[Closed] English Assembly?

The logical conclusion of this is that each household in the UK becomes an independent nation state.

RACIST!

(Just thought I'd get that included nice and early in the thread)

[quote=muppetWrangler ]The logical conclusion of this is that each household in the UK becomes an independent nation state.

Its really not that is just a non sequitur.

There are a number of issues

1. They dont really need it as they already have the most influence
2. Its expensive and would IMHO require new elections and a separate parliament
3. English MP's will have less power afterwards so I am not sure they will vote for it
4. Its not really that popular a notion
5. Regional assemblies make more sense as the North has more in common as a region than say Cumbria and Kent.

Devolution of power, closer to the people that vote?

It will never work.

They dont really need it as they already have the most influence

It's not about power - it's about the West Lothian question. Given that we have devolved regions, how can Westminster function as both a parliament of the Union AND a parliament for England without any clear distinction between the two?

Regional assemblies make more sense as the North has more in common as a region than say

I would agree with that.

It's pretty obvious tbh. People keep asking variations on the theme of "why should Welsh/Scottish/NI MPs have a vote on English-only matters in Westminster" and the answer is dude, wtf, it's the UK parliament, why would you think it makes sense to debate English-only matters there. If you want to have a no-Homers club that's OK but you shouldn't expect to have it in the everyone club.

If we can waist money on Welshist and Scottishsts, and all the associated beurocracy and stuff then why not for England too?

The logical conclusion of this is that each household in the UK becomes an independent nation state.

You are right to question though, whether "England" is one homogenous mass that could be politically treated as such. If you take the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly as the models then you would "logically" expect that regional assemblies in England need to serve a population of between roughly 2-6 million people in land masses of 15-80 thousand sq km with some common shared identity, a degree of political, cultural, social and economic homogeneity that prevents them'n'us divides.

Whilst others will disagree, I think its potentially the only way to save the union (if that is your desire).

I'd be worried about the kind of people that would seek election to such an assembly.

Cut the UK into quarters, serve with chips on a bit of driftwood.

It is something that is long needed. A federal UK is the only hope of keeping the UK together.

But it's too late. Westminster will effectively just be an English parliament very soon.

BTW it need not cost more. Just get rid of the House of Paedos and Parasites, and there's an empty chamber just sitting there ready for use.

power should be devolved to the lowest sensible level.

There is no point in an English assembly as what purpose does it serve? What is the commonality of London and Northumbria. Give parish and town councils real power, counties too. Strip westminster of powers and give them to the regions.

power should be devolved to the lowest sensible level.

There is no point in an English assembly as what purpose does it serve? What is the commonality of London and Northumbria. Give parish and town councils real power, counties too. Strip westminster of powers and give them to the regions.

That's Belgium.

I think here are other, more immediate priorities like reform of the Lords.

That's Belgium.

Its most of Europe...

I'm all for it, devolved power.

Under the current system, yes we all have an MP who supposed to represent us in Westminster, do they? Some do, some don't - in fact most don't, they're playing the game, they've risen through the ranks of local government, now they're looking at a cabinet role or maybe, one day, the keys to No10 so they're looking for soundbites to get more of a profile and to stay in the right side of the whip, but perhaps try to look past that - let say we've got 650 selfless saints in Westminster trying to make each of their constituents life's that little bit better and they've got this great plan to end poverty and homelessness in their area - well they can't - they have to get the majority to agree to it, whilst it might do wonders where they live, it might have the opposite effect in their neighbouring area so it can’t happen – Local councils are pretty powerless when it comes to changes in laws or policies.

Its most of Europe...

Most of Europe doesn't have the inequalities of the UK (or England).

If you split London off as a separate entity it would likely thrive to the detriment of the rest of the UK. Not because it's inherently better, just because decades of investment have been a self fulfilling prophecy that London offers the biggest return. The the trickle down effect then fails to materialise unless you happen to be on a direct train route, so it's great for Harrogate, less great for S****horpe.

Then you have a lack of economic diversity, I'd hypothesise the financial crisis could have crippled an independent London. Just like the collapse of coal mining did for the valleys, steel did for Redcar, shipbuilding did for Tyneside, car radio codes and locking wheel nuts did for Liverpool. As a country we can* collectively deal with those things, as regions** we'd be ******.

* or maybe should, rather than ignoring whole areas of the country and letting them slide into oblivion rather than figuring out what all those lives could be spend productively doing?

** *** isn't entirely true, if you broke the country up into singular regions it's more like masturbation.

*** - that's not a footnote

Most of Europe doesn't have the inequalities of the UK

Sure about that?

Not because it's inherently better, just because decades of investment have been a self fulfilling prophecy that London offers the biggest return

Nonsense. Decades of investment? As if London was just another Bristol or Birmingham 50 years ago?

It's been the most important city in Britain for nearly two thousand years. Because of where it is, not because of any conspiracy. Businesses are there now for all sorts of reasons - not investing in London would be not investing in huge numbers of businesses.

[i]Jerusalem[/i] really?
the lyrics are just silly

sadly I think English nationalism is the inevitable next step in the rising tide of isolationism following on from Brexit-
It also means that independent Scotland and reunified Ireland will happen sooner now rather than later.

So we probably will end up with an english parliament anyway*

*Wales, you are stuck with us Im afraid, we need someone to boss around

I take it that this the right moment to introduce a free and independent Yorkshire.

Jerusalem really?
the lyrics are just silly

It's really a poem about Jesus, not a patriotic anthem.4

Wales, you are stuck with us Im afraid, we need someone to boss around

Well we were invaded, annexed, subjugated, oppressed (and eventually pillaged when it turned out we had something they wanted) by the English, unlike the other constituent countries. There's no act of Union for Wales.

But then again Southern Britain was invaded by Saxons anyway - we just held out longer.

It's really a poem about Jesus, not a patriotic anthem

Its a good poem and nice anthem if you are religious and english and want to build heaven here.
Otherwise MLEH - though more rousing than god save the queen but some requiem masses are more rousing than that dirge

Nonsense. Decades of investment? As if London was just another Bristol or Birmingham 50 years ago?

It's been the most important city in Britain for nearly two thousand years. Because of where it is, not because of any conspiracy. Businesses are there now for all sorts of reasons - not investing in London would be not investing in huge numbers of businesses.

Centuries, millennia then? I didn't say it's a conspiracy, it's just become a self fulfilling thing that London get's the investment. Company A moves there, company B does too to poach A's staff, company C moves there to sell them goats cheese Focaccia, government builds a new transport link to serve them all, and engineering company D moves there to build it.

Which leaves two options
1) [i]"not investing in London would be not investing in huge numbers of businesses."[/i] but invest in Manchester, Middlesborough, Newcastle or Leeds and accept a slightly lower return on investment and you grow the rest of the country. That investment can either be in the forms of infrastructure (which provides both an immediate economic stimulus and a cost reduction for local businesses), or in reduced business rates to make up for the lower productivity (because you need to train/recruit staff or relocate them from London rather than just poach them from another London company into your office).

2) Keep investing in London, but accept mass unemployment in Redcar and the valleys which London has to pay for. This makes sense from a GDP point of view, but results in a poor quality of life for the few in those areas in order to benefit the majority in London.

Which leaves two options

Well no - at least, they aren't exclusive. You can do both.

But it's not as simple as you make out. Because without investing in London the overall economy of the country suffers, which means less money for investing in anything.

Don't underestimate the significance of physical and historical geography in the UK.

But it's not as simple as you make out. Because without investing in London the overall economy of the country suffers, which means less money for investing in anything.

But the pot isn't ever bottomless, either public or privately funded. You can't do every project everywhere with government money, and each company has to invest in either London or A.N.Other city.

My post was entirely black and white, obviously you can't push 100% of investment outside of London (or completely abandon the rest of the country in option 2), capitalism always pushes back. But I do think there needs to be a much bigger push to get the rest of the country working as well as London.

The logical conclusion of this is that each household in the UK becomes an independent nation state.

What?!? I don't get the extremes that get put forward when this question is discussed.

Why not just look to a confederated dominion like Canada to see that devolved legislative rights and responsibilities make sense, and have nothing to do with regions wanting more power for its own sake?

Ontario is the largest and most powerful province (in economic terms) by far. Yet from BC in the West to Newfoundland in the East, all the provinces have the right to raise their own taxes, to solicit migrant numbers, and to negotiate trade deals even while Ottawa (the Capital, also based in Ontario) has responsibility for defence, foreign affairs, all federal laws, etc.

It is anomalous for one country of the UK to not have its own legislative assembly, while three others do.

Let London be the capital of the UK, and let a nominal part of London, or York, or some other city in England serve as capital to that country. It only makes sense.

What would you do?

Just seen a van outside driving around playing Jerusalem and advertising the campaign for an English parliament.

As Mrs Binners gran used to say: "The sights you see when you've not got your gun, eh?"

I don't think we need any more divisive, petty nationalism at the moment really, do we? Especially from the kind of bell ends who tend to revel in their Englishness.

What would you do?

personally, nothing...

Unless you've got a problem with accountability and democracy it makes obvious sense. Not an English parliament though imo - English regional assemblies. The only regionally devolved power afaik in England at the moment is limited to Greater London, which is frankly ridiculous.

What would you do?

Apart form all the other stuff that get's thrown about in "Northern Powerhouse" discussions. Here's a starter for 10; throw money at Universities like Teesside, Cardiff, Swansea for research in proportion with local unemployment. Spend that money on research with the potential to generate spin off companies, which then employ people in well paid jobs.

I doubt that post brexit schemes like the effort put into getting Toyota to locate in Burnaston would work, but that depends what sort of deal we end up being shafted with.

Devolution for England seems very sensible to me. Powers should be held at the most local possible level.

Spend that money on research with the potential to generate spin off companies, which then employ people in well paid jobs.

How d'you stop people from other parts of the country migrating to get those jobs?

English regional assemblies

.. is emerging as the most popular concept - and I'd agree.

How d'you stop people from other parts of the country migrating to get those jobs?

You don't, but when I lived in Middlesbrough* anyone with anything between their ears but not in a good job moved out. So you're only reversing that process of brain draining that's currently sucking people into London.

And you don't need to. Lets imagine a hypothetical Parmo* eating Smoggie* called Dave Dole. Dave will never go to university, or work in a spin off company making Happy Vertical People Transporters. But Dave can fix cars, if only the people of Middlesbrough bought car's that weren't bangernomics and were actually worth fixing. Thankfully Techy Tim moved to work at the spin-off and needs a new clutch for his panzerwaggon.

English regional assemblies

*I have nothing against Teesside, it just happens to be somewhere I lived with areas of mass unemployment.

Can't see the need in theory and the experience of hearing debates at Holyrood and Cardiff give no support in practice either.

The problem is (as I've pointed out) is that Surrey then raises loads of tax and paves the roads with gold, with free university for everyone. Whilst Teesside* sinks into economic oblivion .....

With respect thisisnotaspoon we are not talking about regionally raised taxes, we are talking about devolved power.

Central government already spends money in the the various English regions the suggestion being made is that the decisions of how that money should be spent should be mostly decided in the regions by elected regional politicians rather than by the Westminster.

I think the model that Osborne was developing was a pretty sensible way of achieving devolution to the regions, using the existing framework and adding City mayors. Manchester now has considerable control over a lot of budgets (including some NHS spending). The difficulty is that it needs to be pushed from the Treasury who hate devolving control over money and I can't see that happening now that Osborne has gone and Brexit is front and centre of the political agenda.

Directly elected mayors are not a good idea imo. We don't need politics to be replaced by marketing or tabloid inspired beauty contests American style. In fact they are a terrible idea, although I can see the attraction for the Tories - a tabloid manipulated marketing exercise.

We don't need politics to be replaced by marketing or tabloid inspired beauty contests American style.

I think it is too late for that - but I think it is important because it does focus peoples minds, which I am not sure Council elections do at the moment. Hopefully, once people became more engaged through Mayoral elections, it will flow through to Council ones too.

I don't really [i]object[/i] as such, I just don't see the point. England is basically as big as the uk economically and demographically, there's already a UK govt that rides roughshod over the wishes of the rest of the uk. I'd much rather see a more meaningful level of devolution of powers to a more regional level.

Once we've left the EU, and the decades of negotiations wear on, people will tire of the kippers as it becomes evident that Brexit will hurt, rather than benefit the poorest.

So another wave of slimebag politicians will surf the wave of demagoguery and latch onto a UK assembly as being the solution to all our problems......

Sorry meant ... an English assembly being our Panacea

All this proposed increase in local control is a trojan horse and attempt to distract attention away IMO.

Budgets will still be controlled by central government while the local administrators (the lackies/puppets/in it for the money) will dance to central governments tune in national bidding wars and preferential deals. They will get involved in all sorts of horse trading and double dealing that will make current local control look squeaky clean in comparison. All overseen/headed by cocky power hungry government stooges, earning a salary and holding positions way beyond their natural talent! Fronting and keeping as quiet as possible ratcheting cuts passed on from central government. Until it all gets too hot to handle and they are ousted/quietly resign/brass it out and/or the cycle starts again with a new arse wipe.

To some extent you could argue the current system already works like this. However the government plans to extend it exponentially, to virtually all elements of public service, which IMO will result in an unprecedented bit of a mess of opportunism, blame and lies 😐

ernie I think the Mayors work for the Tories as most Cities are Labour and there is someone to blame as/when things go wrong.

We don't need more politicians we need less. We can just do more English Votes for English Laws for things that are England only