Devolution for English cities.

[IanXC]

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.

Its that very Rachel Reeves who didn't know...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Reeves-does-not-know-state-pension-worth.html

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Ah, in that case, that is rather more serious. You would expect a work and pensions shadow minister to have done her homework on something like the level of the state pension (though in her defence, she was correct to say the amount depends on contributions, her failure was in not knowing the maximum amount).

 

[Greenback]

Maybe Mr Prescott was very hungry when he said breakfast instead of bedroom, and his mind was on a big plate of bacon, egg and sausage?

 

[Butts]

I don't think the question of Devolution for English Regions is something at the forefront of most peoples consciousness.

My belief is that proponents of the measure are attracted by the perceived extra funding that may accompany it's introduction. This may prove to be illusory in the long term.

Scotland is completely different as a distinctive Nation with it's own Educational and Legal System, Banks that issue notes and Ecclesiastical portals. Aspiring separatist Pasty Munchers and Leeks have none of these existing arms of a future State, nor do any of the English Regions.

 

[muz379]

I don't think the question of Devolution for English Regions is something at the forefront of most peoples consciousness.

My belief is that proponents of the measure are attracted by the perceived extra funding that may accompany it's introduction. This may prove to be illusory in the long term.

This is the way I see the issue , Personally in theory it would be nice if Greater Manchester being the region I lived in had more powers and more funding . However devolution is not going to suddenly create a load more money , if anything the extra layer of bureaucracy is only going to lead to less funds being available because of the costs involved .

And if the devolution is along lines of large regions with entirely separate and somewhat already autonomous local governments all that will happen is massive internal rows between areas . Say devolution was given to the North West , the rows between Liverpool and Greater Manchester local authorities would be monumental .

 

[tbtc]

I don't think the question of Devolution for English Regions is something at the forefront of most peoples consciousness.

My belief is that proponents of the measure are attracted by the perceived extra funding that may accompany it's introduction. This may prove to be illusory in the long term.

Scotland is completely different as a distinctive Nation with it's own Educational and Legal System, Banks that issue notes and Ecclesiastical portals. Aspiring separatist Pasty Munchers and Leeks have none of these existing arms of a future State, nor do any of the English Regions.

True.

Scotland is a proper country, with its own institutions rather than a Civil Servant's arbitarily defined region (e.g. where would the boundaries of a West Midlands assembly represent?).

If devolution is just going to mean people spending the same amount of money locally (as that region currently gets spent on it by "London") then it's not really a Great Leap Forward.

Doesn't bother me too much where the decision to spend money on something in Sheffield was taken, I'm more bothered about whether that was the right decision in the first place.

"Extra funding" is the problem that nobody seems to want to grasp. Would "extra funding" for a "Greater Yorkshire" assembly require them to raise taxes? If so, from where? Interesting that ~fifteen years of the Scottish Parliament hasn't seen one attempt to use the existing powers to vary income tax (up or down) - maybe because they realise that any difference to revenue would be pretty marginal and that a tax cut would scare some people away whilst a tax reduction wouldn't attract sufficient new people to increase revenues.

Do we really want different regions of England competing against each other for the same people/ businesses, in a race to the bottom?

The problem is that "local" is an easy argument to make, and at the moment the electorate seem to prefer people selling them a simple "solution" (rather than a complicated long term arrangement).

 

[Clip]

London should rule over all of the UK nad have billions spent on it every year..

Oh wait a minute ..

 

[Butts]

London should rule over all of the UK nad have billions spent on it every year..

Oh wait a minute ..

"Nad's" true

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think the question of Devolution for English Regions is something at the forefront of most peoples consciousness.

My belief is that proponents of the measure are attracted by the perceived extra funding that may accompany it's introduction. This may prove to be illusory in the long term.

Scotland is completely different as a distinctive Nation with it's own Educational and Legal System, Banks that issue notes and Ecclesiastical portals. Aspiring separatist Pasty Munchers and Leeks have none of these existing arms of a future State, nor do any of the English Regions.

Hmm. I'm not sure what you'd call the Church of England if not a distinctive ecclesiastical portal. We already have a nation, so don't really need the flag waving Braveheart stuff. It's more the feeling that the Provinces are governed as an afterthought.

There seems to be a feeling on the forum that regional devolution will be a disaster, yet it is extremely apparent, particularly in our own field of interest in transport, that wherever power is devolved down, be it Scotland, Wales, London, PTE's, local government takes it more seriously and does a better job.

 

[Oswyntail]

... it is extremely apparent, particularly in our own field of interest in transport, that wherever power is devolved down, be it Scotland, Wales, London, PTE's, local government takes it more seriously and does a better job.

Perhaps (relevantly) it is no coincidence that the areas you mention are all out on the fringes (yes, even London) and so have limited interfaces. It is when you try to put the whole sorry mess together in the middle of the country that we really see the benefits of central control and standardisation (generally through the lack of it).

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps (relevantly) it is no coincidence that the areas you mention are all out on the fringes (yes, even London) and so have limited interfaces. It is when you try to put the whole sorry mess together in the middle of the country that we really see the benefits of central control and standardisation (generally through the lack of it).

London can in no way be described as at the periphery. It is very much at the centre of the railway system whatever way you look at it.

Standardisation and central control are two completely separate things. Standardisation is good because it offers economies of scale and allows for efficient day to day operations. Central control is completely different. There is absolutely no benefit in having a remote London department dictating what stopping services should run on the Cumbrian coast for example. There are even difficulties in having a central London department deciding what routes should be in what franchise.

 

[Oswyntail]

London can in no way be described as at the periphery. It is very much at the centre of the railway system whatever way you look at it.

You missed my (obviously poorly made) point. The problems come when one region rubs up against another. London and the SE, as a region has fewer contiguous boundaries, and is so dominant anyway it can keep itself to itself.

Standardisation and central control are two completely separate things. Standardisation is good because it offers economies of scale and allows for efficient day to day operations. Central control is completely different. There is absolutely no benefit in having a remote London department dictating what stopping services should run on the Cumbrian coast for example. There are even difficulties in having a central London department deciding what routes should be in what franchise.

To a degree - but if done properly, central control is a much better way of doing things. Why should a Yorkshire authority give a damn about what happens outside its boundaries? Given the average Yorkshireman, he would probably wait to see what East Midlands were doing, then do the opposite. But humans are messy beings, and don't live by artificial boundaries. So there needs to be something that tells the regions to work together.
Just because the current system is dysfunctional doesn't mean it is wrong.

 

[yorksrob]

I still don't entirely get your point about London. The way I would look at it is that pretty much the rest of the country's network buts up against and even interweaves with the London network, yet London has managed to transform its local services without causing too many ructions to those services within London on whom other regions depend.

As for central control, I agree that if there was some form of strategic planning for inter-regional services, that would be a good thing, but in truth, central Government has only really been any good at doing this in London and the South East. It's beginning to think more about these things with East-West rail and HS2, but this is all very late in the day. And central government has shown itself to be utterly incapable of thinking about the wider needs of communities in terms of local services etc.

 

[Greenback]

It's understandable that central government is not good at thinking about the needs of local communities. That's the job of lower authorities, central government needs to be taking a more strategic view. The fact is, though, that they haven't been doing a very good job of that either!

The counter view is, to take Wales as an example, that there is still going to be accusations that some areas are favoured over others. Though I do think that ATW does a better job than its normally given credit for in providing links from north and mid Wales to Birmingham and Manchester. Again, though, a weakness is the WG political desire to improve links between the north and the south.

 

[IanXC]

The way I would look at it is that pretty much the rest of the country's network buts up against and even interweaves with the London network, yet London has managed to transform its local services without causing too many ructions to those services within London on whom other regions depend.

My view is that the key to this is that 'former NSE' operators and Intercity operators, when in negociations/consultations and so on are much more equal, compared to Intercity/'former Regional Railways'. Not only in terms of pure profitability, but also in reputation/perception - just take Virgin vs Northern for Stockport to Manchester. Outside of the separate networks in London, I think this is the key factor.

The counter view is, to take Wales as an example, that there is still going to be accusations that some areas are favoured over others. Though I do think that ATW does a better job than its normally given credit for in providing links from north and mid Wales to Birmingham and Manchester. Again, though, a weakness is the WG political desire to improve links between the north and the south.

I think its an uphill struggle for ATW though, they can see the revenue available on those routes, but I'm far from convinced their political masters in Cardiff Bay can!

 

[Greenback]

I think its an uphill struggle for ATW though, they can see the revenue available on those routes, but I'm far from convinced their political masters in Cardiff Bay can!

Quite right, and it shows how devolution doesn't always bring the right answers. There is always going to be tension between the service provider and whoever specifies it if they're priorities and aspirations don't align.

 

[Butts]

If there were to be an English Parliament it seems senseless to create a new forum for debate when the House of Commons already exists.

Just kick all the Jocks, Taffs and Paddys out and bobs your uncle you have a venue.

However if it sat in tandem with the other devolved entities this may be more of a problem.

 

[danielnez1]

If there were to be an English Parliament it seems senseless to create a new forum for debate when the House of Commons already exists.

Just kick all the Jocks, Taffs and Paddys out and bobs your uncle you have a venue.

If we do that, then perhaps we should bump them up to the House of Lords (while tossing out the bishops et al.), the red seating looks much nicer.