Devolution for English cities.

[AM9]

Just watched 'Inside Out' (one of the Northern area ones) which had an article about more power/devolution for the North.
Bit of a jumble really as it was trying to link the additional powers that Scotland hopes it will get soon as a result of the 'No' majority in the referendum, to similar changes in the North with deliberate transfers of industry from the South to the North, (as in Media City).
The whole thing was dumbed down by the presenter using his journey on a TPE from Newcastle to Manchester in the rush hour to make a point. The usual one-liners were mentioned: i.e. London gets £6000 per head spent on
transport £600 when the North gets only £600 per head. He didn't of course reveal where those specious figures came from. Then there was the comment that the TPE train took almost as long as the East Coast trains took to get from NCL to London which was about 120 miles further.

I suppose it was yet another piece of creative journalism using pseudo-facts to get the headline. I'm not unsympathetic to the regions outside the South East's case for getting more central government support, but advocating their complaint in such a rubbish way I'm sure that it doesn't get any traction (sorry about the pun) with those whose responsibility it is to change things.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just an attempt to appear to have their media fingers on the pulse of referendum generated political headlines

 

[starrymarkb]

That's gone up. It used to be £200 in Yorkshire, £134 in the NW and £5 in the NE

The South was divided too - London £2700, SE £792 and the SW £19 per head

I'm actually for moving to a Regional system rather then have everything centralised in Westminster - Most other countries work on a regional system (France has Regions with Departments underneath, German has the Lander, Switzerland Cantons etc)

 

[AM9]

I'm actually for moving to a Regional system rather then have everything centralised in Westminster - Most other countries work on a regional system (France has Regions with Departments underneath, German has the Lander, Switzerland Cantons etc)

That would probably exacerbate the inbalance. If London/SE was in direct competition with the North, the Midlands and the SW, even with a favourable Barnett formula settlement, it would take many decades, if ever, for there to be any real improvements in the regions' fortunes.

 

[tbtc]

Devolution sounds great, I think that most people perceive it as A Good Thing (post the Scottish vote) - the question is what/how. Devolution sounds much nicer than that nasty European "federalism" that the Daily Mail warn us about...

Unlike federal/devolved/grown-up modern countries, the UK is a mess - is the UK four Countries? Is the UK two countries plus a Principality plus a Province? Should we treat all of these constituent parts the same? We've got these "arms length" relationships with the Isle of Man/ Channel Islands to consider too.

Scotland is obviously a lot more independent than Wales/ Northern Ireland (what with Scotland having it's own legal system, own education system...), but Glasgow/Edinburgh aren't "devolved" - they are controlled by a national parliament (just as Westminster controls Manchester).

However, we are seeing people try to tag "devolution to cities" on to the "devolution to countries/provinces" bandwagon (see the quotes from Manchester that their city has an economy and population on a par with Wales - since "the size of Wales" is an oft-used geographical description!)...

...but how do you devolve power to cities? What power do you give them?

• (Just) the power to spend a slice of "national" spending? Bear in mind that the Government have neutered local authorities, cut their budgets to the bone, taken away responsibilities, sought to encourage things to leave local authority control (e.g. encouraging schools to become academies)...
  
• The power to borrow and to spend? In which case we'll see a lot of cities borrow heavily, now they are free to spend tomorrow's money on some "flagship" schemes.
  
• The power to tax, borrow and spend? Are we ready for them to have their own powers to raise/lower taxes? Then again, this was a major feather in the cap of the Scottish Parliament created in the 1990s, yet despite clamouring for more freedoms (and suggesting that they want a fairer Scotland where the rich pay more and the poor pay less), the SNP have never touched their "three pence in the pound" lever on income tax. Would you want Manchester and Leeds competing on taxes, in a race to the bottom?

Next question - what do you devolve the power to? To a regional assembly like the one that north eastern England rejected? To the existing local authorities? Supercouncils? To elected Mayors? Politicians like to create new layers of bureaucracy - like Police Chiefs - some "jobs for the boys"?

And, lastly, does it matter if things are lopsided? People don't seem to want the MP for West Lothian voting on everything for West Bromwich (since the MP for West Bromwich cannot vote on everything for West Lothian), but nobody seems to mind that the MP for West Ham and the MP for West Belfast and the MP for West Wales can vote on everything in West Bromwich too (whilst the West Bromwich MP cannot vote on things in London/ Wales/ Norn Iron).

The 'English MPs for English votes" arguments sounds okay until you realise how complicated it'd be if you took it to it's logical conclusions (you don't want the 59 Sottish MPs voting on things in England that have been devolved to Scotland, but you don't have a problem with the 73 London MPs voting on things in England that have been devolved to London?)

Really a federal system would only work if we decide to treat all parts as equal and equally free - and that way lie a lot of unintended consequences! I suspect that we'll see a lot of froth on the subject over the next few weeks - people in Wales will be envious of Scotland's powers, people in Manchester will be envious of Wales's powers, people in Liverpool will want what people in Manchester gets... slippery slope!

PS: Be careful quoting spending on transport that only shows a small part of the overall picture (e.g. investment in railway infrastructure that doesn't include subsidies for existing railway services in that area in that time...)

 

[AM9]

I'm actually for moving to a Regional system rather then have everything centralised in Westminster - Most other countries work on a regional system (France has Regions with Departments underneath, German has the Lander, Switzerland Cantons etc)

All of which were in place long before the age of mass money, job and labour mobility. Trying to keep competing regions in any sort of equilibrium would be like nailing jelly to the ceiling.

 

[danielnez1]

I don't think we can achieve equilibrium between the regions. I don't say that as a criticism of our governmental system, but as a limitation of capitalism in general.

Having said that, it is clear that federalism is back on the table and that isn’t necessary a bad thing. If were going to take a serious stab a it then there needs to be regional parliaments with enough powers over local taxation and policy to make it worthwhile while still retaining a federal parliament that can still function with some degree of usefulness (i.e. implement national policy for the whole of the UK).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Devolution The 'English MPs for English votes" arguments sounds okay until you realise how complicated it'd be if you took it to it's logical conclusions (you don't want the 59 Sottish MPs voting on things in England that have been devolved to Scotland, but you don't have a problem with the 73 London MPs voting on things in England that have been devolved to London?)

Agreed. David Cameron's idea of excluding Scottish MPs from voting on English matters is likely to be unworkable in a raw form. To take the most likely scenario, if in a future Parliament, Labour has a majority of MPs but the Conservatives have a majority of English MPs, you'd probably end up with almost everything the Government tries to do concerning England being blocked by the Conservatives' England majority, which would simply paralyse the Government and is probably in no one's interest.

To make something like that work, you'd likely have to have a separate devolved Government for England - which would tend to imply having a separate English parliament/assembly too. And that does seem to lead into your comment that:

Really a federal system would only work if we decide to treat all parts as equal and equally free - and that way lie a lot of unintended consequences!

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...but how do you devolve power to cities? What power do you give them?

• The power to tax, borrow and spend? Are we ready for them to have their own powers to raise/lower taxes? Then again, this was a major feather in the cap of the Scottish Parliament created in the 1990s, yet despite clamouring for more freedoms (and suggesting that they want a fairer Scotland where the rich pay more and the poor pay less), the SNP have never touched their "three pence in the pound" lever on income tax. Would you want Manchester and Leeds competing on taxes, in a race to the bottom?

I suspect giving cities the power to raise/lower tax rates is unworkable, since any significant tax differential between neighbouring areas would mean people moving across the boundary to live in the lower-taxed area, (and possibly also travelling into the higher-taxed area to take advantage of whatever facilities are being provided for by those higher taxes). The result would probably be a race-to-the-bottom in taxation between cities (or regions etc.), making it very hard to ever pay for any significant investment on a city or regional level.

Not a significant problem with Scottish devolution because there are so few large centres of population along the border, so the proportion of the population who live close enough to the border that they could move across it while remaining in the same neighbourhood and commuting to their job etc. is tiny. But would be a problem if devolution started to involve smaller geographical areas.

 

[danielnez1]

I suspect giving cities the power to raise/lower tax rates is unworkable, since any significant tax differential between neighbouring areas would mean people moving across the boundary to live in the lower-taxed area, (and possibly also travelling into the higher-taxed area to take advantage of whatever facilities are being provided for by those higher taxes). The result would probably be a race-to-the-bottom in taxation between cities (or regions etc.), making it very hard to ever pay for any significant investment on a city or regional level.

Not a significant problem with Scottish devolution because there are so few large centres of population along the border, so the proportion of the population who live close enough to the border that they could move across it while remaining in the same neighbourhood and commuting to their job etc. is tiny. But would be a problem if devolution started to involve smaller geographical areas.

IMHO this is the crux of the issue; how macro or micro do you go? As it stands I feel England as a whole would be too large for a single parliament, so perhaps having regional parliaments serving areas similar to the English European Parliament constituencies (or perhaps 3 larger administrative areas) could be an option.

 

[Oswyntail]

All this sounds fine until you look at the people who would be involved. Whatever way you split "The North", you are going to be dominated by bickering. Liverpool and Manchester in one region? Bradford and Leeds? Newcastle and Sunderland? Besides which, there has not been a single fully successful local authority in "The North" - ever. Look at the inability to cope with crises in Rotherham, Bradford, Blackburn. The shysters we elect up here couldn't run a one man flat race. The main reason the North is "deprived" is because of the people we apparently choose to represent us. Put them in charge of a region and watch it lose.

 

[AM9]

I don't think we can achieve equilibrium between the regions. I don't say that as a criticism of our governmental system, but as a limitation of capitalism in general.

I use the word equilibrium in the context of balance rather than equality, for instance at a societal level, the lifestyle and individual prosperity of a maily rural area like East Anglia could be an equivalent quality to that of a modern metropolitan one where commerce was the main activity. Personal space vs local amenity would be contrasted, but security and health wellbeing would both be within acceptable limits. There need not be the constant bickering and envy despite a degree of competition.

Having said that, it is clear that federalism is back on the table and that isn’t necessary a bad thing. If were going to take a serious stab a it then there needs to be regional parliaments with enough powers over local taxation and policy to make it worthwhile while still retaining a federal parliament that can still function with some degree of usefulness (i.e. implement national policy for the whole of the UK).

In view of my comment above, I would also add some mechanism at national level to maintain the equilibrium as far as would be possible. In theory the Barnett formula was created to do that, but without it being enshrined in some sort of national framework, it has become too devisive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All this sounds fine until you look at the people who would be involved. Whatever way you split "The North", you are going to be dominated by bickering. Liverpool and Manchester in one region? Bradford and Leeds? Newcastle and Sunderland? Besides which, there has not been a single fully successful local authority in "The North" - ever. Look at the inability to cope with crises in Rotherham, Bradford, Blackburn. The shysters we elect up here couldn't run a one man flat race. The main reason the North is "deprived" is because of the people we apparently choose to represent us. Put them in charge of a region and watch it lose.

We've had a few in London too, but the difference in the south-East is that the regional identity is more interested in results than historical tribalism. It's a consequence of centuries of immigration and the diverse nature of London's population. Of course there are still plenty of London born in the region, (though few still live in what is now greater London), but the prosperity of the region does not depend soley on this indigenous population. Consequently there is no real brake on the continuous adaptation of the environment for commercial progress.

 

[yorksrob]

That would probably exacerbate the inbalance. If London/SE was in direct competition with the North, the Midlands and the SW, even with a favourable Barnett formula settlement, it would take many decades, if ever, for there to be any real improvements in the regions' fortunes.

Well, which is it to be ? Devolution exacerbating the divide or reviving the fortunes in the North in a few decades time?

Devolution in Scotland doesn't seem to have exacerbated theeconomic divide. Also, even if reviving the North's fortunes is a long term prospect, all the more reason to get started.

As regards the funding per head disparity, I'm not sure where it comes from, but I've yet to see anyone debunk the figures although some have justified them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All of which were in place long before the age of mass money, job and labour mobility. Trying to keep competing regions in any sort of equilibrium would be like nailing jelly to the ceiling.

Yet none of these countries are thinking of moving to a centralised unitary system.

 

[AM9]

Well, which is it to be ? Devolution exacerbating the divide or reviving the fortunes in the North in a few decades time?

Devolution in Scotland doesn't seem to have exacerbated theeconomic divide. Also, even if reviving the North's fortunes is a long term prospect, all the more reason to get started.

In the 'North is getting a hard deal' thread, there were many posts that looked enviously at Scotland's lot implying that they were benefitting from a limited degree of autonomy.

As regards the funding per head disparity, I'm not sure where it comes from, but I've yet to see anyone debunk the figures although some have justified them.

I didn't debunk them, I just mentioned that they weren't qualified by any source. Starrymarkb said that they had changed. There seem to be so many sets of figures used to justify any argument that they are all worthless.
I do beleive that they should be expressed as the level of subsidy per passenger mile as if ridership in the area is low, why count people just because they live there.

Yet none of these countries are thinking of moving to a centralised unitary system.

You've completely missed the point that I was making. Those systems have been in place for a long time, some of them for centuries. So they have mature economies that were established before the advent of international mobility of trade etc..

 

[Tetchytyke]

When devolution was was actually offered to the north east in 2004 there was an overwhelming no vote (78-22 in favour of no).

 

[danielnez1]

I remember the 2004 vote quite well, at the time I remember a lot of people thought it was a good idea in principle, but the resulting executive wouldn't have any meaningful powers, so it wasn't worth it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The "no" campaign was basically "ooh there's more politicians, and you don't like politicians, so vote no!". And they did. And now they're whining that they don't have any local representation.

Ten years late is better than never, I suppose.

And yes, I did vote yes in that referendum

 

[muz379]

personally whilst all this extra powers for the regions sounds nice in principle . living in the North west which often portrays itself as being hard done by compared to the south Im not that excited at the prospect of Devolution .

I dont see what will change , devolving power away from westminister isnt going to create loads of money all of a sudden . If anything the extra layer of bureaucracy will actually swallow up more money

I can however see why the government is quite fond of this idea , because all of the difficult decisions and cuts that are currently being made are being blamed on the government , but if devolution takes place some of the blame will then rest on the heads of the local assemblies or whatever they create

 

[starrymarkb]

In the 'North is getting a hard deal' thread, there were many posts that looked enviously at Scotland's lot implying that they were benefitting from a limited degree of autonomy.



I didn't debunk them, I just mentioned that they weren't qualified by any source. Starrymarkb said that they had changed. There seem to be so many sets of figures used to justify any argument that they are all worthless.
I do beleive that they should be expressed as the level of subsidy per passenger mile as if ridership in the area is low, why count people just because they live there.

This was my source (from 2011) http://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/...2700-for-london-but-p5-per-head-in-north-east

 

[IanXC]

I remember the 2004 vote quite well, at the time I remember a lot of people thought it was a good idea in principle, but the resulting executive wouldn't have any meaningful powers, so it wasn't worth it.

I saw an interview with John Prescott the other day where he agreed that the proposal put to the North East in that referendum may well have been a poor proposal due to a lack of powers contained within.

I think we'll see a solution to the West Lothian problem, and then an acceleration of the Combined Authority regime. The existing CAs have been very effecticlve at setting up operating structures which are cost effective, and which can broadly be held to account via existing democratic structures. I think we may see powers up to and including to the level held by the London Assembly - clearly the closer a City Region gets to that level the greater the case for direct elections.

 

[Johnuk123]

I saw an interview with John Prescott the other day where he agreed that the proposal put to the North East in that referendum may well have been a poor proposal due to a lack of powers contained within.

John Prescott, now there's a bloke whose really in touch and on the ball as witnessed yesterday in this comment

"Yes we will abolish the breakfast tax"

With the labour shadow pensions minister not being able to say how much a pension is it just proves how out of touch and ignorant the labour party is.

 

[yorksrob]

In the 'North is getting a hard deal' thread, there were many posts that looked enviously at Scotland's lot implying that they were benefitting from a limited degree of autonomy.



I didn't debunk them, I just mentioned that they weren't qualified by any source. Starrymarkb said that they had changed. There seem to be so many sets of figures used to justify any argument that they are all worthless.
I do beleive that they should be expressed as the level of subsidy per passenger mile as if ridership in the area is low, why count people just because they live there.




You've completely missed the point that I was making. Those systems have been in place for a long time, some of them for centuries. So they have mature economies that were established before the advent of international mobility of trade etc..

The point is that devolution hasn't increased the disadvantaged Scotland in terms of its relationship with the rest of the UK.

In terms of transport spend per head, I believe it would be a meaningless comparison not to take account of overall population as inadequate public transport will cause people to become car dependant.

We have very real problems with the distribution of economic activity in this country. Even London isn't working properly (see the other thread) and is crying out for other areas to take some of the strain. This will never happen all the while economic and political decision making are concentrated in London.

Incidentelly, I'm currently in Cornwall and devolution is a hot topic down here as well.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Reading some of the postings in this thread, I was very mindful of the famous "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

With all this talk of devolution left, right and centre I wonder whether we should re-name the country the Untied Kingdom.:roll:

 

[Johnuk123]

With all this talk of devolution left, right and centre I wonder whether we should re-name the country the Untied Kingdom.:roll:

The new prospective head of the SNP Nicola Sturgeon has just said another referendum could be in the 2016 manifesto and I reckon next time it will be a resounding Yes.

 

[starrymarkb]

Reading some of the postings in this thread, I was very mindful of the famous "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch.

Can you give a synopsis for those who don't know what that sketch is?

 

[Clip]

The new prospective head of the SNP Nicola Sturgeon has just said another referendum could be in the 2016 manifesto and I reckon next time it will be a resounding Yes.

But dont they have to be granted it by Wstminster and the PM? Doubt anyone whoever is in p[owere will want a run of that again foir a while.

 

[Johnuk123]

But dont they have to be granted it by Wstminster and the PM? Doubt anyone whoever is in p[owere will want a run of that again foir a while.

I think you'll find any UK government that turned down a referendum that was passed in the Scottish parliament would face one hell of a massive Scottish backlash.

If Scotland decides to go for it again England won't dare to stop them.

There is a school of thought that says Scotland could just declare Independence anyway at any time when they decide they have enough powers. Salmond said as much last week.

 

[SWTCommuter]

Can you give a synopsis for those who don't know what that sketch is?

Here you go: http://youtu.be/Xe1a1wHxTyo

 

[Oswyntail]

The new prospective head of the SNP Nicola Sturgeon has just said another referendum could be in the 2016 manifesto and I reckon next time it will be a resounding Yes.

Though, of course, it could be a vote loser for the SNP - would the people of Scotland want to go through two more years of bickering?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Though, of course, it could be a vote loser for the SNP - would the people of Scotland want to go through two more years of bickering?

Yep. Unless there is some overwhelming change in circumstances to justify it, putting something like that in the manifesto is just going give the impression of 'We'll keep holding referendums until you vote the way we want' - I imagine that will not only lose the SNP a lot of respect (and therefore some votes) but could cause a drop in the 'yes' vote if another referendum was actually held.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

John Prescott, now there's a bloke whose really in touch and on the ball as witnessed yesterday in this comment

"Yes we will abolish the breakfast tax"

With the labour shadow pensions minister not being able to say how much a pension is it just proves how out of touch and ignorant the labour party is.

Not really. If he did say that (I didn't see it) so I'm assuming you're correct, then the bit about the breakfast tax simply shows that John Prescott gets tongue-tied sometimes (which I think we already knew).

Not knowing how much a pension is would be very serious if John Prescott was a shadow pensions minister. However Labour's shadow secretary of state for work and pensions is actually Rachel Reeves. John Prescott isn't even an MP any more, and looking online, I can't see that he has any current role that would require him to particularly know about pensions. In that light, it's a bit of a heavy extrapolation to say that what *John Prescott* doesn't know about the subject proves that the entire Labour Party (which contains probably a few hundred thousand people) is out of touch.