I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
Where does Foxy, in Leics, fit in?
My view is a lot of the existing Euro regions are too big, particularly the SE which stretches from Dover to Milton Keynes. I would suggest:
South West - Devon, Cornwall - 1.7 million South Coast - Dorset, Hants, Isle of Wight - 2.5 million West Country - Avon, Gloucs, Somerset, Wiltshire - 3 million South East - Sussex, Kent, Surrey - 4.7 million Thames Valley - Berks, Bucks, Oxon - 2.4 million Greater London - as now - 9 million East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs - 2.4 million Essex - stand alone - 1.8 million North Home Counties - Beds, Herts - 1.8 million West Mercia - Hereford, Worcs, Shropshire, Staffs - 2.4 million West Midlands - West Mids county - 2.9 million South Midlands - Warks, Northants, Leics, Rutland - 2.3 million North Midlands - Derbys, Notts, Lincs, Cheshire - 4.2 million Merseyside - stand alone - 1.4 million Greater Manchester - stand alone - 2.8 million North West - Lancashire, Cumbria - 2 million West Yorkshire - stand alone - 2.3 million South Yorkshire - stand alone - 1.4 million North Yorkshire and Humberside - 1.8 million North East - Durham, Tyne and Wear, Northumberland, Teesside - 2.3 million
I know North Home counties is a terrible name.
Too much geography-ism there. "North East", for example, is not a sustainable and culturally sensitive name. That works for administrative regions, but not for pseudo-federalism.
The North East is simple. Merge Newcastle and North Tyneside back into Northumberland and Sunderland, Gateshead, and South Tyneside back into County Durham. Have the Tyne as the border.
"Greater Northumberland" will then have a population of circa 1m people. Sufficient.
Looking at the US elections Biden got 93% of the vote in District of Columbia and Trump just over 5%. No wonder the Democrats want to turn it into a State. Not likely to happen now without control of the Senate, of course.
I didn't notice much debate on here about whther the GoP would win the two Special Elections in Georgia. I haven't much of a view on this but suspect they will win one or possibly two and therefore hang on to the Senate, which seems to be what people want whilst giving the execrable Trump the boot.
The Dems best chance would be if Trump hangs on until Election Day. He is looking more and more ridiculous and that might boost the Dems to the extent they became an even money chance?
Not sure. Views anybody?
I think 1-1 in Georgia, I really can't see the GOP screwing up so badly that they lose both. The GOP will be keen to protect the control Trump has given them in the SC.
They will certainly try hard, but if Trump is still sitting on the pot the Dems are in with a chance of both. I certainly wouldn't put it higher than 50/50 though.
The 1-1 view is quite widespread but I struggle to understand the mindset of the individual voters who would need to make the difference. This is not about turnout - the voter is actually taking the ballot papers in hand and pondering. "I like the GOP up to a point so I'll give them a vote, but I like the Democrats too so I'll give them the other one". Are there lots of voters in trench-warfare American politics who think like that?
US swing voters have a incredibly weird obsession with bipartisanship.
Even Reagen in his landslide wins didn't enjoy a trifecta !
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
Where does Foxy, in Leics, fit in?
My view is a lot of the existing Euro regions are too big, particularly the SE which stretches from Dover to Milton Keynes. I would suggest:
South West - Devon, Cornwall - 1.7 million South Coast - Dorset, Hants, Isle of Wight - 2.5 million West Country - Avon, Gloucs, Somerset, Wiltshire - 3 million South East - Sussex, Kent, Surrey - 4.7 million Thames Valley - Berks, Bucks, Oxon - 2.4 million Greater London - as now - 9 million East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs - 2.4 million Essex - stand alone - 1.8 million North Home Counties - Beds, Herts - 1.8 million West Mercia - Hereford, Worcs, Shropshire, Staffs - 2.4 million West Midlands - West Mids county - 2.9 million South Midlands - Warks, Northants, Leics, Rutland - 2.3 million North Midlands - Derbys, Notts, Lincs, Cheshire - 4.2 million Merseyside - stand alone - 1.4 million Greater Manchester - stand alone - 2.8 million North West - Lancashire, Cumbria - 2 million West Yorkshire - stand alone - 2.3 million South Yorkshire - stand alone - 1.4 million North Yorkshire and Humberside - 1.8 million North East - Durham, Tyne and Wear, Northumberland, Teesside - 2.3 million
I know North Home counties is a terrible name.
Very happy with Essex on it's own, as the alternative is a split; South of the county...... more or less along the A127, plus Billericay to London. North in with East Anglia. Might be an argument for putting Epping in with London, though.
Completely off topic but can anyone recommend a high quality assisted living in the UK, Outside of London providing everything short of 24 hour nursing
Income tax and national insurance make up around 50% of total tax intake. The public understand that they pay for our social security system ie pensions.
The rest should v largely be devolved to Scotland (and Wales, and NI) along with additional income tax raising powers.
Not quite full fiscal autonomy, but the next best thing.
The problem with federalism is that it requires the UK Prime Minister to voluntarily give up power. Would they ever do that? Unlikely.
The other problem is that the 85% of the UK population that would need to support federalism haven't shown the slightest interest in it, and the 2 main parties for whom they vote only make noises about it when the UK is threatened by Scottish indy and/or when they're not in a position to enact it.
Agreed. A federal UK would require England to be split into smaller regions, otherwise it would be too dominant as a single entity with 85% of the population. Any attempt to underweight its voice would be unfair, but if it were allowed a proportionate say it would make a mockery of the whole exercise. If the English don't want to go down the regionalism route - as is their prerogative, it can't be forced on them - then they have to accept either asymmetric devolution or independence for the smaller nations.
Any devolution for England will be beset with charges of gerrymandering - unless some body could be created to devise the new units political considerations entering the equation. I'm unclear how that could be achieved.
A thought about vaccines, let's for the moment assume Pfizer, Moderna and AZ all strike gold and have 95%+ effective vaccines that pass safety and other regulatory tests with flying colours. Where does that leave other vaccines that have yet to or have just started their PIII trial? We're seeing with the AZ vaccine how tough it is to get enough events even in this current second wave and with those three vaccines approved there isn't going to be a third wave.
I'd put it that if these three vaccines are approved at around the same time then no other vaccine will reach the requisite number of PIII events other than maybe J&J who started a couple of weeks ago. The likes of Valneva, Curevac and others won't register enough infections because the R will drop below 1 very quickly once vaccination programmes start, even with limited numbers.
If the P3 trials are done in 20 - 40 year olds they might be OK since we're not getting vaccinated for a while.
In the three approved vaccine scenario we probably we would get it fairly quickly because supply until end of June 2021 would be 99m doses for the UK, 350m doses for the US and 280m doses for the EU plus side deals. The R value is going to drop drastically from around March onwards which gives vaccine makers a 4 month window to get PIII trials done.
You are assuming that the vaccine(s) gets rolled out world wide in that time frame.
Sadly, they won't. First world countries will get first dibs - by the end of this month, they will have bought and paid for all the vaccine production for next year.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
Where does Foxy, in Leics, fit in?
My view is a lot of the existing Euro regions are too big, particularly the SE which stretches from Dover to Milton Keynes. I would suggest:
South West - Devon, Cornwall - 1.7 million South Coast - Dorset, Hants, Isle of Wight - 2.5 million West Country - Avon, Gloucs, Somerset, Wiltshire - 3 million South East - Sussex, Kent, Surrey - 4.7 million Thames Valley - Berks, Bucks, Oxon - 2.4 million Greater London - as now - 9 million East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs - 2.4 million Essex - stand alone - 1.8 million North Home Counties - Beds, Herts - 1.8 million West Mercia - Hereford, Worcs, Shropshire, Staffs - 2.4 million West Midlands - West Mids county - 2.9 million South Midlands - Warks, Northants, Leics, Rutland - 2.3 million North Midlands - Derbys, Notts, Lincs, Cheshire - 4.2 million Merseyside - stand alone - 1.4 million Greater Manchester - stand alone - 2.8 million North West - Lancashire, Cumbria - 2 million West Yorkshire - stand alone - 2.3 million South Yorkshire - stand alone - 1.4 million North Yorkshire and Humberside - 1.8 million North East - Durham, Tyne and Wear, Northumberland, Teesside - 2.3 million
I know North Home counties is a terrible name.
BiB - these are the tricky bits. Having Lincolnshire and Cheshire in the same area seems inappropriate.
If Essex is considered worthy of its own region, then I'd say take Staffs out of West Mercia and combine it with Cheshire and Derbyshire.
I'd then combine Lincs and Notts with Leics and Rutland. That leaves the awkward two of Warks and Northants, but I guess they could go together as a standalone region.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
As you say, this would destroy the myth of Tory England and would end the neglect suffered by “the North”. (but actually, anywhere outside a 50 mile radius of Westminster).
Broadly agree with your divisions, but: I’d put Hampshire into Wessex. I’d create a Middle Anglia consisting of Northants, Cambs, Beds and Hunts, Oxon and Bucks.
Sussex and Kent together? No way. 😂
More like Kent would split between Men of Kent and Kentish Men, with the Kentish Men joining Sussex. And what about East and West Sussex. Trouble at Oast House!
I think we could take on the lesser Sussex, but merging Kent into Sussex is like saying Devon and Cornwall are the same.
Not "the same," but Devon makes better sense with Cornwall as part of Dumnonia than lumped in with utterly ridiculous places like Swindon and Basingstoke as part of Wessex.
Speaking as someone from Cornwall...over my dead body they can't even put cream and jam on a scone properly
They would have to be careful how they order these days (which I think is a silly idea, just do postal votes) otherwise you'd have someone without a day to vote: too young for 65+ day and too old for under-65s day the day after (when they turn 65).
I've reluctantly come round to the conclusion that there must be some wealthy GoP supporters holding up the prices on the main Presidential Market.
Biden's figure has been oscillating between 1.05 and 1.06 for a while now and the amounts available are huge, regularly in excess of £2m. If you have nothing better to do than watch the vacillations you will see that whenever the price edges down to 1.05, huge sums are suddenly shifted to 1.06 and they sit there more or less untouched until the process starts to repeat itself. This strongly suggests there are one or two very big players manipulating this. It does need look like the spontaneous actions of thousands of independent small punters.
If you look at the remaining open State markets (Ga,Pa,Nev etc) the picture is different. For a start, the odds are if anything lower. This is utterly illogical as you will hardly need telling. The amounts up for grabs though are very small, which is pretty much what you would expect in a market about to be settled.
I think the big players are not bothering with the State markets, but they are trying to sustain the fiction that somehow Donald may pull it off. If you consider the wealth of, say, a Sheldon Adelson, you realise that the cost would be peanuts to him, especially if it allows his friend time to rake in contributions from cult followers for a second run (or more likely pay off his debts.)
I think something like that is happening. There would be other factors of course, but I'm sure now that the price is to some extent being artificially supported.
So we should all pile in to make it more expensive for the manipulators?
Well I'm about maxed out now but yes that is effectively what I've done. Won't make me a fortune but should clear about £400. Anybody else wants to do similarly I wouldn't discourage them. Not a situation that's likely to crop up very often.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
Where does Foxy, in Leics, fit in?
My view is a lot of the existing Euro regions are too big, particularly the SE which stretches from Dover to Milton Keynes. I would suggest:
South West - Devon, Cornwall - 1.7 million South Coast - Dorset, Hants, Isle of Wight - 2.5 million West Country - Avon, Gloucs, Somerset, Wiltshire - 3 million South East - Sussex, Kent, Surrey - 4.7 million Thames Valley - Berks, Bucks, Oxon - 2.4 million Greater London - as now - 9 million East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs - 2.4 million Essex - stand alone - 1.8 million North Home Counties - Beds, Herts - 1.8 million West Mercia - Hereford, Worcs, Shropshire, Staffs - 2.4 million West Midlands - West Mids county - 2.9 million South Midlands - Warks, Northants, Leics, Rutland - 2.3 million North Midlands - Derbys, Notts, Lincs, Cheshire - 4.2 million Merseyside - stand alone - 1.4 million Greater Manchester - stand alone - 2.8 million North West - Lancashire, Cumbria - 2 million West Yorkshire - stand alone - 2.3 million South Yorkshire - stand alone - 1.4 million North Yorkshire and Humberside - 1.8 million North East - Durham, Tyne and Wear, Northumberland, Teesside - 2.3 million
I know North Home counties is a terrible name.
BiB - these are the tricky bits. Having Lincolnshire and Cheshire in the same area seems inappropriate.
If Essex is considered worthy of its own region, then I'd say take Staffs out of West Mercia and combine it with Cheshire and Derbyshire.
I'd then combine Lincs and Notts with Leics and Rutland. That leaves the awkward two of Warks and Northants, but I guess they could go together as a standalone region.
Staffs has more in common with the places in the original post than Derbyshire and Cheshire.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
Where does Foxy, in Leics, fit in?
My first draft would put Foxy in with Mercia.
Though I think it's interesting that the area of the Five Boroughs of the Danelaw feels to me like it still constitutes a sort of neutral ground between more strongly defined regions.
I'd give the coastal part of this area to East Anglia.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
Where does Foxy, in Leics, fit in?
My view is a lot of the existing Euro regions are too big, particularly the SE which stretches from Dover to Milton Keynes. I would suggest:
South West - Devon, Cornwall - 1.7 million South Coast - Dorset, Hants, Isle of Wight - 2.5 million West Country - Avon, Gloucs, Somerset, Wiltshire - 3 million South East - Sussex, Kent, Surrey - 4.7 million Thames Valley - Berks, Bucks, Oxon - 2.4 million Greater London - as now - 9 million East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs - 2.4 million Essex - stand alone - 1.8 million North Home Counties - Beds, Herts - 1.8 million West Mercia - Hereford, Worcs, Shropshire, Staffs - 2.4 million West Midlands - West Mids county - 2.9 million South Midlands - Warks, Northants, Leics, Rutland - 2.3 million North Midlands - Derbys, Notts, Lincs, Cheshire - 4.2 million Merseyside - stand alone - 1.4 million Greater Manchester - stand alone - 2.8 million North West - Lancashire, Cumbria - 2 million West Yorkshire - stand alone - 2.3 million South Yorkshire - stand alone - 1.4 million North Yorkshire and Humberside - 1.8 million North East - Durham, Tyne and Wear, Northumberland, Teesside - 2.3 million
I know North Home counties is a terrible name.
Too much geography-ism there. "North East", for example, is not a sustainable and culturally sensitive name. That works for administrative regions, but not for pseudo-federalism.
The North East is simple. Merge Newcastle and North Tyneside back into Northumberland and Sunderland, Gateshead, and South Tyneside back into County Durham. Have the Tyne as the border.
"Greater Northumberland" will then have a population of circa 1m people. Sufficient.
Northumbria is a region. In charge of regional economic policy, transport, tourism, maybe regional health authority etc.
Northumberland, Durham and Newcastle Metro (including of course Gateshead and Sunderland) would be the three units underneath that.
That's twisting what this is about though Andy. Tony Blair never said devolution would be a disaster: he was hugely pro it and Johnson did not say devolution was a disaster because it would bring independence.
It was George Robertson (S of S for S) said "Devolution will kill Nationalism stone dead".
The problem with federalism is that it requires the UK Prime Minister to voluntarily give up power. Would they ever do that? Unlikely.
The other problem is that the 85% of the UK population that would need to support federalism haven't shown the slightest interest in it, and the 2 main parties for whom they vote only make noises about it when the UK is threatened by Scottish indy and/or when they're not in a position to enact it.
Maybe we need a thread on federalism instead of the ones on AV?
I would read that with interest. Since I live in England, it's a moot point, but as things currently stand I would vote for Scottish independence. I can see pathways to me changing my mind about that, and a greater level of devolution is a necessary part of that. Another part would be a more sensible approach to Europe; Brexiters and Conservatives need to properly acknowledge the difficulties that are caused by hard Brexit, and weight up whether it's more important than the union. Lastly, the tone needs to change. Boris Johnson's deliberately provocative statement reads to me like red meat to a certain part of his base, and I think that's fine if that's where his priorities are. But for people like me, in the middle third on the independence question, it looks a bit unnecessary.
The middle third is everything here. There are subsets at either end of this question who cannot be reconciled to the other side, no matter what. And in that middle third I would argue the VAST majority are in favour of the status quo versus scrapping devolution. To attack devolution is to polarise this middle group, and I have a strong sense that they will not break heavily in favour of the union.
They would have to be careful how they order these days (which I think is a silly idea, just do postal votes) otherwise you'd have someone without a day to vote: too young for 65+ day and too old for under-65s day the day after (when they turn 65).
Agree; nothing wrong with postal voting most of the time. There have been allegations, for example of the head of a family making sure everyone votes the same way, but I don't they were either substantiated or if they were, were significant.
My view is a lot of the existing Euro regions are too big, particularly the SE which stretches from Dover to Milton Keynes. I would suggest:
South West - Devon, Cornwall - 1.7 million South Coast - Dorset, Hants, Isle of Wight - 2.5 million West Country - Avon, Gloucs, Somerset, Wiltshire - 3 million South East - Sussex, Kent, Surrey - 4.7 million Thames Valley - Berks, Bucks, Oxon - 2.4 million Greater London - as now - 9 million East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs - 2.4 million Essex - stand alone - 1.8 million North Home Counties - Beds, Herts - 1.8 million West Mercia - Hereford, Worcs, Shropshire, Staffs - 2.4 million West Midlands - West Mids county - 2.9 million South Midlands - Warks, Northants, Leics, Rutland - 2.3 million North Midlands - Derbys, Notts, Lincs, Cheshire - 4.2 million Merseyside - stand alone - 1.4 million Greater Manchester - stand alone - 2.8 million North West - Lancashire, Cumbria - 2 million West Yorkshire - stand alone - 2.3 million South Yorkshire - stand alone - 1.4 million North Yorkshire and Humberside - 1.8 million North East - Durham, Tyne and Wear, Northumberland, Teesside - 2.3 million
I know North Home counties is a terrible name.
Aren't these more super council areas than regions? I'm not going to speak for dahn sarf but in the north you have too many chunks.
Realistically we need to build on the city regions that have already been done. So dividing Newcastle from Gateshead makes no sense nor Manchester from Trafford (despite me saying so before). A true regions plan would have a "North West" that combines Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria. What you call it is the issue.
On the wrong side of the hills it gets trickier. Yorkshire is not only an obvious area but has a neat southern boundary. In the north? Do you divide Teesside? Or put Stockton in Durham or Stockton in Northumbria...?
Glad I'm moving to Scotland. To Aberdeenshire. In the Grampian region. Simples.
That's twisting what this is about though Andy. Tony Blair never said devolution would be a disaster: he was hugely pro it and Johnson did not say devolution was a disaster because it would bring independence.
It was George Robertson (S of S for S) said "Devolution will kill Nationalism stone dead".
Was that so daft though? I suppose it depends how it's done. In Quebec, the French just failed to win the independence vote but were given just about everything short of independence in the years that followed. Quebec separatism has died the death as a consequence.
Looking at the US elections Biden got 93% of the vote in District of Columbia and Trump just over 5%. No wonder the Democrats want to turn it into a State. Not likely to happen now without control of the Senate, of course.
I didn't notice much debate on here about whther the GoP would win the two Special Elections in Georgia. I haven't much of a view on this but suspect they will win one or possibly two and therefore hang on to the Senate, which seems to be what people want whilst giving the execrable Trump the boot.
The Dems best chance would be if Trump hangs on until Election Day. He is looking more and more ridiculous and that might boost the Dems to the extent they became an even money chance?
Not sure. Views anybody?
I think 1-1 in Georgia, I really can't see the GOP screwing up so badly that they lose both. The GOP will be keen to protect the control Trump has given them in the SC.
They will certainly try hard, but if Trump is still sitting on the pot the Dems are in with a chance of both. I certainly wouldn't put it higher than 50/50 though.
The 1-1 view is quite widespread but I struggle to understand the mindset of the individual voters who would need to make the difference. This is not about turnout - the voter is actually taking the ballot papers in hand and pondering. "I like the GOP up to a point so I'll give them a vote, but I like the Democrats too so I'll give them the other one". Are there lots of voters in trench-warfare American politics who think like that?
The other point in support of this is that in order to arrive at a 1-1 the split voters have nearly all got to split the same way.
Seems to me the odds are closer to: c.50% 2-0, c.50% 0-2, <1% 1-1.</p>
Surely the voters who do decide to split are likely to have a tendency to prefer the same R over the other and the same D over the other, and therefore might well mostly split one way. Although, to be fair, both Republican candidates seem absolutely appalling.
A thought about vaccines, let's for the moment assume Pfizer, Moderna and AZ all strike gold and have 95%+ effective vaccines that pass safety and other regulatory tests with flying colours. Where does that leave other vaccines that have yet to or have just started their PIII trial? We're seeing with the AZ vaccine how tough it is to get enough events even in this current second wave and with those three vaccines approved there isn't going to be a third wave.
I'd put it that if these three vaccines are approved at around the same time then no other vaccine will reach the requisite number of PIII events other than maybe J&J who started a couple of weeks ago. The likes of Valneva, Curevac and others won't register enough infections because the R will drop below 1 very quickly once vaccination programmes start, even with limited numbers.
If the P3 trials are done in 20 - 40 year olds they might be OK since we're not getting vaccinated for a while.
In the three approved vaccine scenario we probably we would get it fairly quickly because supply until end of June 2021 would be 99m doses for the UK, 350m doses for the US and 280m doses for the EU plus side deals. The R value is going to drop drastically from around March onwards which gives vaccine makers a 4 month window to get PIII trials done.
You are assuming that the vaccine(s) gets rolled out world wide in that time frame.
Sadly, they won't. First world countries will get first dibs - by the end of this month, they will have bought and paid for all the vaccine production for next year.
But as of now the majority of PIII trials are being conducted in the US, UK and a handful of second world nations that have the infrastructure. Lots of them have also got big vaccine orders as part of their deals to allow trials to go ahead. The R will be dropping everywhere these companies can reliably hold trials by the middle of next year and most likely be close to eradication with small outbreaks every so often by the time we get past Q1. Global manufacturing capacity is going to be close to 400m doses per month initially, the first world doesn't account for even half of that capacity and that doesn't include China's domestic manufacturing capacity either.
Regions exist already if you count groups of councils working together as such. There's a defined South-East group of Councils whose political leaders and chief executives meet quarterly and I suspect that's the same across the county.
In practical terms, there are any number of joint or combined back office partnerships in operation so while you may have three Councils there might only be a single back office location where all the transactional work is carried out. There are also joint groups for contracts and procurement of services including energy.
It remains to be seen if the current Government has any real appetite for the abolition of the two-tier system where it still exists - I suspect there may be some intra-party issues if it is pursued too rigorously.
Devolving more power from Westminster down to pre-existing authorities (county or unitary) seems a very good idea if you want to re-vitalise local democracy but Johnson is a centraliser as most Westminster politicians are - he wants to take more power into Whitehall and No.10 and away from Parliament.
It's my experience it's easy to give someone authority (and especially financial authority) but try taking it away from them and you'll have a fight on your hands.
That's twisting what this is about though Andy. Tony Blair never said devolution would be a disaster: he was hugely pro it and Johnson did not say devolution was a disaster because it would bring independence.
It was George Robertson (S of S for S) said "Devolution will kill Nationalism stone dead".
Was that so daft though? I suppose it depends how it's done. In Quebec, the French just failed to win the independence vote but were given just about everything short of independence in the years that followed. Quebec separatism has died the death as a consequence.
At the time, Labour had total dominance in Scotland (though deliberately ceded some of it to the LDs as junior partner, so Dewar and IIRC Wallace could rub their hands over permanent coalition domination).
But I'm also reminded that Mr Cameron and his Labour allies promised the Scots almost evertything short of federalism if we voted no in 2014 (and also, no Brexit). Which bears on your Quebecois comparison. However, that was a later stage, of course ...
They would have to be careful how they order these days (which I think is a silly idea, just do postal votes) otherwise you'd have someone without a day to vote: too young for 65+ day and too old for under-65s day the day after (when they turn 65).
Agree; nothing wrong with postal voting most of the time. There have been allegations, for example of the head of a family making sure everyone votes the same way, but I don't they were either substantiated or if they were, were significant.
Indiscriminate postal voting conflicts with Murphy's great principle that If a thing can go wrong it will. It currently fails to possess that most basic secret ballot check created by the polling station, an official presence, the booth and the pencil on the end of a piece of string.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; this is particularly true of domestic settings in which there is no immediate victim.
There is another difficulty which is that postal voting occurs over a substantial period of time. When this is a significant number of people then in fact two elections are happening merged into one; an election in which people can draw their own halt to the significance of the campaign at an early date, and the election which runs up the wire.
The fact that on this occasion is seems to have helped remove Trump while excellent is not sufficient justification.
Scottish Independence is highly analogous to Brexit. It would be, in the short term, an economic and political catastrophe.
Sure, in the longer term Scotland would survive and thrive, just as Ireland has. The question is whether it is “worth” the 30-50 year wait.
I can see the appeal, especially since Brexit and the rise of a parochialism, corruption, and incompetence at Westminster.
But frankly, I’ve had enough of those who think splitting off is the answer to every ill. We need more coming together and less division.
100% agree. Furthermore in the long run in an age past the absurd religious divisions which blighted the island of Ireland a glance at a map indicates that the two big islands of Britain and Ireland should be at most two countries (one per island please, not the current nonsense) and preferably one. New Zealand gets along all right.
My view is a lot of the existing Euro regions are too big, particularly the SE which stretches from Dover to Milton Keynes. I would suggest:
South West - Devon, Cornwall - 1.7 million South Coast - Dorset, Hants, Isle of Wight - 2.5 million West Country - Avon, Gloucs, Somerset, Wiltshire - 3 million South East - Sussex, Kent, Surrey - 4.7 million Thames Valley - Berks, Bucks, Oxon - 2.4 million Greater London - as now - 9 million East Anglia - Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs - 2.4 million Essex - stand alone - 1.8 million North Home Counties - Beds, Herts - 1.8 million West Mercia - Hereford, Worcs, Shropshire, Staffs - 2.4 million West Midlands - West Mids county - 2.9 million South Midlands - Warks, Northants, Leics, Rutland - 2.3 million North Midlands - Derbys, Notts, Lincs, Cheshire - 4.2 million Merseyside - stand alone - 1.4 million Greater Manchester - stand alone - 2.8 million North West - Lancashire, Cumbria - 2 million West Yorkshire - stand alone - 2.3 million South Yorkshire - stand alone - 1.4 million North Yorkshire and Humberside - 1.8 million North East - Durham, Tyne and Wear, Northumberland, Teesside - 2.3 million
I know North Home counties is a terrible name.
Aren't these more super council areas than regions? I'm not going to speak for dahn sarf but in the north you have too many chunks.
Realistically we need to build on the city regions that have already been done. So dividing Newcastle from Gateshead makes no sense nor Manchester from Trafford (despite me saying so before). A true regions plan would have a "North West" that combines Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria. What you call it is the issue.
On the wrong side of the hills it gets trickier. Yorkshire is not only an obvious area but has a neat southern boundary. In the north? Do you divide Teesside? Or put Stockton in Durham or Stockton in Northumbria...?
Glad I'm moving to Scotland. To Aberdeenshire. In the Grampian region. Simples.
Newcastle is ALREADY divided from Gateshead. They are not in the same city region. They have separate councils and there is the North of Tyne City Region, which includes Newcastle, Northumberland, and North Tyneside, but not Gateshead.
"Tyne and Wear" does not exist in any real capacity anymore other than a unified fire service.
They would have to be careful how they order these days (which I think is a silly idea, just do postal votes) otherwise you'd have someone without a day to vote: too young for 65+ day and too old for under-65s day the day after (when they turn 65).
Agree; nothing wrong with postal voting most of the time. There have been allegations, for example of the head of a family making sure everyone votes the same way, but I don't they were either substantiated or if they were, were significant.
Indiscriminate postal voting conflicts with Murphy's great principle that If a thing can go wrong it will. It currently fails to possess that most basic secret ballot check created by the polling station, an official presence, the booth and the pencil on the end of a piece of string.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; this is particularly true of domestic settings in which there is no immediate victim.
There is another difficulty which is that postal voting occurs over a substantial period of time. When this is a significant number of people then in fact two elections are happening merged into one; an election in which people can draw their own halt to the significance of the campaign at an early date, and the election which runs up the wire.
The fact that on this occasion is seems to have helped remove Trump while excellent is not sufficient justification.
Looking at the US elections Biden got 93% of the vote in District of Columbia and Trump just over 5%. No wonder the Democrats want to turn it into a State. Not likely to happen now without control of the Senate, of course.
I didn't notice much debate on here about whther the GoP would win the two Special Elections in Georgia. I haven't much of a view on this but suspect they will win one or possibly two and therefore hang on to the Senate, which seems to be what people want whilst giving the execrable Trump the boot.
The Dems best chance would be if Trump hangs on until Election Day. He is looking more and more ridiculous and that might boost the Dems to the extent they became an even money chance?
Not sure. Views anybody?
I think 1-1 in Georgia, I really can't see the GOP screwing up so badly that they lose both. The GOP will be keen to protect the control Trump has given them in the SC.
They will certainly try hard, but if Trump is still sitting on the pot the Dems are in with a chance of both. I certainly wouldn't put it higher than 50/50 though.
The 1-1 view is quite widespread but I struggle to understand the mindset of the individual voters who would need to make the difference. This is not about turnout - the voter is actually taking the ballot papers in hand and pondering. "I like the GOP up to a point so I'll give them a vote, but I like the Democrats too so I'll give them the other one". Are there lots of voters in trench-warfare American politics who think like that?
The other point in support of this is that in order to arrive at a 1-1 the split voters have nearly all got to split the same way.
Seems to me the odds are closer to: c.50% 2-0, c.50% 0-2, <1% 1-1.</p>
Surely the voters who do decide to split are likely to have a tendency to prefer the same R over the other and the same D over the other, and therefore might well mostly split one way. Although, to be fair, both Republican candidates seem absolutely appalling.
I think you have demolished your own argument there
I've reluctantly come round to the conclusion that there must be some wealthy GoP supporters holding up the prices on the main Presidential Market.
Biden's figure has been oscillating between 1.05 and 1.06 for a while now and the amounts available are huge, regularly in excess of £2m. If you have nothing better to do than watch the vacillations you will see that whenever the price edges down to 1.05, huge sums are suddenly shifted to 1.06 and they sit there more or less untouched until the process starts to repeat itself. This strongly suggests there are one or two very big players manipulating this. It does need look like the spontaneous actions of thousands of independent small punters.
If you look at the remaining open State markets (Ga,Pa,Nev etc) the picture is different. For a start, the odds are if anything lower. This is utterly illogical as you will hardly need telling. The amounts up for grabs though are very small, which is pretty much what you would expect in a market about to be settled.
I think the big players are not bothering with the State markets, but they are trying to sustain the fiction that somehow Donald may pull it off. If you consider the wealth of, say, a Sheldon Adelson, you realise that the cost would be peanuts to him, especially if it allows his friend time to rake in contributions from cult followers for a second run (or more likely pay off his debts.)
I think something like that is happening. There would be other factors of course, but I'm sure now that the price is to some extent being artificially supported.
So we should all pile in to make it more expensive for the manipulators?
Well I'm about maxed out now but yes that is effectively what I've done. Won't make me a fortune but should clear about £400. Anybody else wants to do similarly I wouldn't discourage them. Not a situation that's likely to crop up very often.
This sounds plausible. PR spend rather than real betting. So, yes, a virtually risk free 6% return on capital in a matter of days or weeks at the most. APR of well over 100%. It's not a question of whether you should do it, it's purely about how much to do. I did quite a lot at 1.09.
Any devolution for England will be beset with charges of gerrymandering - unless some body could be created to devise the new units political considerations entering the equation. I'm unclear how that could be achieved.
Get the Scots to do it?
Lol - you know well that if/when Scots get independence the divisions and fissures will get ever stronger with demands from Orkney/Shetland and the Borders for greater self=rule or secession from the overbearing rule from the central belt. And that is barely to mention the tensions between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Interesting too whither the SNP goes once its purpose is achieved. I would wish the new country well but independence simply removes one layer of grievance to reveal others beneath.
They would have to be careful how they order these days (which I think is a silly idea, just do postal votes) otherwise you'd have someone without a day to vote: too young for 65+ day and too old for under-65s day the day after (when they turn 65).
There is an argument we should be maximising the opportunity to vote in person and as long as appropriate safeguards are in place other options can and should be explored. At one election, I did telling in a Tesco's which was being used as a polling station. We all know pubs are widely used along with scout huts and all manner of other venues.
Unfortunately, there seems at the moment a desire to restrict or suppress the franchise by insisting on measures to confirm ID which would be fine if there were any instances of significant fraud but the problems in that area seem more to do with postal voting than the old "vote early and often" school of democracy.
Should we look at weekend voting? I've no objections though I can see some logistical issues especially with pubs and church halls (both seem to have their adherents on a Sunday). Should we look at an extended voting period in person - see a three or four day window to vote in person?
Our turnout numbers have settled into the 60s - the last election above 70% was 1997 and it was 78% in 1992. If a third of those who can vote don't vote there are some questions we ought to be asking. It is of course an individual's right not to vote and the notion of forcing electors to attend a polling station to register their abstention is impractical and ludicrous.
That said, a political process and system which is disengaged from so many cannot be considered healthy. All people of all parties should be interested in extending democracy and getting the electorate to participate so how do we do it? It's NOT just about changing electoral systems or how and when you can vote - they are peripheral - it's about the serious question of why politics doesn't work for so many.
Mr. Pointer, online voting is insane. The security of the electoral system matters, and we know that even governments, public institutions, and private enterprises can be subject to serious attacks.
Mr. (Miss? Sorry, I forget) Kirk above also has a very astute point that applies to postal voting and would apply to online voting too. We now have a bizarre and unwelcome situation whereby there are two elections, one up to polling day and one that comes sooner, as an uncertain period, as people cast their ballots early.
I agree broadly that what Scotland already has should be devolved likewise to England.
However, England as a nation is too big. Any English Parliament would effectively rival Westminster and likely lead to the dissolution of the Union.
On the other hand county councils are, generally, too small: the “functional economic market areas” that need managing tend to cross multiple county lines.
The answer therefore is English Regions.
The naming and precise division of Blairite regions were not really to my taste, but they weren’t terrible either.
A Northumbria (not “North East”, urgh) and a Yorkshire make sense as regions do they not?
Yes. I've advocated a return broadly to the Heptarchy on here, with modifications for London's growth. The most sensible division I can think of ends up with regions of wildly varying size, which is a demerit, but gives you a chance of testing whether the small areas ought to be folded into the larger, or the larger areas broken up further, after a couple of decades. So, something like:
1. Ultra London (GLA + Thames catchment/nearest commuter towns) 2. South Coast (Hampshire to Kent) 3. Wessex 4. Cornwall 5. Mercia 6. East Anglia 7. Yorkshire 8. Greater Lancashire 9. Northumbria 10. Cumbria (south Strathclyde, as was)
Ultra London becomes the largest Federal unit, but it's down to less than one-third of the whole, rather than the 85% that is England.
The myth of Tory England, as a uniform whole, that is used so effectively by Sturgeon, would be shattered. But England would still exist.
Where does Foxy, in Leics, fit in?
My first draft would put Foxy in with Mercia.
Though I think it's interesting that the area of the Five Boroughs of the Danelaw feels to me like it still constitutes a sort of neutral ground between more strongly defined regions.
I'd give the coastal part of this area to East Anglia.
A thought about vaccines, let's for the moment assume Pfizer, Moderna and AZ all strike gold and have 95%+ effective vaccines that pass safety and other regulatory tests with flying colours. Where does that leave other vaccines that have yet to or have just started their PIII trial? We're seeing with the AZ vaccine how tough it is to get enough events even in this current second wave and with those three vaccines approved there isn't going to be a third wave.
I'd put it that if these three vaccines are approved at around the same time then no other vaccine will reach the requisite number of PIII events other than maybe J&J who started a couple of weeks ago. The likes of Valneva, Curevac and others won't register enough infections because the R will drop below 1 very quickly once vaccination programmes start, even with limited numbers.
Its definitely an issue, sadly though there will be other countries that won't have had widespread vaccinations to serve as test locations.
That's twisting what this is about though Andy. Tony Blair never said devolution would be a disaster: he was hugely pro it and Johnson did not say devolution was a disaster because it would bring independence.
It was George Robertson (S of S for S) said "Devolution will kill Nationalism stone dead".
Was that so daft though? I suppose it depends how it's done. In Quebec, the French just failed to win the independence vote but were given just about everything short of independence in the years that followed. Quebec separatism has died the death as a consequence.
So why hasn't that happened in Scotland? Not enough powers?
Looking at the US elections Biden got 93% of the vote in District of Columbia and Trump just over 5%. No wonder the Democrats want to turn it into a State. Not likely to happen now without control of the Senate, of course.
I didn't notice much debate on here about whther the GoP would win the two Special Elections in Georgia. I haven't much of a view on this but suspect they will win one or possibly two and therefore hang on to the Senate, which seems to be what people want whilst giving the execrable Trump the boot.
The Dems best chance would be if Trump hangs on until Election Day. He is looking more and more ridiculous and that might boost the Dems to the extent they became an even money chance?
Not sure. Views anybody?
I think 1-1 in Georgia, I really can't see the GOP screwing up so badly that they lose both. The GOP will be keen to protect the control Trump has given them in the SC.
They will certainly try hard, but if Trump is still sitting on the pot the Dems are in with a chance of both. I certainly wouldn't put it higher than 50/50 though.
The 1-1 view is quite widespread but I struggle to understand the mindset of the individual voters who would need to make the difference. This is not about turnout - the voter is actually taking the ballot papers in hand and pondering. "I like the GOP up to a point so I'll give them a vote, but I like the Democrats too so I'll give them the other one". Are there lots of voters in trench-warfare American politics who think like that?
The other point in support of this is that in order to arrive at a 1-1 the split voters have nearly all got to split the same way.
Seems to me the odds are closer to: c.50% 2-0, c.50% 0-2, <1% 1-1.</p>
Surely the voters who do decide to split are likely to have a tendency to prefer the same R over the other and the same D over the other, and therefore might well mostly split one way. Although, to be fair, both Republican candidates seem absolutely appalling.
I think you have demolished your own argument there
Not entirely, they seem appalling to me, but I'm not a Georgian swing voter...
They would have to be careful how they order these days (which I think is a silly idea, just do postal votes) otherwise you'd have someone without a day to vote: too young for 65+ day and too old for under-65s day the day after (when they turn 65).
Agree; nothing wrong with postal voting most of the time. There have been allegations, for example of the head of a family making sure everyone votes the same way, but I don't they were either substantiated or if they were, were significant.
If all the elections next May are to happen I would announce now that they will all be postal. It will be costly but we will presumably save something by dispensing with election day polling stations.
Comments
The North East is simple. Merge Newcastle and North Tyneside back into Northumberland and Sunderland, Gateshead, and South Tyneside back into County Durham. Have the Tyne as the border.
"Greater Northumberland" will then have a population of circa 1m people. Sufficient.
Might be an argument for putting Epping in with London, though.
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1328637190776238081
The rest should v largely be devolved to Scotland (and Wales, and NI) along with additional income tax raising powers.
Not quite full fiscal autonomy, but the next best thing.
Sadly, they won't. First world countries will get first dibs - by the end of this month, they will have bought and paid for all the vaccine production for next year.
If Essex is considered worthy of its own region, then I'd say take Staffs out of West Mercia and combine it with Cheshire and Derbyshire.
I'd then combine Lincs and Notts with Leics and Rutland. That leaves the awkward two of Warks and Northants, but I guess they could go together as a standalone region.
Meanwhile, you're on a roll. As soon as we know the No.10 staffing you should submit these plans pronto.
In charge of regional economic policy, transport, tourism, maybe regional health authority etc.
Northumberland, Durham and Newcastle Metro (including of course Gateshead and Sunderland) would be the three units underneath that.
Since I live in England, it's a moot point, but as things currently stand I would vote for Scottish independence.
I can see pathways to me changing my mind about that, and a greater level of devolution is a necessary part of that. Another part would be a more sensible approach to Europe; Brexiters and Conservatives need to properly acknowledge the difficulties that are caused by hard Brexit, and weight up whether it's more important than the union. Lastly, the tone needs to change. Boris Johnson's deliberately provocative statement reads to me like red meat to a certain part of his base, and I think that's fine if that's where his priorities are. But for people like me, in the middle third on the independence question, it looks a bit unnecessary.
The middle third is everything here. There are subsets at either end of this question who cannot be reconciled to the other side, no matter what. And in that middle third I would argue the VAST majority are in favour of the status quo versus scrapping devolution. To attack devolution is to polarise this middle group, and I have a strong sense that they will not break heavily in favour of the union.
Realistically we need to build on the city regions that have already been done. So dividing Newcastle from Gateshead makes no sense nor Manchester from Trafford (despite me saying so before). A true regions plan would have a "North West" that combines Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria. What you call it is the issue.
On the wrong side of the hills it gets trickier. Yorkshire is not only an obvious area but has a neat southern boundary. In the north? Do you divide Teesside? Or put Stockton in Durham or Stockton in Northumbria...?
Glad I'm moving to Scotland. To Aberdeenshire. In the Grampian region. Simples.
Likewise, I would vote for Independence now if I were Scottish. I would not have done so last time around, but things have changed a lot.
Regions exist already if you count groups of councils working together as such. There's a defined South-East group of Councils whose political leaders and chief executives meet quarterly and I suspect that's the same across the county.
In practical terms, there are any number of joint or combined back office partnerships in operation so while you may have three Councils there might only be a single back office location where all the transactional work is carried out. There are also joint groups for contracts and procurement of services including energy.
It remains to be seen if the current Government has any real appetite for the abolition of the two-tier system where it still exists - I suspect there may be some intra-party issues if it is pursued too rigorously.
Devolving more power from Westminster down to pre-existing authorities (county or unitary) seems a very good idea if you want to re-vitalise local democracy but Johnson is a centraliser as most Westminster politicians are - he wants to take more power into Whitehall and No.10 and away from Parliament.
It's my experience it's easy to give someone authority (and especially financial authority) but try taking it away from them and you'll have a fight on your hands.
But I'm also reminded that Mr Cameron and his Labour allies promised the Scots almost evertything short of federalism if we voted no in 2014 (and also, no Brexit). Which bears on your Quebecois comparison. However, that was a later stage, of course ...
Sure, in the longer term Scotland would survive and thrive, just as Ireland has. The question is whether it is “worth” the 30-50 year wait.
I can see the appeal, especially since Brexit and the rise of a parochialism, corruption, and incompetence at Westminster.
But frankly, I’ve had enough of those who think splitting off is the answer to every ill. We need more coming together and less division.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; this is particularly true of domestic settings in which there is no immediate victim.
There is another difficulty which is that postal voting occurs over a substantial period of time. When this is a significant number of people then in fact two elections are happening merged into one; an election in which people can draw their own halt to the significance of the campaign at an early date, and the election which runs up the wire.
The fact that on this occasion is seems to have helped remove Trump while excellent is not sufficient justification.
If Ricciardo gets it I shall be annoyed.
"Tyne and Wear" does not exist in any real capacity anymore other than a unified fire service.
Unfortunately, there seems at the moment a desire to restrict or suppress the franchise by insisting on measures to confirm ID which would be fine if there were any instances of significant fraud but the problems in that area seem more to do with postal voting than the old "vote early and often" school of democracy.
Should we look at weekend voting? I've no objections though I can see some logistical issues especially with pubs and church halls (both seem to have their adherents on a Sunday). Should we look at an extended voting period in person - see a three or four day window to vote in person?
Our turnout numbers have settled into the 60s - the last election above 70% was 1997 and it was 78% in 1992. If a third of those who can vote don't vote there are some questions we ought to be asking. It is of course an individual's right not to vote and the notion of forcing electors to attend a polling station to register their abstention is impractical and ludicrous.
That said, a political process and system which is disengaged from so many cannot be considered healthy. All people of all parties should be interested in extending democracy and getting the electorate to participate so how do we do it? It's NOT just about changing electoral systems or how and when you can vote - they are peripheral - it's about the serious question of why politics doesn't work for so many.
Mr. (Miss? Sorry, I forget) Kirk above also has a very astute point that applies to postal voting and would apply to online voting too. We now have a bizarre and unwelcome situation whereby there are two elections, one up to polling day and one that comes sooner, as an uncertain period, as people cast their ballots early.