England is too big to have a single parliament, and not just on the grounds of Prussian-style dominance. It also misses the point of regional government: a layer of government that is a little closer to the people, with regional responsibilities and focus, something that has been lacking from the UK for too long.
It's not difficult to divide England into 10 or 15 regions, each with a population akin to Wales or Scotland, and to base them around major cities as a focus. You also get extra benefits: some added resilience (regions can step in for central government in an emergency), and the experimentation that comes from genuinely accountable local power (new political ideas can get rolled out at region level, where you hope the better ideas out-compete the weaker ideas; right now the only way to get experimental ideas adopted is to work for the government's favourite think-tank or to sit next to Jenrick at a fundraiser). The danger is duplication of competences, but that can be guarded against.
STV elections for a reduced Westminster, regional parliaments, replace the Lords with some kind of revisory upper chamber. You probably want it to be free of old hack politicians, leaders' patronage, and vested interests, but to also rectify whatever imbalances come out of the federal system, so I'd be happy to wait 20 or 30 years before writing its statute, and just have a body constituted by sortition in the meantime.
Won't happen though.
Agree, but nobody in this country wants regions.
I do have another plan to deal with this, but PBers desperate to hear this New Zealander’s masterly carve up of English local authority boundaries will have to wait - I need to get some shut-eye.
I’m fine with carving up England into regions. But... they all need to have the power of Holyrood.
Arguments about how to chop up England are micro level debates - we need strategic level planning first. What kind of UK is sustainable in the 21st Century? With Scotland, Norniron, Wales and now chunks of England increasingly restless, its obvious that we need to rethink the monolith that is this "united" kingdom.
LibDem policy is federalism. A position I have believed in for decades. Devolve to the nations as much power as possible, leaving state-wide competence only in things like national defence and federal infrastructure.
You solve the issue of "England will be too big and dominate the others" by devolving most powers away from the federal level. What England chooses to do with its own affairs won't affect the other nations that much if enough power is devolved to them.
England is too big to have a single parliament, and not just on the grounds of Prussian-style dominance. It also misses the point of regional government: a layer of government that is a little closer to the people, with regional responsibilities and focus, something that has been lacking from the UK for too long.
It's not difficult to divide England into 10 or 15 regions, each with a population akin to Wales or Scotland, and to base them around major cities as a focus. You also get extra benefits: some added resilience (regions can step in for central government in an emergency), and the experimentation that comes from genuinely accountable local power (new political ideas can get rolled out at region level, where you hope the better ideas out-compete the weaker ideas; right now the only way to get experimental ideas adopted is to work for the government's favourite think-tank or to sit next to Jenrick at a fundraiser). The danger is duplication of competences, but that can be guarded against.
STV elections for a reduced Westminster, regional parliaments, replace the Lords with some kind of revisory upper chamber. You probably want it to be free of old hack politicians, leaders' patronage, and vested interests, but to also rectify whatever imbalances come out of the federal system, so I'd be happy to wait 20 or 30 years before writing its statute, and just have a body constituted by sortition in the meantime.
Won't happen though.
Agree, but nobody in this country wants regions.
I do have another plan to deal with this, but PBers desperate to hear this New Zealander’s masterly carve up of English local authority boundaries will have to wait - I need to get some shut-eye.
I’m fine with carving up England into regions. But... they all need to have the power of Holyrood.
So then you end up with nine or ten (mostly artificial) provinces, all with their own laws and administrations. Separate health services, education systems, tax rates, economic policies, social security payments, and so on.
This is (a) crackers and (b) there's little or no public demand for it. And anyway, people don't realise how small England is - by area, about a third of the size of Germany and only a fifth of that of France. We require strong and effective local government, but there's absolutely no need for a patchwork of states. We do not want to be chopped up into little pieces just to try to appease nationalist voters in Scotland and Wales (which has zero chance of success in any event.)
F1: was contemplating this yesterday and decided to back it.
Ladbrokes has a winner without Red Bull/Mercedes market. McLaren and Ferrari are 1.73 and 2.2 respectively. AlphaTauri are 8, 8.5 with boost, and I've backed them.
Gasly was 6th in qualifying but losing his front wing compromised his whole race. Tsunoda fell victim to the same qualifying complacency as Perez but came back to score some points on his debut.
I think they're all pretty similar in pace terms, and 8/8.5 is far too long.
England is too big to have a single parliament, and not just on the grounds of Prussian-style dominance. It also misses the point of regional government: a layer of government that is a little closer to the people, with regional responsibilities and focus, something that has been lacking from the UK for too long.
It's not difficult to divide England into 10 or 15 regions, each with a population akin to Wales or Scotland, and to base them around major cities as a focus. You also get extra benefits: some added resilience (regions can step in for central government in an emergency), and the experimentation that comes from genuinely accountable local power (new political ideas can get rolled out at region level, where you hope the better ideas out-compete the weaker ideas; right now the only way to get experimental ideas adopted is to work for the government's favourite think-tank or to sit next to Jenrick at a fundraiser). The danger is duplication of competences, but that can be guarded against.
STV elections for a reduced Westminster, regional parliaments, replace the Lords with some kind of revisory upper chamber. You probably want it to be free of old hack politicians, leaders' patronage, and vested interests, but to also rectify whatever imbalances come out of the federal system, so I'd be happy to wait 20 or 30 years before writing its statute, and just have a body constituted by sortition in the meantime.
Won't happen though.
Agree, but nobody in this country wants regions.
I do have another plan to deal with this, but PBers desperate to hear this New Zealander’s masterly carve up of English local authority boundaries will have to wait - I need to get some shut-eye.
I’m fine with carving up England into regions. But... they all need to have the power of Holyrood.
So then you end up with nine or ten (mostly artificial) provinces, all with their own laws and administrations. Separate health services, education systems, tax rates, economic policies, social security payments, and so on.
This is (a) crackers and (b) there's little or no public demand for it. And anyway, people don't realise how small England is - by area, about a third of the size of Germany and only a fifth of that of France. We require strong and effective local government, but there's absolutely no need for a patchwork of states. We do not want to be chopped up into little pieces just to try to appease nationalist voters in Scotland and Wales (which has zero chance of success in any event.)
There is no way that you would ever reach agreement as to how to divide up England. Let me give you one example - Teesside. Until the the reorganisation of the 1970s the Tees was the boundary between Yorkshire and Durham. Boro was the northern outpost of Yaaaarkshire, Stockton the southerly outpost of the Prince Bishops. Creating a split between a "North East" and a "Yorkshire" would have been straight forward.
Not any more. The whole area has become largely one conurbation. To draw a boundary on the Tees now would make no sense. But to draw it elsewhere (as they did in the 70s) creates Consternation and Uproar amongst wazzocks who care about lines drawn on a map. These may only be edge issues, but they will be a cause of endless anger and resentment.
From what I saw increasingly south of the border, whilst people hold a residual Engerland plag waving pride, largely what they want is what they want for themselves and screw everyone else. You cannot have a full competence hospital in every town, but it HAS to be HERE and not THERE. This kind of mindless me me me stirred up by the Tories and the press over this last generation or two utterly breaks any hope of a sensible settlement. Which is why I left.
Images of drunk foreign tourists shouting in the streets and police raiding illegal parties in Madrid at a time when locals are not allowed to travel between Spain’s regions have left many Spaniards up in arms, AFP reports.
Spanish TV on Monday aired a video of officers smashing the windows of an apartment over the weekend to dislodge occupants holding a party that violated virus restrictions.
The fact that several of the partygoers were reportedly foreigners fuelled resentment over the seemingly haphazard nature of travel restrictions in Europe during the pandemic, with many Spaniards taking to social media to vent their anger.
While Spaniards are not allowed to leave their own regions until 9 April to avoid a resurgence of coronavirus infections over Holy Week, similar restrictions do not apply to international tourists, who can still fly into Spain on presentation of a negative Covid test.
And with its 11pm curfew and bars and restaurants open, Madrid has drawn scores of visitors from countries under tighter lockdowns.
I wonder which countries.
Largely Germany, 60 full flights a day iirc.
Unlikely to be flying to Majorca to somehow get to Madrid.
England is too big to have a single parliament, and not just on the grounds of Prussian-style dominance. It also misses the point of regional government: a layer of government that is a little closer to the people, with regional responsibilities and focus, something that has been lacking from the UK for too long.
It's not difficult to divide England into 10 or 15 regions, each with a population akin to Wales or Scotland, and to base them around major cities as a focus. You also get extra benefits: some added resilience (regions can step in for central government in an emergency), and the experimentation that comes from genuinely accountable local power (new political ideas can get rolled out at region level, where you hope the better ideas out-compete the weaker ideas; right now the only way to get experimental ideas adopted is to work for the government's favourite think-tank or to sit next to Jenrick at a fundraiser). The danger is duplication of competences, but that can be guarded against.
STV elections for a reduced Westminster, regional parliaments, replace the Lords with some kind of revisory upper chamber. You probably want it to be free of old hack politicians, leaders' patronage, and vested interests, but to also rectify whatever imbalances come out of the federal system, so I'd be happy to wait 20 or 30 years before writing its statute, and just have a body constituted by sortition in the meantime.
Won't happen though.
Agree, but nobody in this country wants regions.
I do have another plan to deal with this, but PBers desperate to hear this New Zealander’s masterly carve up of English local authority boundaries will have to wait - I need to get some shut-eye.
I’m fine with carving up England into regions. But... they all need to have the power of Holyrood.
So then you end up with nine or ten (mostly artificial) provinces, all with their own laws and administrations. Separate health services, education systems, tax rates, economic policies, social security payments, and so on.
This is (a) crackers and (b) there's little or no public demand for it. And anyway, people don't realise how small England is - by area, about a third of the size of Germany and only a fifth of that of France. We require strong and effective local government, but there's absolutely no need for a patchwork of states. We do not want to be chopped up into little pieces just to try to appease nationalist voters in Scotland and Wales (which has zero chance of success in any event.)
There is no way that you would ever reach agreement as to how to divide up England. Let me give you one example - Teesside. Until the the reorganisation of the 1970s the Tees was the boundary between Yorkshire and Durham. Boro was the northern outpost of Yaaaarkshire, Stockton the southerly outpost of the Prince Bishops. Creating a split between a "North East" and a "Yorkshire" would have been straight forward.
Not any more. The whole area has become largely one conurbation. To draw a boundary on the Tees now would make no sense. But to draw it elsewhere (as they did in the 70s) creates Consternation and Uproar amongst wazzocks who care about lines drawn on a map. These may only be edge issues, but they will be a cause of endless anger and resentment.
From what I saw increasingly south of the border, whilst people hold a residual Engerland plag waving pride, largely what they want is what they want for themselves and screw everyone else. You cannot have a full competence hospital in every town, but it HAS to be HERE and not THERE. This kind of mindless me me me stirred up by the Tories and the press over this last generation or two utterly breaks any hope of a sensible settlement. Which is why I left.
You're missing the current hoo-ha in County Durham over custody suites. The local MPs all say that they need to remain local to ensure cops stay local without understanding how incredibly time and labour consuming running multiple suites is.
The entire point of the scheme is to move custody suites to a single location, reduce the number of police required to an appropriate level and then move the 2 officers who currently man the other locations (per shift) to do actual police work.
But that requires two seconds of thinking so they protest about the closure because it might win votes.
'Look what happened to the teacher in France who was killed for doing the same thing. Eventually they will get my son and he knows this. His whole world has been turned upside down. He's devastated and crushed. '
Does anyone know why he was stupid enough to present the cartoons?
I would not, for example, be taking St Aloysius Girls Year 10 to see “Piss Christ” at the local art gallery.
Of course one deplores the insane local “community”, and one feels immense pity he may now need to live anonymously, but the teacher seems to have been an idiot.
Read the bloody article
"However, his father fumed: 'The school has thrown my son under a bus. The lesson that he delivered in which the picture of the Prophet Muhammad was shown was part of the curriculum, it had been approved by the school. Other teachers have done exactly the same thing.
"'So why is my son being victimised like this? The school should have come out fighting for him and made it clear to the protestors that if offence was caused, then it was not my son's fault. It was the school's policy to show this picture, it wasn't an individual decision made by him.'"
Ah. I withdraw.
In which case, the man and family need the full support of the state; the school should immediately be placed in special measures; and the local “protesters” arrested for making death threats.
But I am not sure this is about “freedom of speech” as much as standing against hate.
It is definitely about freedom of speech. What amounts to is
"You have the freedom to say x because of freedom of speech, however don't actually ever say x because you might offend people"
This is a bit like the queens ability to block legislation. In theory she has it the moment she tries to use it then it will be removed.
No.
Teachers (or schools) do not have the right, and certainly not the imperative, to say anything they like.
There is no “right” to inflame local nutters.
There is no right for local nutters to utter death threats on some one saying something legal that was also on the school curriculum. It is noticeable though that you are on the side of local nutters
Stupid comment.
Clearly the local nutters are culpable first and foremost.
Sad you don’t engage properly.
It was legal for the teacher to show It was on the curriculum
Why does any of your opprobrium attach to him?
Not me not engaging properly its you saying he is somewhat to blame
I started that way, but I was corrected. It was on the school curriculum.
My beef (apart from with the rancid community “protesters”) is with the idea that this is about “freedom of speech”.
It is, but only marginally. These people are not against “freedom of speech”. They are just hateful shit-heads.
Then my apologies I misunderstood you I got the impression you were saying he shouldn't have shown it
There is an argument for saying this cartoon should not be shown in schools. I am divided. On the one hand you do have to present kids with challenging material, and they do have to be taught why we allow mockery of religion: it is the bedrock of the Enlightenment. But these particular images are pretty toxic. There should be a better way of teaching about blasphemy-v-free speech.
There is NO argument for putting these cartoons on the curriculum, allowing several teachers to show them, then, as soon as one innocent teacher gets into trouble, grovelling immediately to a hateful mob at the gates, suspending the teacher, and totally ruining his life and that of his family. And possibly getting him killed.
It is rank cowardice. Appalling.
Agreed. That is what I said on the previous thread - that the school had apparently hung the teacher out to dry. Cowardice, however much we might condemn it, I can understand in the context. Which is why the school needs direct support from government in the circumstances. It has gone some way beyond what even a well lead school can handle on its own (and assuming the media reports are accurate, that's probably not the case).
The local authority seem to have washed their hands of the issue, saying it's not their business as the school is an academy.
In which they are correct. Removing LA oversight was a key supposed benefit of Academies.
So the buck stops at Gavin Williamson.
Can’t see any issues.
Stupid , did not describe it , nowhere near 100 list seats, where did you get those numbers from your erchie.
I assumed electorate votes were unaffected.
I devised the regional votes using your prediction of ALBA = 14%, at the expense of SNP and Labour.
The net result (versus today) was:
Indy parties + 12 Unionists - 12
SNP would still need Greens to govern, but would not need ALBA.
@Gardenwalker From constituency viewpoint it is almost certain that SNP will get most of the seats , others unlikely to get more than a handful. Salmond has stated that all independence supporters should vote SNP for constituency. For list where SNP had almost 1 million votes last time and got 4 seats , votes are divided based on seats won so SNP get divided by 10. As list only ALBA gets to count every vote and so even 6% of the vote gets them 6 seats , as they go higher it gets much more. Many people will realise that by election time and only diehards or idiots will give SNP list vote so ALBA could well win a large amount of the list seats and all other parties are at risk.
Arguments about how to chop up England are micro level debates - we need strategic level planning first. What kind of UK is sustainable in the 21st Century? With Scotland, Norniron, Wales and now chunks of England increasingly restless, its obvious that we need to rethink the monolith that is this "united" kingdom.
LibDem policy is federalism. A position I have believed in for decades. Devolve to the nations as much power as possible, leaving state-wide competence only in things like national defence and federal infrastructure.
You solve the issue of "England will be too big and dominate the others" by devolving most powers away from the federal level. What England chooses to do with its own affairs won't affect the other nations that much if enough power is devolved to them.
Frankly I would much much rather have no union than a divided england. That is the problem you have with the region plans and I doubt I am the only one that thinks that way.
Comments
Mr. 86, I completely oppose any plan to slice England into little bits.
LibDem policy is federalism. A position I have believed in for decades. Devolve to the nations as much power as possible, leaving state-wide competence only in things like national defence and federal infrastructure.
You solve the issue of "England will be too big and dominate the others" by devolving most powers away from the federal level. What England chooses to do with its own affairs won't affect the other nations that much if enough power is devolved to them.
This is (a) crackers and (b) there's little or no public demand for it. And anyway, people don't realise how small England is - by area, about a third of the size of Germany and only a fifth of that of France. We require strong and effective local government, but there's absolutely no need for a patchwork of states. We do not want to be chopped up into little pieces just to try to appease nationalist voters in Scotland and Wales (which has zero chance of success in any event.)
Betting PostF1: was contemplating this yesterday and decided to back it.
Ladbrokes has a winner without Red Bull/Mercedes market. McLaren and Ferrari are 1.73 and 2.2 respectively. AlphaTauri are 8, 8.5 with boost, and I've backed them.
Gasly was 6th in qualifying but losing his front wing compromised his whole race. Tsunoda fell victim to the same qualifying complacency as Perez but came back to score some points on his debut.
I think they're all pretty similar in pace terms, and 8/8.5 is far too long.
Not any more. The whole area has become largely one conurbation. To draw a boundary on the Tees now would make no sense. But to draw it elsewhere (as they did in the 70s) creates Consternation and Uproar amongst wazzocks who care about lines drawn on a map. These may only be edge issues, but they will be a cause of endless anger and resentment.
From what I saw increasingly south of the border, whilst people hold a residual Engerland plag waving pride, largely what they want is what they want for themselves and screw everyone else. You cannot have a full competence hospital in every town, but it HAS to be HERE and not THERE. This kind of mindless me me me stirred up by the Tories and the press over this last generation or two utterly breaks any hope of a sensible settlement. Which is why I left.
The entire point of the scheme is to move custody suites to a single location, reduce the number of police required to an appropriate level and then move the 2 officers who currently man the other locations (per shift) to do actual police work.
But that requires two seconds of thinking so they protest about the closure because it might win votes.
From constituency viewpoint it is almost certain that SNP will get most of the seats , others unlikely to get more than a handful. Salmond has stated that all independence supporters should vote SNP for constituency.
For list where SNP had almost 1 million votes last time and got 4 seats , votes are divided based on seats won so SNP get divided by 10. As list only ALBA gets to count every vote and so even 6% of the vote gets them 6 seats , as they go higher it gets much more. Many people will realise that by election time and only diehards or idiots will give SNP list vote so ALBA could well win a large amount of the list seats and all other parties are at risk.