English devolution discussion

[Sorcerer]

Inspired by the thread about whether we should move the capital city, the subject of an English Parliament and devolved English governments were raised, and so I thought it would be an interesting discussion by itself. So what do you all think? Should England, like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, have it's own devolved governments? If so, should it have a single English Parliament located outside London? Or should it have it's own devolved regions? In my opinion, if England were to receive it's own devolved governments, I don't think a single Parliament would be quite as suitable as it is to the other three aforementioned UK nations simply because of population and diversity. Northern Ireland has about 1.8 million people, Wales 3.1 million, and Scotland 5.4 million. Meanwhile, England has about 55 million people which is ten to eleven times greater than Scotland, and many different English regions have different interest than others, therefore a single Parliament probably won't cut it in my opinion.

Therefore, I would say that England should be split into several regions such as London, South East, Anglia, East Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, North East, North West, West Midlands and South West. Maybe also give Cornwall it's own region if necessary. As for the seats of these devolved regions, I am not too sure. Some seem obvious such as Manchester (North West), Birmingham (West Midlands), Leeds (Yorkshire and Humber) and Newcastle (North West) but others I'm not so sure about where I'd put them. But what does everyone else think? Let us know your thoughts about whether England needs devolution and what sort, and maybe even where the devolved bodies should be located. Let us also know your thoughts if you don't believe England needs devolution but understand some reform is necessary, or maybe argue for the status quo as it is if you genuinely believe so.

 

[Magdalia]

Therefore, I would say that England should be split into several regions such as London, South East, Anglia, East Midlands, West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, North East, North West, West Midlands and South West.

We have been here before. This is roughly what was proposed by the 1997 Labour Government, with regional assemblies for each of the 9 regions of England as fixed for statistical purposes. John Prescott, as Deputy Prime Minister, was in charge of the policy.

The 9 English regions are as follows, and you have them almost exactly:

London
South East
South West
East of England
East Midlands
West Midlands
North West
Yorkshire and Humber
North East

The policy got as far as a referendum for a regional assembly in the North East, which was rejected by a big majority.

Generally speaking, it is hard to get support for more layers of government: the argument that it adds more cost but not much benefit is difficult to refute. I think it would have to be accompanied by a move to single tier local authorities below regional level throughout England, and a reduction in the size and power of the centre. Single tier local authorities has happened in some areas already. Another development since has been the introduction of regional mayors. These have sometimes, but not always, been for regions that voters recognise as distinctive. I think this is important, and that one of the reasons that the Prescott attempt failed was that the boundaries were for administrative convenience not voter attachment. If he had tried Yorkshire first it might have been different!

Here in the Fens the result of these piecemeal changes is a mess. I have lots of experience of reorganisations, most of them not good, so I start off sceptical. But the Cambridge area would definitely benefit from a better local government structure.

However it will be hard to find something that the electorate can be persuaded will be worth all of the disruption.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

England deserves a single parliament just like any other nation. The regions were voted on, and were opposed, they don't match up well with cultural or historical areas (such as counties).
We were promised English votes for English laws, but that's been ignored, about time we gave up on the United Kingdom, which clearly has four entirely seperate futures.

England does not need to be divided, no one wants 9 different top level governments all diverging from each other.

I hate that England does not have it's own elected government, the current system is corrupt and unfair, we deserve the same as Scotland gets, not any second rate fudge

 

[PTR 444]

We have been here before. This is roughly what was proposed by the 1997 Labour Government, with regional assemblies for each of the 9 regions of England as fixed for statistical purposes. John Prescott, as Deputy Prime Minister, was in charge of the policy.

The 9 English regions are as follows, and you have them almost exactly:

London
South East
South West
East of England
East Midlands
West Midlands
North West
Yorkshire and Humber
North East

The policy got as far as a referendum for a regional assembly in the North East, which was rejected by a big majority.

Generally speaking, it is hard to get support for more layers of government: the argument that it adds more cost but not much benefit is difficult to refute. I think it would have to be accompanied by a move to single tier local authorities below regional level throughout England, and a reduction in the size and power of the centre. Single tier local authorities has happened in some areas already. Another development since has been the introduction of regional mayors. These have sometimes, but not always, been for regions that voters recognise as distinctive. I think this is important, and that one of the reasons that the Prescott attempt failed was that the boundaries were for administrative convenience not voter attachment. If he had tried Yorkshire first it might have been different!

Here in the Fens the result of these piecemeal changes is a mess. I have lots of experience of reorganisations, most of them not good, so I start off sceptical. But the Cambridge area would definitely benefit from a better local government structure.

However it will be hard to find something that the electorate can be persuaded will be worth all of the disruption.

I’d do it slightly differently to the current regions. Firstly, I’d create a South Coast devolved region covering Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Berkshire, Hampshire and East Dorset, seeing as Bournemouth and Poole economically look more towards those counties than the South West. The remainder of the South West can be renamed Wessex, with Cornwall possibly seceding as a region in its own right considering it has a strong local identity. The Oxbridge and M1 Watford - Northampton corridors also associate with each other well, therefore a Home Counties assembly centered around Milton Keynes would make sense. Further north, a joined up North West region might be problematic due to the long standing rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester, so I expect the former will become its own enclave, similar to how Bremen is a German federal region in its own right despite being tiny.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I’d do it slightly differently to the current regions. Firstly, I’d create a South Coast devolved region covering Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Berkshire, Hampshire and East Dorset, seeing as Bournemouth and Poole economically look more towards those counties than the South West. The remainder of the South West can be renamed Wessex, with Cornwall possibly seceding as a region in its own right considering it has a strong local identity. The Oxbridge and M1 Watford - Northampton corridors also associate with each other well, therefore a Home Counties assembly centered around Milton Keynes would make sense. Further north, a joined up North West region might be problematic due to the long standing rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester, so I expect the former will become its own enclave, similar to how Bremen is a German federal region in its own right despite being tiny.

Simple answer: North West regional HQ in Preston, not that far from either of the great cities and more accessible to Cumbria and the East Lancs towns

 

[Parjon]

Not an answer to foisting yet another democratically deficient model on us. "North West" is utterly meaningless here.

 

[Busaholic]

Please, no referendum!

 

[renegademaster]

Just give the county councils more power rather than inventing a bunch of largely arbitrary regions to go to a bunch of little SNP clones

 

[Enthusiast]

I am against devolution. I believe it promotes division and rancour and I would prefer to see it reversed. There are too many layers of government in the UK and adding more does nobody any favours. But.....

All three devolved administrations seem to suffer from various problems - with one having only been in session for about two years out of the last six and a half (mainly caused by its ridiculous composition). However, if devolution is to remain (and I cannot see any government being bold enough to ditch it despite those problems) then it is preposterous that England does not have its own administration. How any politicians can believe this is acceptable is one of life's great mysteries.

 

[Noddy]

England deserves a single parliament just like any other nation. The regions were voted on, and were opposed, they don't match up well with cultural or historical areas (such as counties).

No they weren’t. The only region that got a vote was the north east which voted no. I lived in Yorkshire at the time and we would have voted yes (or at least that’s what some polling indicated) but the vote was scrapped. I would also point out that London has its own, if very basic, assembly and could easily transition to becoming a city state like Berlin, Bern or Brussels.

England does not need to be divided, no one wants 9 different top level governments all diverging from each other.

What about all the other countries in the world that are ‘divided’. Eg Germany or India, the USA or Switzerland, Belgium or Canada, Australia or United Arab Emirates. It doesn’t ‘divide’ them or make them any less a country.

 

[renegademaster]

No they weren’t. The only region that got a vote was the north east which voted no. I lived in Yorkshire at the time and we would have voted yes (or at least that’s what some polling indicated) but the vote was scrapped. I would also point out that London has its own, if very basic, assembly and could easily transition to becoming a city state like Berlin, Bern or Brussels.


What about all the other countries in the world that are ‘divided’. Eg Germany or India, the USA or Switzerland, Belgium or Canada, Australia or United Arab Emirates. It doesn’t ‘divide’ them or make them any less a country.

Germany, USA etc have a history of federalism and it's voters are used to how it works, we don't

 

[Noddy]

Germany, USA etc have a history of federalism and it's voters are used to how it works, we don't

So you’re arguing the English are too stupid to understand? Okay…

There is an element of Federalist style parliaments in Britain already (London, Scotland, Wales, NI) all of which were products of the 20th century. Voters in those jurisdictions have learnt perfectly well how it works.

 

[renegademaster]

So you’re arguing the English are too stupid to understand? Okay…

We seem to get local government rejiggered every couple of decades and it never seems to bring any improvement, while the German one dates back to the end of the Allied occupation, has a solid constitution defining respective roles, and hasn't changed much since (with a lot of regional indenities pre dating the war, but also alot made up by the ACC) and the American federal system even older and the system of State -> County -> City being fairly static and well defined.
Our parliamentary sovereignty means that any government 10 years from now can and will just change the system again to try and engineer some consistencies for itself, like with that the Tories are doing holding referendums for a change to the mayoral system only in Labour held boroughs

 

[adc82140]

One English parliament. A regional system would just become overblown local councils. Matters like education and health need to be on a larger scale, not different on a region by region basis.

The ideal, in my opinion, levels of government should be in order of size, from small to large:

Parish/town council
Unitary local authority
English Parliament
Westminster

Scrap District Councils, hand the social care and education roles of County Councils to an English parliament, so the main function of a Unitary Authority is bins, street lights and pot holes.

 

[Noddy]

We seem to get local government rejiggered every couple of decades and it never seems to bring any improvement,

I agree local government is often rejigged. But only in terms of boundary movements/districts becoming unitaries etc. Not actual changes/devolving/decentralising of power.

while the German one dates back to the end of the Allied occupation, has a solid constitution defining respective roles, and hasn't changed much since (with a lot of regional indenities pre dating the war, but also alot made up by the ACC)

Well apart from entire states merging (eg South Baden and Württemberg-Baden) or, you know, the reunification of East and West Germany which resulted in the creation of a load of new states in 1990.

Our parliamentary sovereignty means that any government 10 years from now can and will just change the system again to try and engineer some consistencies for itself, like with that the Tories are doing holding referendums for a change to the mayoral system only in Labour held boroughs

Or, like you note in reference to Germany, we could create a solid constitution to stop this happening…

 

[Magdalia]

England deserves a single parliament just like any other nation.

Germany, USA etc have a history of federalism

England having its own parliament and a federal constitution for the UK are incompatible. Just do the maths. England on its own is far bigger than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.

 

[Falcon1200]

Yet another layer of administration with hordes of non-productive politicians to be paid, housed and serviced, not to mention the issues which would inevitably arise when Westminster was ruled by a different party than any of the regions (although, as per Scotland, it would at least give the devolved administrations an easy scapegoat for their own incompetence).

 

[Noddy]

Yet another layer of administration with hordes of non-productive politicians to be paid, housed and serviced, not to mention the issues which would inevitably arise when Westminster was ruled by a different party than any of the regions (although, as per Scotland, it would at least give the devolved administrations an easy scapegoat for their own incompetence).

Seems to work OK in all the countries I’ve previously mentioned. No system is perfect but what we have at the moment is totally lopsided and pretty terrible in comparison to a balanced federal style system.

 

[THC]

England having its own parliament and a federal constitution for the UK are incompatible. Just do the maths. England on its own is far bigger than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.

Exactly. England contains c. 85% of the UK population. This, combined with the evolutionary nature of British political structures and an essentially conservative national psyche, means that the UK Parliament also acts as the de facto English legislature.

THC

 

[renegademaster]

I agree local government is often rejigged. But only in terms of boundary movements/districts becoming unitaries etc. Not actual changes/devolving/decentralising of power.



Well apart from entire states merging (eg South Baden and Württemberg-Baden) or, you know, the reunification of East and West Germany which resulted in the creation of a load of new states in 1990.




Or, like you note in reference to Germany, we could create a solid constitution to stop this happening…

The thing is that the only solid provision of our current constitution is that we cant bind future parliaments and create a solid constitution for ourselves. Any attempt would need basically 100% consent, and all the parties to make promises that we won't suddenly go back to the old order if we win.

The West Lothian question was solved when the parliamentary rules barred Scottish MPs on voting for English only issues , I don't know why the Tories got rid of it since the rule works to their advantage

 

[Noddy]

The thing is that the only solid provision of our current constitution is that we cant bind future parliaments and create a solid constitution for ourselves. Any attempt would need basically 100% consent, and all the parties to make promises that we won't suddenly go back to the old order if we win.

The point of a written constitution is that the rules are written down so the only way to change them (and there is nothing wrong with doing this as Germany has done many times since the War) is through Parliamentary change. Rather than unwritten rules which are changed or ignored in smoke filled rooms…

The West Lothian question was solved when the parliamentary rules barred Scottish MPs on voting for English only issues , I don't know why the Tories got rid of it since the rule works to their advantage

They changed it because it created two tiers of MPs. English, and everyone else. MPs were not equal. Even Rees Mogg acknowledged this undermined the parliament.

 

[renegademaster]

The point of a written constitution is that the rules are written down so the only way to change them (and there is nothing wrong with doing this as Germany has done many times since the War) is through Parliamentary change. Rather than unwritten rules which are changed or ignored in smoke filled rooms

In Germany you need 2/3rd of both houses to change anything from their basic law, and America is even harder.

Israel's is in a political chaos between it's Judiciary and Bibi about it's originally 50% +1 anything parliment says goes constitution to more enshrined constitution

 

[Noddy]

In Germany you need 2/3rd of both houses to change anything from their basic law, and America is even harder.

So basically you’re saying it’s not possible to do this:

…all the parties to make promises that we won't suddenly go back to the old order if we win.

I’m really not seeing a problem there.

 

[KashmireHawker]

As much as I would love an English Parliament, such a move would be hated as another big layer of democracy.

The Mayoral Authority’s coming into existence since 2017 (excluding London) are giving many areas much more money and power than before and are a far easier solution than another national Parliament.

There are currently 10 Metro Mayors and that increases to 12 from 2024 (with Derbyshire and Nottingshamshire forming East Mids and North East and North of Tyne CA’s merging) and in the case of the West Midlands, not having the WMCA would probably have not enabled the region to land Commonwealth Games Legacy Funding and through that: a job for me!

Along with the CA’s, Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils opted for a Devotion deal at a Council level and means voters will elect there Council Leaders for the first time next May.

This seems a much more comfortable option, for those who feel iffy about a mayoral structure: I.E Cornwall which eventually rejected a Mayoral model as part of a planned Devo Deal.

The Government say anywhere which wants a Devo Deal, has until 2030 to sort one out so it will be interesting to see what the shape of everything ends up being.

 

[renegademaster]

As much as I would love an English Parliament, such a move would be hated as another big layer of democracy.

The Mayoral Authority’s coming into existence since 2017 (excluding London) are giving many areas much more money and power than before and are a far easier solution than another national Parliament.

There are currently 10 Metro Mayors and that increases to 12 from 2024 (with Derbyshire and Nottingshamshire forming East Mids and North East and North of Tyne CA’s merging) and in the case of the West Midlands, not having the WMCA would probably have not enabled the region to land Commonwealth Games Legacy Funding and through that: a job for me!

Along with the CA’s, Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils opted for a Devotion deal at a Council level and means voters will elect there Council Leaders for the first time next May.

This seems a much more comfortable option, for those who feel iffy about a mayoral structure: I.E Cornwall which eventually rejected a Mayoral model as part of a planned Devo Deal.

The Government say anywhere which wants a Devo Deal, has until 2030 to sort one out so it will be interesting to see what the shape of everything ends up being.

I don't see the advantage of mayors, most of the time they have to have support of the council to get anything done. You could give the existing local authorities more power and money without creating new elections and a more complicated structure

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2023 ==

So basically you’re saying it’s not possible to do this:



I’m really not seeing a problem there.

Getting all the parties to agree on a constitution especially at the moment is simply impossible. All the historical instances of big changes to the essence of our constitution (devolution isn't one , it's an ordinary act of parliament that can be reversed) have came through wars, coups or the royals personally get involved.

 

[Noddy]

Getting all the parties to agree on a constitution especially at the moment is simply impossible. All the historical instances of big changes to the essence of our constitution (devolution isn't one , it's an ordinary act of parliament that can be reversed) have came through wars, coups or the royals personally get involved.

Not really. Our constitution, if you can call it that, is made up of a number different laws, supported by decisions judges have made over the years. These are founded in acts of parliaments and because we have no written constitution all laws are the same in the eyes of parliament. So called ‘constitutional statute’ can be repealed or amended by simple majority votes in Parliament, like any ‘other’ legislation.

 

[renegademaster]

Not really. Our constitution, if you can call it that, is made up of a number different laws, supported by decisions judges have made over the years. These are founded in acts of parliaments and because we have no written constitution all laws are the same in the eyes of parliament. So called ‘constitutional statute’ can be repealed or amended by simple majority votes in Parliament, like any ‘other’ legislation.

Without somehow getting rid of parliamentry sovereignty, it doesn't matter how intricately you describe the relations between each government institution and the parliamentry procedure , it can be undone by a simple majority, and wouldn't protect against the scenario the government just changes the system again to boost their own chances.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think the North needs its on Parliament. What I'd do is get rid of unitary authorities and district authorities, and have the county council as the lowest level of government, then push the existing functions of a county council to some sort of "united counties parliament", along with extra functions such as transport and health etc.

 

[Noddy]

Without somehow getting rid of parliamentry sovereignty, it doesn't matter how intricately you describe the relations between each government institution and the parliamentry procedure , it can be undone by a simple majority, and wouldn't protect against the scenario the government just changes the system again to boost their own chances.

Sigh. If you have a written constitution it can stop you doing that kind of stunt without having a supermajority. For example Germany or the US which you explicitly mentioned earlier. But you appear to favour the current system that allows exactly what you describe.

But this is getting slightly off English Devolution. I note in the completely unrepresentative UKRailForums sample of 46 members having regional devolution is in the lead, and the status quo is last of the four options.

 

[J-2739]

Germany, USA etc have a history of federalism and it's voters are used to how it works, we don't

Perhaps look at Belgium as a more recent implementation of federalism?

Heck, they even have a similar civil strife between the post-industrial Walloons and the wealthier Flemings.