Devolution in the south-east
A few weeks ago I started a thread on 'Devolution in London' asking Londoners what level of devolution they'd like to have in the city i.e what sort of extra powers they'd like their mayor to have in the future now that there's talk of devolving more power to England or England's regions after the Scottish independence referendum.
Now I'd like to ask people in the official south-east region similar questions and more. For those who don't know, the south-east government region officially consists of the following counties and unitary authorities: Kent, Sussex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire - including Milton Keynes.
Here's the Wikipedia link to confirm the precise area it covers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England
As I said in the thread about London, forget about whether we should have regional devolution at all. Instead, imagine its happening regardless and if you're interested in the subject matter and especially if you live in the south-east region as defined by the link I provided above, contribute to the debate in relation to the questions I set out below.
I'd like to ask people in that region three questions:
1) What level of devolution would you like your south-east government to have? Should it have powers equal to what Scotland has, perhaps? For example, would you like the south-east government to have say, health, education or transport devolved, or any other aspect of government currently handled at Westminster?
2) Are you happy with the south-east region as officially defined above or would you change it in any way? Do you think for example, your county shouldn't be in that region at all or maybe that other counties should be left out of that region instead? Would you re-draw the boundaries completely or maybe split it into two or more separate regions? Maybe you think some neighbouring counties should be incorporated into the south-east region perhaps? Also, as I mentioned in the other thread about London, if you live near to London would you actually prefer your county or at least your town or village to be incorporated into Greater London rather than be part of the south-east?
Or maybe you'd simply prefer your county to have its' own devolved government rather than be part of a wider south-east region?
3) If we were to have a south-east government region as officially defined or one with modified borders that's more to your taste:p where would you have your regional capital?
I know that of all the regions of England the south-east probably doesn't strike a lot of people as a region in most desperate need of devolution because of its' proximity to London but I still feel its a question worth asking as I believe all parts of the UK deserve devolution including London and the south-east. Also, as someone who lives in Kent so is therefore in the official south-east region I'm personally in favour of as much regional devolution as possible.
Having stated my home county, its only fair I also give my opinion on what I think of the south-east region as officially defined (as I never tire of saying:D). I do feel the region is a little too big. I'd have no problem as a Kentish person to be in the same region as Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire and possibly Berkshire too as I see them as my fellow south-easterners with a similar culture. However, I'm less sure about Oxfordshire and Bucks though I admit its probably mainly because of their distance from Kent but in the case of Oxfordshire they've traditionally been more of a Midlands county so I'd imagine they'd prefer to be part of a Midlands region than a south-east one but maybe I'm wrong on that. I'd be interested to know how people in either of those counties feel about being in the same region as Kent. Maybe you can't imagine our counties being in the same region either!
Now I'd like to ask people in the official south-east region similar questions and more. For those who don't know, the south-east government region officially consists of the following counties and unitary authorities: Kent, Sussex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire - including Milton Keynes.
Here's the Wikipedia link to confirm the precise area it covers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England
As I said in the thread about London, forget about whether we should have regional devolution at all. Instead, imagine its happening regardless and if you're interested in the subject matter and especially if you live in the south-east region as defined by the link I provided above, contribute to the debate in relation to the questions I set out below.
I'd like to ask people in that region three questions:
1) What level of devolution would you like your south-east government to have? Should it have powers equal to what Scotland has, perhaps? For example, would you like the south-east government to have say, health, education or transport devolved, or any other aspect of government currently handled at Westminster?
2) Are you happy with the south-east region as officially defined above or would you change it in any way? Do you think for example, your county shouldn't be in that region at all or maybe that other counties should be left out of that region instead? Would you re-draw the boundaries completely or maybe split it into two or more separate regions? Maybe you think some neighbouring counties should be incorporated into the south-east region perhaps? Also, as I mentioned in the other thread about London, if you live near to London would you actually prefer your county or at least your town or village to be incorporated into Greater London rather than be part of the south-east?
Or maybe you'd simply prefer your county to have its' own devolved government rather than be part of a wider south-east region?
3) If we were to have a south-east government region as officially defined or one with modified borders that's more to your taste:p where would you have your regional capital?
I know that of all the regions of England the south-east probably doesn't strike a lot of people as a region in most desperate need of devolution because of its' proximity to London but I still feel its a question worth asking as I believe all parts of the UK deserve devolution including London and the south-east. Also, as someone who lives in Kent so is therefore in the official south-east region I'm personally in favour of as much regional devolution as possible.
Having stated my home county, its only fair I also give my opinion on what I think of the south-east region as officially defined (as I never tire of saying:D). I do feel the region is a little too big. I'd have no problem as a Kentish person to be in the same region as Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire and possibly Berkshire too as I see them as my fellow south-easterners with a similar culture. However, I'm less sure about Oxfordshire and Bucks though I admit its probably mainly because of their distance from Kent but in the case of Oxfordshire they've traditionally been more of a Midlands county so I'd imagine they'd prefer to be part of a Midlands region than a south-east one but maybe I'm wrong on that. I'd be interested to know how people in either of those counties feel about being in the same region as Kent. Maybe you can't imagine our counties being in the same region either!
0
Comments
Devolve this, devolve that, utterly pointless since we are ruled from Berlin.
I come from east Kent which is very deprived in comparison to the surrounding areas and I think it would be better represented in a London parliament than one up north somewhere. I think a similar argument can be made for the Westcountry having its own parliament too (as well as Cornwall being a Celtic nation).
Aside from that, the US and Australia both have their federal capitals based in federal territories, so I would assume London would have its own separate government anyway and it would be more effective if it also included surrounding areas that are dominated by London.
And yet Scotland manages to make many of its own decisions, so it's not pointless in the least. Same could go for devolved regions of England.
It's not a tiny country. It's a large European country and the one that is the most centrally controlled within the EU. Britain is not normal in the lack of powers available to people locally.
The question is what kind of powers do people want locally? Would it make sense for people in different parts of the country to have different levels of income tax, VAT, pensions, benefits or NHS entitlements?
I'm not against existing local councils being given more powers in areas such as planning, transport or housing but I'm sceptical about the benefits that an additional layer of government bureaucracy would bring. If you start playing around with regional taxes and benefits then the result could be chaos.
I entirely agree with you.
It already makes sense in Scotland where most of these areas are separate from the UK.
I'm not against existing local councils being given more powers in areas such as planning, transport or housing but I'm sceptical about the benefits that an additional layer of government bureaucracy would bring. If you start playing around with regional taxes and benefits then the result could be chaos.[/QUOTE]
Unlikely to lead to chaos. It certainly hasn't so far. Devolution has come to the nations of the UK but there is also a case for devolution regionally as well within England and Scotland for that matter.
Well, the NHS is Scotland is entirely independent but income tax, VAT, pensions and benefits are all UK-wide.
If these could be varied on a regional basis then you may find richer areas, such as the SE of England, being able to lower taxes. That would attract even more workers and businesses from the poorer North where they would be left with having to raises taxes to pay for higher social costs.
They are UK wide for now but that is about to change. The poorer areas in the North however could use the powers of devolution to strengthen their own economies and attract work away from the South East which currently has a strangle hold.
I don't think it would mean the abolition of Westminster running the UK, if that was your hope!
If people want further devolution then do it at the existing county level not some combination of counties on a map just to make the number of regions fewer.
However I'm far more concerned with getting rid of the devolution of power to the central monolith that is the EU.
No, just the significant weakening of it.
With regional devolution, we can reduce the number of Westminster MPs down to 150 or less.
And sack off the Lords.
It can't happen soon enough.
The regions are already well defined and understood, and have roughly similar populations.
I'm from Cornwall and I don't see how giving the council some more power is going to fix anything. But Cornwall/Devon/Somerset share similar issues and would have more clout to demand attention.
Having said that I prefer to move to a PR voting system.
and for that reason, I'm out.
Preposterously simplistic analysis.
This sort of thing is often cited as a fear surrounding devolution, but the salaries for a few more ministers is utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
What if devolution could enable an area to be even 10% or 20% more productive? Maybe more?
We already pay 600-odd idiots in Wesminster excessive salaries and nobody seems to bat an eye lid. What's a few more to give some deserved localism to voters?
few people outside Scotland cares much what people do in Scotland - its as far away as Stuttgart, on the fringe of the country, and few people venture that far north. Devolution elsewhere is just pointless and comes with a raft of negative consequences. You can't pass through 4 different legal systems, transport policies, tax systems, health and policing priorities , on a simple journey from Essex to Cardiff - or 2 or 3 moving from Newcastle to Blackpool. Tax, economic, health, social, foreign and defence policy can only be made centrally.You can't allow some region to starve the elderly, or lower educational standards, or not build its share of strategic transport routes. .You can't have one region trying to steal jobs from another by offering tax incentives - its a race to the bottom if you start. Nor can you do much locally, when the money to do more is going to have to come from some other region. Thats why the country came together under the saxons - the alternative didn't work.
You also create whats effectvely a set of single party states with built in majorities for one party. Thats hardly democratic and just invites corruption.
Your example also points out the other problem - which is that no region makes any sense. Kent has little in common with Berkshire or Hampshire - the people are different, the history different, the economies are different and the needs differ. The region just substitutes one distant central goverment for another , and the new one is pointless.Its neither democratic, coherent or useful.
The only small state within Southern England should be KENT. Kent was the first part of the UK to be internationally recognised as a Kingdom, it is the seat of power for the Church, it is the main port of entry into the UK and thus should have important things to say about immigration. Kent has a very separate education system to much of the rest of the UK - it is Grammar school based and thus has something that needs to be "protected".
However, generally speaking I'm dead against micro states. I think they really need to be between 8 million and 20 million. Really huge.
The salaries in Westminster are half what they could get in a local council.
Poor salaries = poor quality.
The less tiers of government the better.
The "extra tier" in Scotland has done them no harm.
Me too, and that's what you'd probably get with regional assemblies.