated poll tax and North Sea Oil as a magic money tree, squandering "Scotland's Oil" on subsidising the unemployment she created, on current expenditure rather than investment. Even now in the SNP's case for independence, there is an element of wistfully eyeing Norway's sovereign wealth fund.

This perceived misuse of Scotland's people and resources is what drove the importance of anti-Conservativism in Scotland, and the rise of the SNP. Mrs Thatcher's first two election victories, in 1979 and 1983, included 22 and 21 Scottish seats. This was to fall to one or none between 1997 and 2017.

It wasn’t and isn’t ‘Scotland’s oil’. It’s the United Kingdom’s...

felix

squareroot2 said:

ydoethur said:

Who was it said the Labour civil war had gone quiet?

Eleven former MPs write a stinging public letter accusing the current leadership of dishonesty, racism and corruption, blaming this for Labour's defeat:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/28/observer-letters-defend-labour-record-in-office

And Yvette Cooper writes a thinly veiled attack on Corbyn, indicating the current Labour leadership is both arrogant and divisive.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/yvette-cooper-labour-badly-election-21178805

Indeed its popcorn time, sit back and watch different strands of Labour fight each other.
The Tories are different, the ERG were kept in solitary confinement during the GE, pretty much never heard a word from any of them.

Actually -and I'm not a fan - Francois was in the NE quite a bit and judging by the results at least, seems he may have been effective.

NorthernPowerhouse

felix said:

Jonathan said:

There are no safe seats. The opportunity for Labour And the Lib Dem’s is the soft Tory underbelly in England. We’ve already seen signs of that. With the right leaders they could make further gains.

Everything is upside down.

There really isn't much of a soft underbelly there at all. Labour only gained one seat in London and the LDs no net gains at all. Nothing is impossible but your last sentence is the killer point. In addition both of the left leaning parties are consumed by extremist thinking. I mean forget Labour but even the LDs are all over the place on gender issues ands nowhere near the average Jo!

The identity stuff is shocking. Patently obviously gibberish stuff about self identification and accusing everyone and everything that is historical with the traditions of these isles as tainted with ‘white supremacy’ will do them in amongst people who haven’t just come out of university.

NorthernPowerhouse

felix said:

squareroot2 said:

ydoethur said:

Who was it said the Labour civil war had gone quiet?

Eleven former MPs write a stinging public letter accusing the current leadership of dishonesty, racism and corruption, blaming this for Labour's defeat:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/28/observer-letters-defend-labour-record-in-office

And Yvette Cooper writes a thinly veiled attack on Corbyn, indicating the current Labour leadership is both arrogant and divisive.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/yvette-cooper-labour-badly-election-21178805

Indeed its popcorn time, sit back and watch different strands of Labour fight each other.
The Tories are different, the ERG were kept in solitary confinement during the GE, pretty much never heard a word from any of them.

Actually -and I'm not a fan - Francois was in the NE quite a bit and judging by the results at least, seems he may have been effective.

He’s the kind of person you least ever want on your side.

ydoethur

Aaand Burns throws it away.

England all out before lunch.

squareroot2

ydoethur said:

Aaand Burns throws it away.

England all out before lunch.

Give it a break... it does NOT have to be like that. its almost as tho you are willing it to happen...

TGOHF666

You leavers can also Blame Blair for Brexit.

ydoethur

Another quick review of Labour broadcasters over the elections, I noticed something else. They always talk about what they are against, rather than what they are in favour of. So for example, one of the Novaro Media nutters actually said, ‘we need to identify who the enemy is, and that people can ave a better life with this person paying for it.’

And then the wonder why (a) they are accused of sowing hatred and division and (b) why people are ignoring them.

ydoethur

squareroot2 said:

ydoethur said:

Aaand Burns throws it away.

England all out before lunch.

Give it a break... it does NOT have to be like that. its almost as tho you are willing it to happen...

You don’t get it, do you? If I say ‘Root to score a century,’ he’s always out for a duck. So I say ‘Root to get a third ball duck’ in the hope he gets a century (albeit that really would be the triumph of hope over experience given his career).

My personal favourite was when I hexed Kohli into giving a dolly catch to slip by saying he was nailed on for a century - just after TSE had offered to eat a pineapple pizza should India lose.

The rest of the thread was littered with references to cow-botherers...

DecrepiterJohnL

ydoethur said:

Another quick review of Labour broadcasters over the elections, I noticed something else. They always talk about what they are against, rather than what they are in favour of. So for example, one of the Novaro Media nutters actually said, ‘we need to identify who the enemy is, and that people can ave a better life with this person paying for it.’

And then the wonder why (a) they are accused of sowing hatred and division and (b) why people are ignoring them.

Crush the Saboteurs! One thing Boris got right that Cameron, May, and now Labour got wrong is that he projected a positive vision. Purely negative campaigns do not win (even though I suspect there were a great many under-the-radar attack ads as well).

squareroot2

ydoethur said:

squareroot2 said:

ydoethur said:

Aaand Burns throws it away.

England all out before lunch.

Give it a break... it does NOT have to be like that. its almost as tho you are willing it to happen...

You don’t get it, do you? If I say ‘Root to score a century,’ he’s always out for a duck. So I say ‘Root to get a third ball duck’ in the hope he gets a century (albeit that really would be the triumph of hope over experience given his career).

My personal favourite was when I hexed Kohli into giving a dolly catch to slip by saying he was nailed on for a century - just after TSE had offered to eat a pineapple pizza should India lose.

The rest of the thread was littered with references to cow-botherers...

Ok so you are not Southam Observer's first cousin!!! He really is a doom and gloom merchant!

ydoethur

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

Another quick review of Labour broadcasters over the elections, I noticed something else. They always talk about what they are against, rather than what they are in favour of. So for example, one of the Novaro Media nutters actually said, ‘we need to identify who the enemy is, and that people can ave a better life with this person paying for it.’

And then the wonder why (a) they are accused of sowing hatred and division and (b) why people are ignoring them.

Crush the Saboteurs! One thing Boris got right that Cameron, May, and now Labour got wrong is that he projected a positive vision. Purely negative campaigns do not win (even though I suspect there were a great many under-the-radar attack ads as well).

Agreed. I wonder if that’s a lesson Labour will learn.

Edit - although a bit like Blair in ‘97, Johnson’s Tories were fortunate that their opponents were cocking up so spectacularly and so often they didn’t really need to say much about them.

DecrepiterJohnL

NorthernPowerhouse said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Labour's wipe-out and the rise of the SNP are Blair's fault, or devolution's fault? Up to a point, Lord Copper. You'd need to explain what is different between Wales and Scotland.

Blair and devolution are only half the answer. The other half is Mrs Thatcher using Scotland as a test bed for the hated poll tax and North Sea Oil as a magic money tree, squandering "Scotland's Oil" on subsidising the unemployment she created, on current expenditure rather than investment. Even now in the SNP's case for independence, there is an element of wistfully eyeing Norway's sovereign wealth fund.

This perceived misuse of Scotland's people and resources is what drove the importance of anti-Conservativism in Scotland, and the rise of the SNP. Mrs Thatcher's first two election victories, in 1979 and 1983, included 22 and 21 Scottish seats. This was to fall to one or none between 1997 and 2017.

It wasn’t and isn’t ‘Scotland’s oil’. It’s the United Kingdom’s...

There is a reason I put quotes around Scotland's Oil and used capitals. Fairly or not, that is how things are portrayed by the SNP and are now seen in Scotland.

isam

ydoethur said:

Another quick review of Labour broadcasters over the elections, I noticed something else. They always talk about what they are against, rather than what they are in favour of. So for example, one of the Novaro Media nutters actually said, ‘we need to identify who the enemy is, and that people can ave a better life with this person paying for it.’

And then the wonder why (a) they are accused of sowing hatred and division and (b) why people are ignoring them.

That seems true of Labour supporters gernerally in my experience, they need an Emmanuel Goldstein figure as a depositry for their pent up hate.

ydoethur

Now with due to regard to my my low opinion of the WAG, this seems a very good idea:

Roadside litter: Law change could see car owners fined
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-49661631

Why is it only in London? Why isn’t it nationwide?

FF43

Interesting and inescapable conclusion, in my opinion, that the Tories are set to dominate in England and the SNP in Scotland for the foreseeable future. Which will undoubtedly place severe and possibly fatal stresses on the Union, as English ascendancy elides into UK ascendancy.

I don't see any particular reason to blame Blair however. Devolution was a response to an earlier period of Tory dominance and the SNP were surely capable of displacing Labour in Westminster seats without a Scottish parliament. The difference is that Scotland now has a representative voice and almost noone in Scotland wants to return to the previous state of colonialism

kle4

I'm a little reluctant to draw such strong and direct connection between things so far apart as this, despite being a factor.

Dura_Ace

NorthernPowerhouse said:

felix said:

squareroot2 said:

ydoethur said:

Who was it said the Labour civil war had gone quiet?

Eleven former MPs write a stinging public letter accusing the current leadership of dishonesty, racism and corruption, blaming this for Labour's defeat:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/28/observer-letters-defend-labour-record-in-office

And Yvette Cooper writes a thinly veiled attack on Corbyn, indicating the current Labour leadership is both arrogant and divisive.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/yvette-cooper-labour-badly-election-21178805

Indeed its popcorn time, sit back and watch different strands of Labour fight each other.
The Tories are different, the ERG were kept in solitary confinement during the GE, pretty much never heard a word from any of them.

Actually -and I'm not a fan - Francois was in the NE quite a bit and judging by the results at least, seems he may have been effective.

He’s the kind of person you least ever want on your side.

Unless you're in a pie eating contest.

OldKingCole

Denly gone. Not looking as good now.

ydoethur

OldKingCole said:

Denly gone. Not looking as good now.

I’m blaming @squareroot2 for that. Removed all my effectiveness.

Anyway, I am offski. Have a good morning. Apart from the cricket, obviously, where the Saffers are going to win by north of 175.

kle4

ydoethur said:

Who was it said the Labour civil war had gone quiet?

Eleven former MPs write a stinging public letter accusing the current leadership of dishonesty, racism and corruption, blaming this for Labour's defeat:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/28/observer-letters-defend-labour-record-in-office

And Yvette Cooper writes a thinly veiled attack on Corbyn, indicating the current Labour leadership is both arrogant and divisive.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/yvette-cooper-labour-badly-election-21178805

It just seems incredible to me that after a horrible loss even a previously loyal and enthusiastic membership would not to some degree turn against the leadership which took them there. You can only blame the media and stupid voters and the LDs for so long after all.

But I dont see any sign that membership wants to hear what those MPs are saying. They see them as the same old critics, and Brexit is still a live issue - overblamed it might be but it will serve as an excuse to remain on course until Brexit is done so it can be proven if brexit alone was the problem.

The party does appear to be fetishising its impressive membership size as well. I doubt any candidate will say the truth, which is a large membership is nice, but not essential.

Big_G_NorthWales

Good morning

I have been popping in and out these last few days and making the occasional comment but it seems most things are in limbo and little happening

I just want to say I have not gone away but am about to embark on a complete re-decoration of our lounge, dining room, snug, and hall which will keep me busy over the next 4 - 6 weeks.

It is also good to keep active at my time of life

Sandpit

ydoethur said:

Now with due to regard to my my low opinion of the WAG, this seems a very good idea:

Roadside litter: Law change could see car owners fined
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-49661631

Why is it only in London? Why isn’t it nationwide?

As much as we all hate littering, "administrative penalties" are anathema in a democracy. The only people who should be able to fine you are a court. The rise of them over the past decades is reflected in the contempt of the people towards officialdom in general.

On this specific issue, why would I be held accountable for the actions of my adult passengers?

Sandpit

My 1.18 tip on the Saffers looking good. I could be eighteen quid up by lunchtime!

kle4

ydoethur said:

Another quick review of Labour broadcasters over the elections, I noticed something else. They always talk about what they are against, rather than what they are in favour of. So for example, one of the Novaro Media nutters actually said, ‘we need to identify who the enemy is, and that people can ave a better life with this person paying for it.’

And then the wonder why (a) they are accused of sowing hatred and division and (b) why people are ignoring them.

The craziest thing in the election may have been the story about advice to canvassers (from novaro or momentum, something like that) which allegedly included the question 'what was labour even for before jeremy Corbyn?' Or words to that effect.

Being charitable that such was not literal it still demonstrated utter contempt for the party and its accomplishments, and that they and those like them are Corbyn supporters not Labour supporters.

MaxPB

Finished the Witcher last night on Netflix. It's starts unevenly, but once it gets going it's really good. Highly recommended. Cavill and Chalotra are great in it as well.

I'd have liked them to get Idris Elba for Vilgefortz, but it probably wasn't in the budget.

Sandpit

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Good piece Philip, IMO the obvious solution is to equalise devolution, and create an English Parliament.

Bonus points if it could be done without needing to elect another few hundred full-time representatives with their associated costs, but rather by utilising the existing English MPs sitting somewhere else (doing it on the existing green benches will just annoy the SNP other nations).

Even better, devolve a lot more activities and tax-raising powers down to the Counties, so that they can compete for business.

Another issue for the long-overdue Constitutional Convention.

It is hard to equalise devolution at a country-level because England would be so dominant as to threaten the integrity of the United Kingdom, which is already under considerable strain. Counties are too small and regions for the most part do not really exist in any legal or administrative sense. Heaven knows what the answer is but the temptation to play it for short-term party advantage might prove too hard for flesh-and-blood politicians to resist.

Any talk of "Regions" in England will quickly bring along a Morris Dancer, carrying a wiffle stick and a very large fish!

I would devolve as much as possible to the Counties, and let the people in the counties themselves decide whether to co-operate or compete with their neighbours.

FF43

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been popping in and out these last few days and making the occasional comment but it seems most things are in limbo and little happening

I just want to say I have not gone away but am about to embark on a complete re-decoration of our lounge, dining room, snug, and hall which will keep me busy over the next 4 - 6 weeks.

It is also good to keep active at my time of life

What needs to happen by March or so to meet an end of 2020 deadline, and probably is happening behind the scenes with no debate, is the complete dismemberment of the UK's trading relationships. Nothing to see here; no-one is interested.

Good luck with your DIY.

Big_G_NorthWales

FF43 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been popping in and out these last few days and making the occasional comment but it seems most things are in limbo and little happening

I just want to say I have not gone away but am about to embark on a complete re-decoration of our lounge, dining room, snug, and hall which will keep me busy over the next 4 - 6 weeks.

It is also good to keep active at my time of life

What needs to happen by March or so to meet an end of 2020 deadline, and probably is happening behind the scenes with no debate, is the complete dismemberment of the UK's trading relationships. Nothing to see here; no-one is interested.

Good luck with your DIY.

Thank you re my DIY but I am very optimistic about 2020 and beyond

I cannot expect those who want to remainto share an optimistic view as it is contrary to their hopes the whole thing is a disaster and we may change our mind and rejoin.

After 31st January any hope of re-joining is years away, if at all

NorthernPowerhouse

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Good piece Philip, IMO the obvious solution is to equalise devolution, and create an English Parliament.

Bonus points if it could be done without needing to elect another few hundred full-time representatives with their associated costs, but rather by utilising the existing English MPs sitting somewhere else (doing it on the existing green benches will just annoy the SNP other nations).

Even better, devolve a lot more activities and tax-raising powers down to the Counties, so that they can compete for business.

Another issue for the long-overdue Constitutional Convention.

It is hard to equalise devolution at a country-level because England would be so dominant as to threaten the integrity of the United Kingdom, which is already under considerable strain. Counties are too small and regions for the most part do not really exist in any legal or administrative sense. Heaven knows what the answer is but the temptation to play it for short-term party advantage might prove too hard for flesh-and-blood politicians to resist.

Any talk of "Regions" in England will quickly bring along a Morris Dancer, carrying a wiffle stick and a very large fish!

I would devolve as much as possible to the Counties, and let the people in the counties themselves decide whether to co-operate or compete with their neighbours.

Combined authorities are on their way...

Fishing

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

Now with due to regard to my my low opinion of the WAG, this seems a very good idea:

Roadside litter: Law change could see car owners fined
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-49661631

Why is it only in London? Why isn’t it nationwide?

As much as we all hate littering, "administrative penalties" are anathema in a democracy. The only people who should be able to fine you are a court. The rise of them over the past decades is reflected in the contempt of the people towards officialdom in general.

On this specific issue, why would I be held accountable for the actions of my adult passengers?

Gesture politics. The police don't generally enforce existing rules anyway. Look at the number of pavement cyclists or litterbugs in our cities. Other than for motoring offences, we don't have the ticketing culture that American cities have.

MarqueeMark

TGOHF666 said:

You leavers can also Blame Blair for Brexit.

His interventions since mid-2016 have not exactly been harmful to the Brexit cause....

MarqueeMark

MaxPB said:

Finished the Witcher last night on Netflix. It's starts unevenly, but once it gets going it's really good. Highly recommended. Cavill and Chalotra are great in it as well.

I'd have liked them to get Idris Elba for Vilgefortz, but it probably wasn't in the budget.

I'll persevere then. Underwhelmed by the opening episode....

kle4

MarqueeMark said:

MaxPB said:

Finished the Witcher last night on Netflix. It's starts unevenly, but once it gets going it's really good. Highly recommended. Cavill and Chalotra are great in it as well.

I'd have liked them to get Idris Elba for Vilgefortz, but it probably wasn't in the budget.

I'll persevere then. Underwhelmed by the opening episode....

Same here. And when there are such short seasons even one or two being underwhelming is a big proportion.

FF43

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FF43 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been popping in and out these last few days and making the occasional comment but it seems most things are in limbo and little happening

I just want to say I have not gone away but am about to embark on a complete re-decoration of our lounge, dining room, snug, and hall which will keep me busy over the next 4 - 6 weeks.

It is also good to keep active at my time of life

What needs to happen by March or so to meet an end of 2020 deadline, and probably is happening behind the scenes with no debate, is the complete dismemberment of the UK's trading relationships. Nothing to see here; no-one is interested.

Good luck with your DIY.

Thank you re my DIY but I am very optimistic about 2020 and beyond

I cannot expect those who want to remainto share an optimistic view as it is contrary to their hopes the whole thing is a disaster and we may change our mind and rejoin.

After 31st January any hope of re-joining is years away, if at all

You're way off the mark there and somewhat offensive, if you don't mind me saying so. But season of goodwill and so on.

EPG

365 seats is around the Conservative long-term winning average, so there's no evidence it is due to Blair. They now do better in coalfields but don't forget they do much worse in urban areas, even in the North.

squareroot2

EPG said:

365 seats is around the Conservative long-term winning average, so there's no evidence it is due to Blair. They now do better in coalfields but don't forget they do much worse in urban areas, even in the North.

Urban areas with large migrant populations are never going to give Labour a majority.

ThomasNashe

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FF43 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been popping in and out these last few days and making the occasional comment but it seems most things are in limbo and little happening

I just want to say I have not gone away but am about to embark on a complete re-decoration of our lounge, dining room, snug, and hall which will keep me busy over the next 4 - 6 weeks.

It is also good to keep active at my time of life

What needs to happen by March or so to meet an end of 2020 deadline, and probably is happening behind the scenes with no debate, is the complete dismemberment of the UK's trading relationships. Nothing to see here; no-one is interested.

Good luck with your DIY.

Thank you re my DIY but I am very optimistic about 2020 and beyond

I cannot expect those who want to remainto share an optimistic view as it is contrary to their hopes the whole thing is a disaster and we may change our mind and rejoin.

After 31st January any hope of re-joining is years away, if at all

'Their hopes that the whole thing is a disaster' is egregious mischaracterisation.

Cyclefree

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FF43 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been popping in and out these last few days and making the occasional comment but it seems most things are in limbo and little happening

I just want to say I have not gone away but am about to embark on a complete re-decoration of our lounge, dining room, snug, and hall which will keep me busy over the next 4 - 6 weeks.

It is also good to keep active at my time of life

What needs to happen by March or so to meet an end of 2020 deadline, and probably is happening behind the scenes with no debate, is the complete dismemberment of the UK's trading relationships. Nothing to see here; no-one is interested.

Good luck with your DIY.

Thank you re my DIY but I am very optimistic about 2020 and beyond

I cannot expect those who want to remainto share an optimistic view as it is contrary to their hopes the whole thing is a disaster and we may change our mind and rejoin.

After 31st January any hope of re-joining is years away, if at all

You must not confuse, as all too many - some of them on here - do, those who hope Brexit is a disaster in order to make some point (such people are pretty silly IMO) and those who fear it will not bring the anticipated joys and will be much tougher than anticipated.

Being realistic about the challenges is not a bad place to be. Certainly better than believing what you want to be true rather than looking at the facts and basing opinions on those.

Sandpit

ThomasNashe said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FF43 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been popping in and out these last few days and making the occasional comment but it seems most things are in limbo and little happening

I just want to say I have not gone away but am about to embark on a complete re-decoration of our lounge, dining room, snug, and hall which will keep me busy over the next 4 - 6 weeks.

It is also good to keep active at my time of life

What needs to happen by March or so to meet an end of 2020 deadline, and probably is happening behind the scenes with no debate, is the complete dismemberment of the UK's trading relationships. Nothing to see here; no-one is interested.

Good luck with your DIY.

Thank you re my DIY but I am very optimistic about 2020 and beyond

I cannot expect those who want to remainto share an optimistic view as it is contrary to their hopes the whole thing is a disaster and we may change our mind and rejoin.

After 31st January any hope of re-joining is years away, if at all

'Their hopes that the whole thing is a disaster' is egregious mischaracterisation.

Disagree. There's going to be plenty of commentators furiously w**king themselves stupid over every announcement of job losses or recession in the coming years. Brexit has driven some people completely mad.

Note that this isn't everyone who voted Remain in the referendum, but rather a small section of mostly Londoners with a microphone or a typewriter.

Fishing

On topic, I was listening to a podcast in which Nick Robinson interviewed Blair in 2018, and was struck by how, even more than most politicians, Nothing Was Ever His Fault.

There are considerable issues with reading history backwards, but I would certainly say that many of the issues we face today were partly or completely caused by Blair's lack of judgement. The article mentions devolution as one of his cockups, but one could add:

- doing nothing to boost housebuilding as property prices took off, apparently because of some half-baked idea that high prices were electorally advantageous to the party in power
- student fees, which have alienated the young
- allowing mass immigration from the EU, which, as much as any other factor, put a timebomb under our membership
- failing to make public services more efficient, even as Brown hugely boosted funding, wasting tens of billions
- the culture of spin and misinformation. Blair didn't invent this, but he greatly increased it, meaning that politicians are less trusted today than ever
- underfunding our armed forces, while using them repeatedly
- an astonishingly complacent attitude to financial regulation, leading to the discrediting of capitalism amongst many
- Gordon Brown. Blair showed amazingly poor judgement in putting up with that menace for a decade, and then letting himself be suceeded by a man who quickly became the least popular PM (I think) ever and whose administration was a byword for incompetence, prevarication and poor decisions.
- Iraq. Nuff said.

About the only factor in mitigation is that his administration did not join the Euro, but that was because of the good sense and judgement of the electorate: Blair was always an enthusiast for membership.

So devolution, which the article mentions, though important, is almost a minor issue compared with Blair's other cockups. Blair is indeed one of the progenitors of the current state of politics, but for other reasons as well as those mentioned in the thread.

Philip_Thompson

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Good piece Philip, IMO the obvious solution is to equalise devolution, and create an English Parliament.

Bonus points if it could be done without needing to elect another few hundred full-time representatives with their associated costs, but rather by utilising the existing English MPs sitting somewhere else (doing it on the existing green benches will just annoy the SNP other nations).

Even better, devolve a lot more activities and tax-raising powers down to the Counties, so that they can compete for business.

Another issue for the long-overdue Constitutional Convention.

It is hard to equalise devolution at a country-level because England would be so dominant as to threaten the integrity of the United Kingdom, which is already under considerable strain. Counties are too small and regions for the most part do not really exist in any legal or administrative sense. Heaven knows what the answer is but the temptation to play it for short-term party advantage might prove too hard for flesh-and-blood politicians to resist.

That's true with or without English devolution. Without English devolution England is already so dominant as to be able to "take Scotland out of the EU against its will" and whatever other grievances the SNP develops due to the Westminster Government.

If there were English devolution then the UK Parliament would be only for UK-wide matters which would be less fractured than the current mess. Simply ignoring England does not make it go away!

Philip_Thompson

Thank you everyone for the interesting replies to my thread and thank you to TSE for publishing it.

Cyclefree

squareroot2 said:

EPG said:

365 seats is around the Conservative long-term winning average, so there's no evidence it is due to Blair. They now do better in coalfields but don't forget they do much worse in urban areas, even in the North.

Urban areas with large migrant populations are never going to give Labour a majority.

Not least because it is silly to assume that people in such areas and at least some in those migrant populations won’t share exactly the same concerns about Labour’s direction of travel as other groups of voters.

Mango

Sandpit said:

Good piece Philip, IMO the obvious solution is to equalise devolution, and create an English Parliament.

Bonus points if it could be done without needing to elect another few hundred full-time representatives with their associated costs, but rather by utilising the existing English MPs sitting somewhere else (doing it on the existing green benches will just annoy the SNP other nations).

Even better, devolve a lot more activities and tax-raising powers down to the Counties, so that they can compete for business.

Another issue for the long-overdue Constitutional Convention.

An English parliament is a ridiculously ill-conceived idea propagated by people who fail to understand federalism, subsidiarity and the point of regional government.

We are sadly missing this tier of government in this country. And local government has been hollowed out, and is utterly subject to the funding whims of Westminster. We live in the most centralised state in Europe, and it shows. It is dysfunctional.

Solution: Proper regional government. Scotland, Wales, English regions with populations and areas of roughly similar magnitudes. Tax-raising powers, elections, local premiers, the full Bundes. This was obvious in 1997, and even in 1987.

Timeline: never, obviously.

ThomasNashe

Sandpit said:

ThomasNashe said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FF43 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been popping in and out these last few days and making the occasional comment but it seems most things are in limbo and little happening

I just want to say I have not gone away but am about to embark on a complete re-decoration of our lounge, dining room, snug, and hall which will keep me busy over the next 4 - 6 weeks.

It is also good to keep active at my time of life

What needs to happen by March or so to meet an end of 2020 deadline, and probably is happening behind the scenes with no debate, is the complete dismemberment of the UK's trading relationships. Nothing to see here; no-one is interested.

Good luck with your DIY.

Thank you re my DIY but I am very optimistic about 2020 and beyond

I cannot expect those who want to remainto share an optimistic view as it is contrary to their hopes the whole thing is a disaster and we may change our mind and rejoin.

After 31st January any hope of re-joining is years away, if at all

'Their hopes that the whole thing is a disaster' is egregious mischaracterisation.

Disagree. There's going to be plenty of commentators furiously w**king themselves stupid over every announcement of job losses or recession in the coming years. Brexit has driven some people completely mad.

Note that this isn't everyone who voted Remain in the referendum, but rather a small section of mostly Londoners with a microphone or a typewriter.

The verb 'fear' does not mean the same thing as the verb, 'hope'.

Theuniondivvie

Another convo about English devo/federalism for which English voters have shown not the slightest enthusiasm and the two main English parties do bugger all about when in power. I expect similar outbreaks in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 etc.

MaxPB

MarqueeMark said:

MaxPB said:

Finished the Witcher last night on Netflix. It's starts unevenly, but once it gets going it's really good. Highly recommended. Cavill and Chalotra are great in it as well.

I'd have liked them to get Idris Elba for Vilgefortz, but it probably wasn't in the budget.

I'll persevere then. Underwhelmed by the opening episode....

By main issue was the time jumps that weren't labeled. It's up to the viewer to figure it out and it's not easy because geralt doesn't age, neither does yen.

Philip_Thompson

Mango said:

Sandpit said:

Good piece Philip, IMO the obvious solution is to equalise devolution, and create an English Parliament.

Bonus points if it could be done without needing to elect another few hundred full-time representatives with their associated costs, but rather by utilising the existing English MPs sitting somewhere else (doing it on the existing green benches will just annoy the SNP other nations).

Even better, devolve a lot more activities and tax-raising powers down to the Counties, so that they can compete for business.

Another issue for the long-overdue Constitutional Convention.

An English parliament is a ridiculously ill-conceived idea propagated by people who fail to understand federalism, subsidiarity and the point of regional government.

We are sadly missing this tier of government in this country. And local government has been hollowed out, and is utterly subject to the funding whims of Westminster. We live in the most centralised state in Europe, and it shows. It is dysfunctional.

Solution: Proper regional government. Scotland, Wales, English regions with populations and areas of roughly similar magnitudes. Tax-raising powers, elections, local premiers, the full Bundes. This was obvious in 1997, and even in 1987.

Timeline: never, obviously.

Regions are not a thing, never have been. Are you claiming Scotland is a mere "region" and not a nation like England. Are Wales and Northern Ireland mere "regions"? Or are they nations and are the devolved Parliaments/Assemblys national ones? If they're national ones then there should be an English national Parliament.

Councils are our local government. Devolving powers to Councils would make sense.

EPG

squareroot2 said:

EPG said:

365 seats is around the Conservative long-term winning average, so there's no evidence it is due to Blair. They now do better in coalfields but don't forget they do much worse in urban areas, even in the North.

Urban areas with large migrant populations are never going to give Labour a majority.

Who mentioned migrants? Dozens of seats have large populations of British citizens from ethnic minorities. Largely, these citizens do not trust a party that thinks of them as "migrants". That explains why the Conservatives performed in line with their historic record, and why unusual factors need not be cited. In other words, lots of Blair-pendulum seats never swung back, and now we've mentally banked the idea of Brent or Liverpool as being strong Labour areas.

Fishing

Sandpit said:

I would devolve as much as possible to the Counties, and let the people in the counties themselves decide whether to co-operate or compete with their neighbours.

Few counties (and even fewer English regions) have a demos in the way that the nations do. I think an English Parliament and a federal UK is the only way to address the inequities within the current constitutional settlement. Maybe if we put it in York or somewhere it would even help address regional imbalances. I don't see England's overwhelming dominance as the problem that some do, providing the competences of the national assemblies are clearly defined.

eek

Philip_Thompson said:

Mango said:

Sandpit said:

Good piece Philip, IMO the obvious solution is to equalise devolution, and create an English Parliament.

Bonus points if it could be done without needing to elect another few hundred full-time representatives with their associated costs, but rather by utilising the existing English MPs sitting somewhere else (doing it on the existing green benches will just annoy the SNP other nations).

Even better, devolve a lot more activities and tax-raising powers down to the Counties, so that they can compete for business.

Another issue for the long-overdue Constitutional Convention.

An English parliament is a ridiculously ill-conceived idea propagated by people who fail to understand federalism, subsidiarity and the point of regional government.

We are sadly missing this tier of government in this country. And local government has been hollowed out, and is utterly subject to the funding whims of Westminster. We live in the most centralised state in Europe, and it shows. It is dysfunctional.

Solution: Proper regional government. Scotland, Wales, English regions with populations and areas of roughly similar magnitudes. Tax-raising powers, elections, local premiers, the full Bundes. This was obvious in 1997, and even in 1987.

Timeline: never, obviously.

Regions are not a thing, never have been. Are you claiming Scotland is a mere "region" and not a nation like England. Are Wales and Northern Ireland mere "regions"? Or are they nations and are the devolved Parliaments/Assemblys national ones? If they're national ones then there should be an English national Parliament.

Councils are our local government. Devolving powers to Councils would make sense.

Local councils are too small - there are a lot of things that need to be done at a level of 1-5million people to have critical mass.

pm215

DecrepiterJohnL said:

It is hard to equalise devolution at a country-level because England would be so dominant as to threaten the integrity of the United Kingdom, which is already under considerable strain. Counties are too small and regions for the most part do not really exist in any legal or administrative sense. Heaven knows what the answer is but the temptation to play it for short-term party advantage might prove too hard for flesh-and-blood politicians to resist.

We should just bring back the Heptarchy. East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex, and Wessex would be about the right size that none of them individually would dominate Scotland or Wales. Kent, Sussex and Essex are a touch small but on the other hand they're in the wealthier south-east of England. I'm sure that there won't be any issues with needing to define Cornwall as part of Wales as per Wikipedia's map...

Fishing

Philip_Thompson said:

Regions are not a thing, never have been. Are you claiming Scotland is a mere "region" and not a nation like England. Are Wales and Northern Ireland mere "regions"? Or are they nations and are the devolved Parliaments/Assemblys national ones? If they're national ones then there should be an English national Parliament.

Councils are our local government. Devolving powers to Councils would make sense.

It's also worth noting that the one attempt to devolve government to English regions during the Blair years was a catastrophic failure.

eek

Fishing said:

Sandpit said:

I would devolve as much as possible to the Counties, and let the people in the counties themselves decide whether to co-operate or compete with their neighbours.

Few counties (and even fewer English regions) have a demos in the way that the nations do. I think an English Parliament and a federal UK is the only way to address the inequities within the current constitutional settlement. Maybe if we put it in York or somewhere it would even help address regional imbalances. I don't see England's overwhelming dominance as the problem that some do, providing the competences of the national assemblies are clearly defined.

It's not England's dominance that is the issue its the fact it's too big and so won't make the local decisions necessary - as a prime example look at the Treasury policy which worked on maximum return resulting in London schemes getting automatic favouritism over the rest of England.

We have some of the poorest regions in Europe for a reason, and that reason is that decision making is biased towards London. An English Parliament doesn't solve that - regional governments do.

Philip_Thompson

Theuniondivvie said:

Another convo about English devo/federalism for which English voters have shown not the slightest enthusiasm and the two main English parties do bugger all about when in power. I expect similar outbreaks in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 etc.

The issue to me isn't English devo/federalism or England/Scotland individually but the lack of any even handed solution which has resulted in Westminster/Holyrood being permanently at loggerheads. If Westminster is the English Parliament then that sets the interests of the two Parliaments being against each other.

What the answer is I'm not sure - I never suggested an answer, but I'd suggest treating the nations unevenly with no answer to the West Lothian Question has helped create this friction that the Tories and SNP are exploiting. It is a mess of Labour's making and they're suffering the consequences for it. English voters are not fussed about devolution/federalism but they do seem to be fussed about the idea of the SNP pulling the government's strings or the government being in the SNPs pocket. That line does seem to work with English voters and it won't be going away any time soon.

eek

Fishing said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Regions are not a thing, never have been. Are you claiming Scotland is a mere "region" and not a nation like England. Are Wales and Northern Ireland mere "regions"? Or are they nations and are the devolved Parliaments/Assemblys national ones? If they're national ones then there should be an English national Parliament.

Councils are our local government. Devolving powers to Councils would make sense.

It's also worth noting that the one attempt to devolve government to English regions during the Blair years was a catastrophic failure.

In what way - I remember that the offer made wasn't one that anyone could accept and is a prime example of the London problem. Interestingly when they tried again 20 years later it failed for the same reason.

Durham, Sunderland and Gateshead all fear that any increase in regional power will favour Newcastle at the expense of elsewhere because £1 spent in Newcastle offered a greater return than that same £1 spent in Sunderland or Durham.

RobD

eek said:

Fishing said:

Sandpit said:

I would devolve as much as possible to the Counties, and let the people in the counties themselves decide whether to co-operate or compete with their neighbours.

Few counties (and even fewer English regions) have a demos in the way that the nations do. I think an English Parliament and a federal UK is the only way to address the inequities within the current constitutional settlement. Maybe if we put it in York or somewhere it would even help address regional imbalances. I don't see England's overwhelming dominance as the problem that some do, providing the competences of the national assemblies are clearly defined.

It's not England's dominance that is the issue its the fact it's too big and so won't make the local decisions necessary - as a prime example look at the Treasury policy which worked on maximum return resulting in London schemes getting automatic favouritism over the rest of England.

We have some of the poorest regions in Europe for a reason, and that reason is that decision making is biased towards London. An English Parliament doesn't solve that - regional governments do.

Wasn't a referendum on regional government comprehensively defeated when trialed in the North East?

eek

RobD said:

eek said:

Fishing said:

Sandpit said:

I would devolve as much as possible to the Counties, and let the people in the counties themselves decide whether to co-operate or compete with their neighbours.

Few counties (and even fewer English regions) have a demos in the way that the nations do. I think an English Parliament and a federal UK is the only way to address the inequities within the current constitutional settlement. Maybe if we put it in York or somewhere it would even help address regional imbalances. I don't see England's overwhelming dominance as the problem that some do, providing the competences of the national assemblies are clearly defined.

It's not England's dominance that is the issue its the fact it's too big and so won't make the local decisions necessary - as a prime example look at the Treasury policy which worked on maximum return resulting in London schemes getting automatic favouritism over the rest of England.

We have some of the poorest regions in Europe for a reason, and that reason is that decision making is biased towards London. An English Parliament doesn't solve that - regional governments do.

Wasn't a referendum on regional government comprehensively defeated when trialed in the North East?

Yep - see my previous post but it was only offered in the North East which caused a problem. Were the announcement to be regional authorities for the north East, Yorkshire, North West, East Midlands, West Midlands... I suspect it would succeed as no area would want to miss out.

Teesside would be a problem though as I don't think they would want to continue playing second or even third fiddle to Newcastle.

malcolmg

NorthernPowerhouse said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Labour's wipe-out and the rise of the SNP are Blair's fault, or devolution's fault? Up to a point, Lord Copper. You'd need to explain what is different between Wales and Scotland.

Blair and devolution are only half the answer. The other half is Mrs Thatcher using Scotland as a test bed for the hated poll tax and North Sea Oil as a magic money tree, squandering "Scotland's Oil" on subsidising the unemployment she created, on current expenditure rather than investment. Even now in the SNP's case for independence, there is an element of wistfully eyeing Norway's sovereign wealth fund.

This perceived misuse of Scotland's people and resources is what drove the importance of anti-Conservativism in Scotland, and the rise of the SNP. Mrs Thatcher's first two election victories, in 1979 and 1983, included 22 and 21 Scottish seats. This was to fall to one or none between 1997 and 2017.

It wasn’t and isn’t ‘Scotland’s oil’. It’s the United Kingdom’s...

Just a pity that more than 95% of it was spent down south, union of equals my arse. Robbing barstewards more like.

Fishing

eek said:

Fishing said:

Sandpit said:

I would devolve as much as possible to the Counties, and let the people in the counties themselves decide whether to co-operate or compete with their neighbours.

Few counties (and even fewer English regions) have a demos in the way that the nations do. I think an English Parliament and a federal UK is the only way to address the inequities within the current constitutional settlement. Maybe if we put it in York or somewhere it would even help address regional imbalances. I don't see England's overwhelming dominance as the problem that some do, providing the competences of the national assemblies are clearly defined.

It's not England's dominance that is the issue its the fact it's too big and so won't make the local decisions necessary - as a prime example look at the Treasury policy which worked on maximum return resulting in London schemes getting automatic favouritism over the rest of England.

We have some of the poorest regions in Europe for a reason, and that reason is that decision making is biased towards London. An English Parliament doesn't solve that - regional governments do.

England has a similar population to California's, and smaller than many Chinese and Indian states. An English Parliament does not preclude further devolution down to regional or county level. It is simply the best way to represent the English demos.

squareroot2

EPG said:

squareroot2 said:

EPG said:

365 seats is around the Conservative long-term winning average, so there's no evidence it is due to Blair. They now do better in coalfields but don't forget they do much worse in urban areas, even in the North.

Urban areas with large migrant populations are never going to give Labour a majority.

Who mentioned migrants? Dozens of seats have large populations of British citizens from ethnic minorities. Largely, these citizens do not trust a party that thinks of them as "migrants". That explains why the Conservatives performed in line with their historic record, and why unusual factors need not be cited. In other words, lots of Blair-pendulum seats never swung back, and now we've mentally banked the idea of Brent or Liverpool as being strong Labour areas.

I mentioned migrants.. what is the make up of most of the inner city areas of London for example... and how did they vote? One cannot ignore what is just a reality.

Sandpit

RobD said:

eek said:

Fishing said:

Sandpit said:

I would devolve as much as possible to the Counties, and let the people in the counties themselves decide whether to co-operate or compete with their neighbours.

Few counties (and even fewer English regions) have a demos in the way that the nations do. I think an English Parliament and a federal UK is the only way to address the inequities within the current constitutional settlement. Maybe if we put it in York or somewhere it would even help address regional imbalances. I don't see England's overwhelming dominance as the problem that some do, providing the competences of the national assemblies are clearly defined.

It's not England's dominance that is the issue its the fact it's too big and so won't make the local decisions necessary - as a prime example look at the Treasury policy which worked on maximum return resulting in London schemes getting automatic favouritism over the rest of England.

We have some of the poorest regions in Europe for a reason, and that reason is that decision making is biased towards London. An English Parliament doesn't solve that - regional governments do.

Wasn't a referendum on regional government comprehensively defeated when trialed in the North East?

Yep, because the artificial 'regions' have no demos, and because most of the powers being offered were being transferred up from local authorities, not down from central government.

HYUFD

Interesting that in England the Tories won a higher share of the vote on December 12th than even the SNP did in Scotland or New Labour did across the UK in 1997, indeed once the boundary changes are passed the Tories will have a majority of 102.

That suggests that unless Labour wins back seats in Scotland it will be almost impossible for Labour to win a majority Government again for the foreseeable future and even if it has the support of most Scottish SNP seats it will still need to make big inroads in England even to form a minority government

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Fishing, I broadly agree, although York is a wonderful city which already has problems around sprawl and population (it's not massive but the flooding is serious).

Mr. Mango, what size population are you suggesting for a given region? I'm not at all persuaded that Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland should be kept intact but England should be sliced into pieces.

The Welsh population (all stats Wikipedia) is just over 3m, Scotland is about 5.4m, Northern Ireland is 1.9m. That's significant variation if you're aiming for similar population sizes.

EPG

The answer to the why-no-swing-back question is that the Conservatives enjoyed 2 years of majority government, and that was barely, in the last 22 years Nothing to swing back from except in 2017.

It sometimes seems that more mental effort has been spent on 2 weeks of Labour white working-class losses than on 22 years of Conservative failure to win back urban seats John Major won, which makes you wonder who chooses the narrative, cui bono, and if white people matter more in it!

NorthernPowerhouse

eek said:

RobD said:

eek said:

Fishing said:

Sandpit said:

I would devolve as much as possible to the Counties, and let the people in the counties themselves decide whether to co-operate or compete with their neighbours.

Few counties (and even fewer English regions) have a demos in the way that the nations do. I think an English Parliament and a federal UK is the only way to address the inequities within the current constitutional settlement. Maybe if we put it in York or somewhere it would even help address regional imbalances. I don't see England's overwhelming dominance as the problem that some do, providing the competences of the national assemblies are clearly defined.

It's not England's dominance that is the issue its the fact it's too big and so won't make the local decisions necessary - as a prime example look at the Treasury policy which worked on maximum return resulting in London schemes getting automatic favouritism over the rest of England.

We have some of the poorest regions in Europe for a reason, and that reason is that decision making is biased towards London. An English Parliament doesn't solve that - regional governments do.

Wasn't a referendum on regional government comprehensively defeated when trialed in the North East?

Yep - see my previous post but it was only offered in the North East which caused a problem. Were the announcement to be regional authorities for the north East, Yorkshire, North West, East Midlands, West Midlands... I suspect it would succeed as no area would want to miss out.

Teesside would be a problem though as I don't think they would want to continue playing second or even third fiddle to Newcastle.

The problem isn’t the cities anymore. The cities with their act together have worked out what Manchester have worked out. George Osborne meant it. Places that were once bywords for urban squalor are becoming engines of growth and magnets of talent.

The consequences for the towns and less cosmopolitan (clue: cosmopolitan doesn’t mean areas that have simply replaced lots of poor white peoples with lots of poor immigrants) areas is that the young and talented go off to university and don’t return.

The next big challenge is how do these areas cope with this, is it enough for them to be in charge of their own destiny? Or does that just make the current gerontocracy in these areas double down with more of what’s repelling them?

RobD

EPG said:

The answer to the why-no-swing-back question is that the Conservatives enjoyed 2 years of majority government, and that was barely, in the last 22 years Nothing to swing back from except in 2017.

It sometimes seems that more mental effort has been spent on 2 weeks of Labour white working-class losses than on 22 years of Conservative failure to win back urban seats John Major won, which makes you wonder who chooses the narrative, cui bono, and if white people matter more in it!

Well they do form an overwhelming majority of the populace.

isam

.

Cyclefree said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FF43 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good morning

I have been popping in and out these last few days and making the occasional comment but it seems most things are in limbo and little happening

I just want to say I have not gone away but am about to embark on a complete re-decoration of our lounge, dining room, snug, and hall which will keep me busy over the next 4 - 6 weeks.

It is also good to keep active at my time of life

What needs to happen by March or so to meet an end of 2020 deadline, and probably is happening behind the scenes with no debate, is the complete dismemberment of the UK's trading relationships. Nothing to see here; no-one is interested.

Good luck with your DIY.

Thank you re my DIY but I am very optimistic about 2020 and beyond

I cannot expect those who want to remainto share an optimistic view as it is contrary to their hopes the whole thing is a disaster and we may change our mind and rejoin.

After 31st January any hope of re-joining is years away, if at all

You must not confuse, as all too many - some of them on here - do, those who hope Brexit is a disaster in order to make some point (such people are pretty silly IMO) and those who fear it will not bring the anticipated joys and will be much tougher than anticipated.

Being realistic about the challenges is not a bad place to be. Certainly better than believing what you want to be true rather than looking at the facts and basing opinions on those.

I am sorry but I 100% believe that a lot of people on here hope it is a disaster in order to make a point/win an argument. You must have clocked that this is a place where people would rather argue black was white than concede a point after a lengthy discussion, and trip over themselves to say "I told you so"?

Foxy

Jonathan said:

There are no safe seats. The opportunity for Labour And the Lib Dem’s is the soft Tory underbelly in England. We’ve already seen signs of that. With the right leaders they could make further gains.

Everything is upside down.

Yes, there may well be more electoral value for both Lab and LD in targeting the seats swinging away from the Tories at this election than trying to recover lost glories.

welshowl

Mango said:

Sandpit said:

Good piece Philip, IMO the obvious solution is to equalise devolution, and create an English Parliament.

Bonus points if it could be done without needing to elect another few hundred full-time representatives with their associated costs, but rather by utilising the existing English MPs sitting somewhere else (doing it on the existing green benches will just annoy the SNP other nations).

Even better, devolve a lot more activities and tax-raising powers down to the Counties, so that they can compete for business.

Another issue for the long-overdue Constitutional Convention.

An English parliament is a ridiculously ill-conceived idea propagated by people who fail to understand federalism, subsidiarity and the point of regional government.

We are sadly missing this tier of government in this country. And local government has been hollowed out, and is utterly subject to the funding whims of Westminster. We live in the most centralised state in Europe, and it shows. It is dysfunctional.

Solution: Proper regional government. Scotland, Wales, English regions with populations and areas of roughly similar magnitudes. Tax-raising powers, elections, local premiers, the full Bundes. This was obvious in 1997, and even in 1987.

Timeline: never, obviously.

So why would it be acceptable to carve England into regions just because it’s “too big”?. Nobody would propose carving up Wales or Scotland would they, so why are the English somehow deserving of being divvied up because they don’t “fit”?

I largely agree with the header in that devolution, as implemented post 1999, was a dog’s dinner designed to keep Labour running large parts of domestic policy in Wales and Scotland pretty much forever ( with the odd tame Lib Dem/Nat helpers) and to hell with the consequences. The manifest injustice that I, in Cardiff, vote on Bristol’s health and education but not vice versa was always going to cause trouble long term.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Owl, on top of that, identity has become increasingly important in politics. That's another strong reason not to try and slice England into pieces whilst every other constituent part of the UK gets to remain intact.

MaxPB

EPG said:

The answer to the why-no-swing-back question is that the Conservatives enjoyed 2 years of majority government, and that was barely, in the last 22 years Nothing to swing back from except in 2017.

It sometimes seems that more mental effort has been spent on 2 weeks of Labour white working-class losses than on 22 years of Conservative failure to win back urban seats John Major won, which makes you wonder who chooses the narrative, cui bono, and if white people matter more in it!

Given that the country is 90% white and most seats are vast majority white it makes sense to win those votes. At least if one is interested in winning.

MarqueeMark

There are a couple of things coming down the road at Labour, where I fully expect they are going to get caught out.

The environment. Boris was described to me by one of his Cabinet as having "hippy" sensibilities. Carrie Symonds, his partner, is an environmental lobbyist. The UK is hosting the next big climate change conference in 2020 (in Glasgow). Despite saying damn all in the manifesto, this could turn out to be genuinely the greenest government we have ever seen. It will prove most popular with those who were most skeptical about Boris. Labour will just be left with 2 billion trees to plant - destroying endless exisiting local ecosystems along the way, as they plant an area twice the size of Wales.

The NHS. Investment into the NHS is going to be protected by law. Trouble is for Labour, that is going to gobble up much of the money they want to spend elsewhere in the public sector too.

Labour's fundamental problem is that their business model is broken. It ALWAYS takes more the public sector - taxing and borrowing - than the private sector can sustain. It ALWAYS breaks the economy. It ALWAYS leads to them departing the stage with unemployment higher than they inherited. Even when they had a guy as Chancellor who could talk about Post Neo-classical Endogenous Growth Theory, they still smashed up the economy.

Nobody who stands as candidate for Labour leader is going to address their dysfunctional model for governing. Full steam ahead. As you were. It will just look much more stark against the background of Very Large Number £X set in law as having first dibs for the NHS. Because having made the NHS the great immoveable in people's affections, they can't exactly admit they will change that law to reduce Very Large Number £X. And explain how they will still fund Monstrously Large Number £Y to pay for their manifesto commitments. 2019 Redux.

The new Labour leader is could be faced with a tricky call in the first weeks of their leadership, when Boris offers an all-party Royal Commission on future NHS spending and funding of the Very Large Number £X. Headed by, say, Cameron and/or Osborne. A Royal Commission will have no restrictions on what it can consider. Including part-privatisations. Will Labour not particpate? Or participate - but not sign up to its recommendations, (the report probably coming out uncomfortably close to the next election)?

So I see the environment and the NHS as two key areas where Labour could go backwards with the voters next time.

Philip_Thompson

EPG said:

The answer to the why-no-swing-back question is that the Conservatives enjoyed 2 years of majority government, and that was barely, in the last 22 years Nothing to swing back from except in 2017.

It sometimes seems that more mental effort has been spent on 2 weeks of Labour white working-class losses than on 22 years of Conservative failure to win back urban seats John Major won, which makes you wonder who chooses the narrative, cui bono, and if white people matter more in it!

Because urban seats aren't the majority of the country. And we have had Tory-led government and Tory PMs and Chancellors for virtually a decade now.

Plus the emphasis for 22 years hasn't been urban areas. In the late noughties the emphasis wasn't on the Tories failure in urban areas (since the Tories relative to the rest of the nation did OK in Southern urban areas) it was the Tories failure in the North. A failure which has been addressed.

Given the Tories have just won nearly two-thirds of English seats, a higher proportion than Blair ever managed, it seems perverse to be talking about Tory failures though - just what share do you want them to win?

Pulpstar

MarqueeMark said:

There are a couple of things coming down the road at Labour, where I fully expect they are going to get caught out.

The environment. Boris was described to me by one of his Cabinet as having "hippy" sensibilities. Carrie Symonds, his partner, is an environmental lobbyist. The UK is hosting the next big climate change conference in 2020 (in Glasgow). Despite saying damn all in the manifesto, this could turn out to be genuinely the greenest government we have ever seen. It will prove most popular with those who were most skeptical about Boris. Labour will just be left with 2 billion trees to plant - destroying endless exisiting local ecosystems along the way, as they plant an area twice the size of Wales.

The NHS. Investment into the NHS is going to be protected by law. Trouble is for Labour, that is going to gobble up much of the money they want to spend elsewhere in the public sector too.

Labour's fundamental problem is that their business model is broken. It ALWAYS takes more the public sector - taxing and borrowing - than the private sector can sustain. It ALWAYS breaks the economy. It ALWAYS leads to them departing the stage with unemployment higher than they inherited. Even when they had a guy as Chancellor who could talk about Post Neo-classical Endogenous Growth Theory, they still smashed up the economy.

Nobody who stands as candidate for Labour leader is going to address their dysfunctional model for governing. Full steam ahead. As you were. It will just look much more stark against the background of Very Large Number £X set in law as having first dibs for the NHS. Because having made the NHS the great immoveable in people's affections, they can't exactly admit they will change that law to reduce Very Large Number £X. And explain how they will still fund Monstrously Large Number £Y to pay for their manifesto commitments. 2019 Redux.

The new Labour leader is could be faced with a tricky call in the first weeks of their leadership, when Boris offers an all-party Royal Commission on future NHS spending and funding of the Very Large Number £X. Headed by, say, Cameron and/or Osborne. A Royal Commission will have no restrictions on what it can consider. Including part-privatisations. Will Labour not particpate? Or participate - but not sign up to its recommendations, (the report probably coming out uncomfortably close to the next election)?

So I see the environment and the NHS as two key areas where Labour could go backwards with the voters next time.

Another factor is... Brexit party unwind

Foxy

NorthernPowerhouse said:

eek said:

RobD said:

eek said:

Fishing said:

Sandpit said:

I would devolve as much as possible to the Counties, and let the people in the counties themselves decide whether to co-operate or compete with their neighbours.

Few counties (and even fewer English regions) have a demos in the way that the nations do. I think an English Parliament and a federal UK is the only way to address the inequities within the current constitutional settlement. Maybe if we put it in York or somewhere it would even help address regional imbalances. I don't see England's overwhelming dominance as the problem that some do, providing the competences of the national assemblies are clearly defined.

It's not England's dominance that is the issue its the fact it's too big and so won't make the local decisions necessary - as a prime example look at the Treasury policy which worked on maximum return resulting in London schemes getting automatic favouritism over the rest of England.

We have some of the poorest regions in Europe for a reason, and that reason is that decision making is biased towards London. An English Parliament doesn't solve that - regional governments do.

Wasn't a referendum on regional government comprehensively defeated when trialed in the North East?

Yep - see my pre

The problem isn’t the cities anymore. The cities with their act together have worked out what Manchester have worked out. George Osborne meant it. Places that were once bywords for urban squalor are becoming engines of growth and magnets of talent.

The consequences for the towns and less cosmopolitan (clue: cosmopolitan doesn’t mean areas that have simply replaced lots of poor white peoples with lots of poor immigrants) areas is that the young and talented go off to university and don’t return.

The next big challenge is how do these areas cope with this, is it enough for them to be in charge of their own destiny? Or does that just make the current gerontocracy in these areas double down with more of what’s repelling them?

Yes, I think this a big part of the problem of the "left behind areas". The talented youngsters go off to big city universities and enjoy the cosmopolitan life there. There is decreasingly little to pull them back to the smaller towns and cities. The boomer factor (the percentage of the population 54+ on the parliamentary demographics) was a pretty strong predictor of which Northern seats would be Tory gains.

In part it is a cultural change to the consumerism of experience rather than the consumerism of things.

Philip_Thompson

Pulpstar said:

Another factor is... Brexit party unwind

That could help Labour. I firmly believe Brexit Party helped the Tories here in the North. I have relatives who were lifelong Labour voters who would never be seen dead voting Tory and still dislike the Tories now who voted Brexit Party.

The Tories won Brexiteers who were prepared to vote Tory. The Brexit Party provided an outlet for Brexiteers who would never vote Tory so that they didn't vote Labour instead.

There's many wild assumptions about how many seats the Tories would have won if the Brexit Party vote was added to theirs, but equally if the Brexit Party vote went to Labour then Labour would have held much of the former red wall.

The Tories have 4 years in government now to try and prove they can work well for the North so those voters having broken the habit of voting Labour don't return to them next time.

isam

Foxy said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

eek said:

RobD said:

eek said:

Fishing said:

Sandpit said:

I would devolve as much as possible to the Counties, and let the people in the counties themselves decide whether to co-operate or compete with their neighbours.

Few counties (and even fewer English regions) have a demos in the way that the nations do. I think an English Parliament and a federal UK is the only way to address the inequities within the current constitutional settlement. Maybe if we put it in York or somewhere it would even help address regional imbalances. I don't see England's overwhelming dominance as the problem that some do, providing the competences of the national assemblies are clearly defined.

It's not England's dominance that is the issue its the fact it's too big and so won't make the local decisions necessary - as a prime example look at the Treasury policy which worked on maximum return resulting in London schemes getting automatic favouritism over the rest of England.

We have some of the poorest regions in Europe for a reason, and that reason is that decision making is biased towards London. An English Parliament doesn't solve that - regional governments do.

Wasn't a referendum on regional government comprehensively defeated when trialed in the North East?

Yep - see my pre

The problem isn’t the cities anymore. The cities with their act together have worked out what Manchester have worked out. George Osborne meant it. Places that were once bywords for urban squalor are becoming engines of growth and magnets of talent.

The consequences for the towns and less cosmopolitan (clue: cosmopolitan doesn’t mean areas that have simply replaced lots of poor white peoples with lots of poor immigrants) areas is that the young and talented go off to university and don’t return.

The next big challenge is how do these areas cope with this, is it enough for them to be in charge of their own destiny? Or does that just make the current gerontocracy in these areas double down with more of what’s repelling them?

Yes, I think this a big part of the problem of the "left behind areas". The talented youngsters go off to big city universities and enjoy the cosmopolitan life there. There is decreasingly little to pull them back to the smaller towns and cities. The boomer factor (the percentage of the population 54+ on the parliamentary demographics) was a pretty strong predictor of which Northern seats would be Tory gains.

In part it is a cultural change to the consumerism of experience rather than the consumerism of things.

Rings true. The youngsters leave home, better themselves financially, and don't go back. Out of sight, out of mind.

DecrepiterJohnL

malcolmg said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Labour's wipe-out and the rise of the SNP are Blair's fault, or devolution's fault? Up to a point, Lord Copper. You'd need to explain what is different between Wales and Scotland.

Blair and devolution are only half the answer. The other half is Mrs Thatcher using Scotland as a test bed for the hated poll tax and North Sea Oil as a magic money tree, squandering "Scotland's Oil" on subsidising the unemployment she created, on current expenditure rather than investment. Even now in the SNP's case for independence, there is an element of wistfully eyeing Norway's sovereign wealth fund.

This perceived misuse of Scotland's people and resources is what drove the importance of anti-Conservativism in Scotland, and the rise of the SNP. Mrs Thatcher's first two election victories, in 1979 and 1983, included 22 and 21 Scottish seats. This was to fall to one or none between 1997 and 2017.

It wasn’t and isn’t ‘Scotland’s oil’. It’s the United Kingdom’s...

Just a pity that more than 95% of it was spent down south, union of equals my arse. Robbing barstewards more like.

There's the problem. 95% of the UK *is* down south. Actually it's more like 92% of the population but you get the drift. There are only 5.5 million Scots among 66 million Britons. This is, after all, part of the case for independence: that Scotland is somehow overshadowed or submerged in the UK.

malcolmg

DecrepiterJohnL said:

malcolmg said:

NorthernPowerhouse said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Labour's wipe-out and the rise of the SNP are Blair's fault, or devolution's fault? Up to a point, Lord Copper. You'd need to explain what is different between Wales and Scotland.

Blair and devolution are only half the answer. The other half is Mrs Thatcher using Scotland as a test bed for the hated poll tax and North Sea Oil as a magic money tree, squandering "Scotland's Oil" on subsidising the unemployment she created, on current expenditure rather than investment. Even now in the SNP's case for independence, there is an element of wistfully eyeing Norway's sovereign wealth fund.

This perceived misuse of Scotland's people and resources is what drove the importance of anti-Conservativism in Scotland, and the rise of the SNP. Mrs Thatcher's first two election victories, in 1979 and 1983, included 22 and 21 Scottish seats. This was to fall to one or none between 1997 and 2017.

It wasn’t and isn’t ‘Scotland’s oil’. It’s the United Kingdom’s...

Just a pity that more than 95% of it was spent down south, union of equals my arse. Robbing barstewards more like.

There's the problem. 95% of the UK *is* down south. Actually it's more like 92% of the population but you get the drift. There are only 5.5 million Scots among 66 million Britons. This is, after all, part of the case for independence: that Scotland is somehow overshadowed or submerged in the UK.

Exactly the reason it will never work, they are only going to look after the majority that will get them re-elected and so will never champion Scotland's case. Many years ago they used to try but nowadays they just crap on us.