[Closed] So is English devolution now desirable / inevitable?

Can we not just move on to something less, you know, boring?

Two houses, maybe three. (A small Westminster as an upper house (say 100 mps?), Elected Lords as a counterbalance to Westminster and a Lower house for the UK)

First past the post for Westminster, proportional representation for the other two. Which means we can keep the crazies out of the upper house. The lower house can vote on anything outside of a basic federal rate of tax and can't touch anything deemed to be constitutional or deal with foreign affairs. Westminster deals with immigration, defense spending, constitutional affairs and war etc, anything that goes through Westminster can then be delayed by the House of Lords.

This would allow a Scot to be chancellor or prime minister and this be an equal partner, something that conservatives don't want to see from now on.

England is a big place. The population of Yorkshire is similar to that of Scotland so maybe that is a better comparison. More local power could be regionalised.

Need to be very careful not to screw up what we currently have and end up with something really properly broken.

It's not about culture, England has a larger population to make that unworkable.

I see it as fairness. If the other home nations have devolved power over certain areas, I don't want "their" MPs being able to push through legislation for England that doesn't affect their own voters.

What I don't want is an extra layer of politicians and bureaucracy for England on top of what we already have. Not sure what the workable solution and transition would be.

Maybe the UK parliament sits for three days a week on UK issues and then the MPs split two days a week to sort out national stuff?

The problem with the UK is not the layers of bureaucracy, it's that things like education and healthcare are continually ****ed with over ideology.

If we had some political stability and parties were forced to co-operate with each other a bit more we might get some more stability. As it is now, all they do is produce soundbites and policies to get them into/or keep them in power for four years at a time. Then the next party comes in and undoes everything.

It could go either way:

a) Genuine European style devolution to regional assemblies (i.e.: Greater Manchester), with powers over taxation, healthcare, education, transport, business rates etc. Where people with informed local knowledge make decisions in the interests of their region

b) Westminster imposing another bunch of unaccountable bureaucrats and politicians, at huge expense, with no real power at all, other than rubber stamping Westminster dictats.

Hmmmmmm... I wonder which they'll be opting for?

I see the North East news is already talking about a North East assembly. Great, all we need, another Stalinist committee.
[img] [/img]

Yes and no. But it won't happen. All this is mere hot air to placate the restless regions, the govt will just allow time to pass and do nothing; or maybe as a token grant some responsibilities with neither thr funding nor control of the services to support them.

I'd go with large regions. North, South, Midlands and West, then Wales and Scotland.

Elected Lords as a counterbalance to Westminster

There are lots of issues to having an elected lords as a party political instrument. Look at the US - nothing can get done for constant bickering if the two houses are differently aligned.

The Lords as it stands does a fairly good job - it mostly stays out of political sides and only raises a flag when something's been REALLY poorly thought out. I'm not sure electing people would be good, but then again life peerages are anti-democratic. Perhaps people could be appointed by administrations, like the US supreme court (but with more people and a higher turnover it would be a bit more reflective). Or, you could have unlimited tenure but each new member to replace an outgoing one could be elected nationally.

Federal, secular Britain with an elected second chamber and President, please.

Message ends.

Hmmmmmm... I wonder which they'll be opting for?

More quangos stuffed with their mates...

it's that things like education and healthcare are continually **** with over ideology.

I agree.

If we had some political stability and parties were forced to co-operate with each other a bit more we might get some more stability.

Yeah PR would've done that.

This will all be forgotten about in a month. Carry on, nothing happened.

What Mr Whoppit said.

Don't have to give an elected lords as many powers as they might have in the States. Just a longer delaying ability, it means we can vote for parties that get things done like the conservatives or labour via FTP and then vote for some fluffy types like the greens/liberals and UKIP types using PR. Forcing the main parties to think about the long term consequences of toying with the constitution (anti terrorism laws etc), environmental issues and immigration issues (which might blunt the far right a little).

I don't think that would be so bad.

We need an English Parliment. If nothing more than to act as a counterbalence to the Welsh, Scottish and NI nationalists and stand up for English matters. Needs to be based outside London to get away from teh London/Westminster bubble - Manchester I would say!

Why not Birmingham? Nice and central.

Wales is a bit of a constitutional nightmare I believe, they aren't their own country, they are technically part of England. I could be wrong.

No. It's more that devolution generally isn't a great idea.

Short of a fully federal Europe, or even a fully centralised one, we seem to be stuck with a United Kingdom for the foreseeable future.

Think of each person, their rights, responsibilities and entitlements. Start from there. It would be odd that I would be allowed different freedoms, taxed differently or received better or worse services or benefits than any other person living in my house.

It would be just as odd if it were the next door neighbours too. What about the next street along, are they any different? What if I live on a UK border and the next street is English/Scottish/NorthernIrish/Welsh? You could call it a Bill of Rights, a Patient's Charter if it's the NHS or whatever, but I don't think anyone in the UK should expect to be treated differently these days. What is it about English/Scots/Irish/Welsh that makes it appropriate? Don't say nation/heritage/race, because most of us have decided that treating people differently because of that is not a good thing to do.

We need to false localism too. NHS, education at all levels, most local council services and spending are meant to be delivering national standards, spending nationally collected taxpayers money while doing it, yet there are hundreds of thousands of people on boards of all these organisations, practically unable to change the core of the operations, while tinkering at the edges, endlessly reinventing the wheel but often not fully able to benefit from competence of parallel organisations just down the road because of the separate structures. Save localism for the tourist offices.

Yeah that might not be so bad. Perhaps ban political parties for the Lords, and have by-elections whenever someone quits. That way people would not be tied to short termist policies, and they could campaign on whatever green/tory/socialist platform they wanted. You'd be voting for their character not their policies.

You'd obviously need a facility to table no confidence as well though.

Good idea there Mols. It would make no sense for party politics to play a part in Lords.

Tom_W1987 - Member
Why not Birmingham? Nice and central.

Too far south and too close to London.

Manchester's fair, or how about Lancaster or York for historical reasons?

This table is old (pre-RDAs going), but gives a general idea of what is possible:

[IMG] [/IMG]

Frodo - Member
We need an English Parliment. If nothing more than to act as a counterbalence to the Welsh, Scottish and NI nationalists and stand up for English matters. Needs to be based outside London to get away from teh London/Westminster bubble - Manchester I would say!

No, problems are local so doing at the scale of England won't see much change. Something more federal is needed - the regional level could work. The biggest problem is the Treasury and their geographical/economic imagination of the UK. They mainly look out their windows in Whitehall to decide what needs to be done. Without real powers devolved across the country you won't see much difference.

Nottingham? York would be lovely...

This is making me excited actually...

Tax raising powers granted to Nottingham?

Did you not read Robin Hood?

Best not call the chief laddie "The Sheriff".

The answer to the West Lothian question is and always was home rule for England.

I don't know why any non-English (residents) would care if England got devolution anyway.

Because the conservatives want to stop Scots from running as Chancellor, so I assume that means they wouldn't be able to run for PM as well.

Hardly a union, to solve this, the only way out that I see is a federalized system. Having one house with a two tier membership is a half arsed solution that will cause legal wranglings and further bickering between England and Scotland.

No because that's only half of the west Lothian question.

The question was why could the MP for west Lothian vote on matters pertaining to Birmingham (I think) but not west Lothian.

Refraining from voting on Birmingham matters only answers half the question.

And Tom has a good point too. How would any Scots minister (other than Secretary of State for Scotland) avoid acting on matters pertaining to England. Would a defence minister with a Scottish seat only be able to buy equipment for troops born in Scotland? Difficult to sort in that manner.

By the way thank you to the contributors to this thread.

We've managed to keep it intelligent and intelligible, without much dismissal of others' thoughts out of hand.

I'm impressed.

@Capt John Germany and Switzerland have a great system, you can travel round various areas to find the one who will charge you less tax (eg Zug 0%), with the Germans you can even make an offer ("I know the law says x but I prefer y")

Why not Birmingham? Nice and central.

You need to ask? Have you ever been to Birmingham? 😯

The key is not to make additional layers of buraecracy uneccessary. I would see this as an English Parliment made up of powerful regional bodies.

There could be devolution to city regions but the risk in this is the rural regions with specific needs get overlooked.

The first step imho is the creation of an english parliment seperate from Westminster.

The House of Lords should be the English Parliament, there you are done dusted. We don't even need to create additional bureaucracy as we already have plenty. TGIF.

[b]In all seriousness no we shouldn't[/b]. IMO the country isn't big enough to have too much division and it's just cost and overhead. We all think the Westminster politicians are a bit lame can you imagine how poor the local ones are, they weren't good enough to get a Westminster job.

Yup, I actually don't mind Birmingham that much. Way better than Gunchester, Leicester and Shottingham. Quite like Leeds and Sheffield though.

In all seriousness no we shouldn't. IMO the country isn't big enough to have too much division and it's just cost and overhead. We all think the Westminster politicians are a bit lame can you imagine how poor the local ones are, they weren't good enough to get a Westminster job.

What about all the cost associated with the political instability that FTP brings? Devolution can drive down costs by making those that spend the tax receipts more answerable to angry mobs.

Germany and Austria have federalized systems and they are doing pretty well. Germany seems to be on the whole, less bureaucratic than the UK for businesses etc and more efficient when it comes to spending tax money.

Unfortunately for some, I think federalization is the only sane constitutional way forward if we want to keep Scotland. Anything else to my mind, really is a half measure that could do further irreparable damage to the Union.

he simpler answer to the West Lothian question is a convention by which Scottish MPs do not vote on matters that are devolved to the Scottish parliament and only affect England/Wales/NI.

* i mean labour could have a majority with scottish MPs and not without. I do not mean they will obv be in power next time

We all think the Westminster politicians are a bit lame can you imagine how poor the local ones are, they weren't good enough to get a Westminster job.

Sorry but thats absolute horse-shit! But thats fairly typical of the condescending manner you'd expect really.

Manchesters politicians have been there for years, not through nepotism, but because they are genuinely held in pretty high regard. They've done a fantastic job of revitalising the city, in the face of sneering indifference from our glorious capital. When they announced their plans for regeneration, including building tens of thousands of homes within the city, they were sniffily and patronisingly laughed at by our lords and masters in London, who much preferred Thatchers intended 'managed decline' option instead.

They're not laughing now. Though they're still just as condescending. So basically... it shows you how much the ****s in London and the south east know about what is possible in 'the regions' with some ambition and imagination. So why should we be constantly restricted by their lack of ambition, or blinkered inability to see anything outside the M25?

And this is in no way confined to just manchester. Do you want to try and sound a bit more patronising? If you have a [i]really, really[/i] good go, you might be able to manage it? 🙄

I kind of agree, but I"ve always had a bit of a problem with some of the Stalinist tendencies of the labour hegemony in Manchester, and I'm deeply suspicious of it's connections with developers who have peppered Manchester city centre with a lot of useless housing which is now standing empty as buy-to-leaves.

And that bloody casino thing. What was that about?

Anyway, still better than the other option.

Yeah more division leading to blame and finger pointing is exactly what we need. The world is supposed to be getting smaller, people closer and more unified. Parochialism is a step back. Devolve into England, Scotland and Wales (and NI?). That's as far as it needs to go. England has a common culture, to claim it hasn't is nonsense. People from Yorkshire aren't that bloody different to those from Lancashire or Somerset or the midlands.

they were sniffily and patronisingly laughed at by our lords and masters in London, who much preferred Thatchers intended 'managed decline' option instead

Really?

People from Yorkshire aren't that bloody different to those from Lancashire or Somerset or the midlands.

.. Or Scotland, or Wales...

England has a common culture, to claim it hasn't is nonsense.

Have you ever been to Newcastle and Sevenoaks? Common culture? Aye right!

Those two places have different economic profiles. Compare like for like.

they were sniffily and patronisingly laughed at by our lords and masters in London, who much preferred Thatchers intended 'managed decline' option instead

Really?

Yes Molls, really! They said their ambition was to build 25,000 new homes within the City. This was when Thatcherism decreed that public projects were verboten. A hangover from the 60's. They were set about a clearly stated policy of 'Managed Decline' for the northern cities. And so they were openly mocked! You can imagine the gales of laughter that greeted them when they announced a plan for developing the derelict Salford docks. To make it a national centre for media and arts? You know the one? You may have seen it on telly....

[img] [/img]

Daz - to appreciate what they've achieved I think you have to look at Hulme. Lets be honest, it looked like a siberian gulag. It was a complete no go area. So they levelled the whole place and started from scratch. Thats ambition. Not fanning around putting the odd bit of public sculpture in and some speed bumps

Have you ever been to Newcastle and Sevenoaks? Common culture? Aye right!

@binners Mrs Thatcher was from up North right ? Our resident Scots (Brown) and Scot/Northern hybrid (Blair) they did ok, no ?