Devolution in the south-west

13»

Comments

  • apaulapaul Posts: 9,846
    Forum Member
    Why is it an escapist idea that the Northern city local governments don't want much deeper funding cuts than in the Tory shires or outside England?
  • angarrackangarrack Posts: 5,493
    Forum Member
    The Turk wrote: »
    It certainly makes sense. Other posters on this thread and others have suggested exactly the same. Just one question. Would those in eastern areas of Somerset prefer to be part of a Bristol city region or do they identify more strongly with their own county Somerset, Devon and Cornwall?

    Don't even ask the question.

    First of all ask them whether they want the Country to be carved up at all.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,547
    Forum Member
    moox wrote: »
    I live in Cornwall and would like to see a regional assembly - fixing Westminster won't work, and the silly notion of an English Assembly will simply mean more overhead and the same issues. It's stupid to have assemblies for a few millon each and then one for 55 million, so the only way to get equality is to have the same system on the same basis.

    Cornwall/Devon/Somerset would probably be a closer fit than including Bristol/Gloucestershire/Dorset though

    Trouble is that the regions need to be of a reasonably large size, otherwise you get an awful lot of them! The three counties you mention only have around 2 mn people between them, whereas the whole of the South West has around 5 mn.

    (I know N. Ireland has less than 2 mn people, but that is a special case as it can't really be joined up with anywhere on the mainland.)
  • The TurkThe Turk Posts: 5,148
    Forum Member
    2. The next worst option, favoured by Labour (who can f_-_ off!), is a huge South West mega-region ruled from one point such as Plymouth or Bristol. We already tried that expensive quango rubbish and it didn't do all that much good because the unit of administration is still too large to effectively understand issues at a local level and deliver appropriate solutions.
    I agree with this also. I prefer devolution to each county and city or to a smaller group of counties compared to the size of regions England is officially split into.
    3. The best option would be the city regions options, as proposed by Lord Heseltine and others, with local council cooperating with their immediate neighbours to deliver economic development and the delivery of services. Such areas might include, for example, the West of England comprising Bristol, North Somerset, Bath & North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire and the Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall area.
    City regions are a good idea but are the areas you mention under one city region or would they be under different city regions? Also, I'm still not clear whether all rural areas would be part of a city region.
    I'd like to see departmental funds and tax receipts given to these smaller devolved regions to spend as they see fit. For example, I'd like to see Department of Transport funds allocated to these smaller regions so that they could decide what the improvement and repair policies were for the local road network, that kind of thing.
    Agreed. That's one aspect of government I'd like to see devolved down to a more local level.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,547
    Forum Member
    The Turk wrote: »
    I agree with this also. I prefer devolution to each county and city or to a smaller group of counties compared to the size of regions England is officially split into.
    Though you couldn't realistically give each county or city the same powers as Scotland. So it wouldn't be an equal form of devolution.
  • The TurkThe Turk Posts: 5,148
    Forum Member
    Old Man 43 wrote: »
    On top of that the larger metropolitan areas will have more power and there relationship to the larger region will be along similar lines New York City's relationship to New York State.
    How does it work? How do big cities of the US like New York get more power than smaller cities, towns and rural areas while still remaining within a wider state? Why not just allow them to be separate city states?
  • The TurkThe Turk Posts: 5,148
    Forum Member
    its a silly idea - as shown by the first simmerings from the larger councils .You have to ask the basic questions whats it for. And who will pay .

    People are fed up and want more. That translates as they want more money . So northern councils are united in not wanting austerity measures. However, the economic consequence of spending more is economic crash and no money for anyone .The real world tends to intervene.

    Poor regions obviously will want more money from rich regions. Rich regions will want to send less of their money to poor regions.socialists will spend more, usually unwisely. Rich areas woill refuse to support what theys ee as socialist waste. It will just make some of the country want more independence - whichever region wins those battles. .

    its a nonsense if taxing powers are devolved. Councils that spend too much will have to be propped up by someone else - if their policies produce unemployment, inflation, or unemployment. . Raising local taxes will just exacerbate the problems in deprived regions. You can't tax yourself to prosperity - you just lose anyone you tax too heavily to somewhere else. London won't be allowed to reduce its taxes, and no one is going to volunteer to pay more for some other region. The worse some regions perform, the more other region's taxes will have to be used to prop them up. Poor regions can't reduce their taxes to produce more growth either - as they have more demands on the money. Richer regions can't lower their taxes without making poorer ones even less competitive. Its a recipe for begger my neighbour policies , and/or irresponsible spending and inter-regional strife.
    Just one question. Why have other federal countries like the US, Australia and Germany not experienced the disasters you predict for England following the same model?
  • The TurkThe Turk Posts: 5,148
    Forum Member
    angarrack wrote: »
    Don't even ask the question.

    First of all ask them whether they want the Country to be carved up at all.
    I agree we should be consulted first. So I'd be in favour of every region being given a referendum on regional assemblies but the politicians will have to offer a lot more devolved powers than Labour offered the north-east of England over a decade ago and do a far better job of promoting the benefits of devolution to ensure most people vote in favour of a regional assembly this time.
  • Old Man 43Old Man 43 Posts: 6,214
    Forum Member
    The Turk wrote: »
    How does it work? How do big cities of the US like New York get more power than smaller cities, towns and rural areas while still remaining within a wider state? Why not just allow them to be separate city states?

    Separation of powers. It is something that Americans are very keen on.

    Basically the individual states have there own constitution and in that constitution the separation of powers that encourages local government area's to make their own laws and run their own affairs.

    As long as those laws do not break the state constitution or the US federal constitution then there is no problem.

    Not all cities in the USA have the same setup that NYC has. This is because their state constitutions are all different
  • The TurkThe Turk Posts: 5,148
    Forum Member
    jjwales wrote: »
    Trouble is that the regions need to be of a reasonably large size, otherwise you get an awful lot of them! The three counties you mention only have around 2 mn people between them, whereas the whole of the South West has around 5 mn.

    (I know N. Ireland has less than 2 mn people, but that is a special case as it can't really be joined up with anywhere on the mainland.)
    People keep saying government regions need to be big to work but is that really the case? Why couldn't smaller government regions like each individual county not be viable as well? The point about devolving power to the regions is to bring decision making closer to where you live so devolving power to the counties would guarantee your devolved government sits in a parliament/assembly not too far from where you live.
  • The TurkThe Turk Posts: 5,148
    Forum Member
    Old Man 43 wrote: »
    Separation of powers. It is something that Americans are very keen on.

    Basically the individual states have there own constitution and in that constitution the separation of powers that encourages local government area's to make their own laws and run their own affairs.

    As long as those laws do not break the state constitution or the US federal constitution then there is no problem.

    Not all cities in the USA have the same setup that NYC has. This is because their state constitutions are all different
    Thanks for the reply. The USA seems to have a good system of local government from your description. So you're saying England's regions should have a similar relationship to the big cities within their regions?
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,547
    Forum Member
    The Turk wrote: »
    People keep saying government regions need to be big to work but is that really the case? Why couldn't smaller government regions like each individual county not be viable as well? The point about devolving power to the regions is to bring decision making closer to where you live so devolving power to the counties would guarantee your devolved government sits in a parliament/assembly not too far from where you live.

    Decisions should be made as locally as possible, but would it be realistic to give a small county like Somerset the same powers as Scotland or Wales?
  • The TurkThe Turk Posts: 5,148
    Forum Member
    jjwales wrote: »
    Decisions should be made as locally as possible, but would it be realistic to give a small county like Somerset the same powers as Scotland or Wales?
    Who knows? Maybe size is irrelevant both in terms of area and population. Maybe you're right though. The question is what would be the actual drawbacks to devolving power to each county and city as opposed to a big region. Would it be unworkable due to the size of area or population they govern over being too small?
    jjwales wrote: »
    Trouble is that the regions need to be of a reasonably large size, otherwise you get an awful lot of them!
    Or is the problem as you allude to here that smaller regions means more regions thus possibly more expensive to implement?
    jjwales wrote: »
    Though you couldn't realistically give each county or city the same powers as Scotland. So it wouldn't be an equal form of devolution.
    You're probably right but it might be a price worth paying as long as the devolution we do get is still substantial.
    Perhaps the best solution is a mix of pan regional and more local devolution like in the US as Old Man 43 suggested. I'd be happy with that.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    angarrack wrote: »
    Don't even ask the question.

    First of all ask them whether they want the Country to be carved up at all.

    It's a loaded question, put in those terms. The country is already "carved up" - we have counties, districts, parishes, metropolitan boroughs. We don't get Westminster to do absolutely everything (though over time until relatively recently there has been a general trend towards centralisation away from local government). What's at stake here is not "carving up the country" any more than it already is so much as determining where competences ought to lie and to what extent the current municipal boundaries are suitable. The country isn't a monolithic political entity, and it's a lie to pretend that it is and that these proposals thereby represent some sort of radical change. They aren't.
  • angarrackangarrack Posts: 5,493
    Forum Member
    mithy73 wrote: »
    It's a loaded question, put in those terms. The country is already "carved up" - we have counties, districts, parishes, metropolitan boroughs. We don't get Westminster to do absolutely everything (though over time until relatively recently there has been a general trend towards centralisation away from local government). What's at stake here is not "carving up the country" any more than it already is so much as determining where competences ought to lie and to what extent the current municipal boundaries are suitable. The country isn't a monolithic political entity, and it's a lie to pretend that it is and that these proposals thereby represent some sort of radical change. They aren't.

    "Carved up" as in carved up into Regions.

    I was suggesting that the public should be asked whether this is what they want. Any proposals should be properly defined and explained. If it entails a radical change in the way we are governed then the public should be consulted.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    angarrack wrote: »
    "Carved up" as in carved up into Regions.

    "Carved up" is a loaded term. It implies a kind of dissolution. Which is disingenuous to say the least, since England doesn't exist as an administrative entity. It has no institutions, no legislature, no executive, there exist no legal means by which an English demos can make decisions solely for England. You cannot "carve up" something that isn't even there.
    I was suggesting that the public should be asked whether this is what they want. Any proposals should be properly defined and explained.

    Oh yes, the favourite battle-cry of the die-hard reactionary whenever anyone proposes anything you don't like. "The public must be asked!" No-one was ever asked about establishing - or abolishing - Avon or Humberside. No-one was asked about abolishing the GLC, nor about the slow, inexorable centralisation of power away from English local authorities and into the hands of Whitehall. Parliament just got on and did it. That's what it's for; that is what we elect MPs to do. But the reactionary, when someone dares suggest that perhaps it's time that Whitehall gave that power back, declares: "we must have local referendums on it!" Why? Where was the authority to take that power away in the first place, that it needs the roadblock and expense of a plebiscite to reverse it?
    If it entails a radical change in the way we are governed then the public should be consulted.

    Repetition does not enhance an argument. Giving power back from Westminster to municipal authorities is hardly a "radical change in the way we are governed" - even if it involves the creation of administrative bodies that span 'regions' (however defined). It strikes me that you object more to any administrative entity that is a 'region' in principle more than anything else.
  • angarrackangarrack Posts: 5,493
    Forum Member
    mithy73 wrote: »
    "Carved up" is a loaded term. It implies a kind of dissolution. Which is disingenuous to say the least, since England doesn't exist as an administrative entity. It has no institutions, no legislature, no executive, there exist no legal means by which an English demos can make decisions solely for England. You cannot "carve up" something that isn't even there.



    Oh yes, the favourite battle-cry of the die-hard reactionary whenever anyone proposes anything you don't like. "The public must be asked!" No-one was ever asked about establishing - or abolishing - Avon or Humberside. No-one was asked about abolishing the GLC, nor about the slow, inexorable centralisation of power away from English local authorities and into the hands of Whitehall. Parliament just got on and did it. That's what it's for; that is what we elect MPs to do. But the reactionary, when someone dares suggest that perhaps it's time that Whitehall gave that power back, declares: "we must have local referendums on it!" Why? Where was the authority to take that power away in the first place, that it needs the roadblock and expense of a plebiscite to reverse it?



    Repetition does not enhance an argument. Giving power back from Westminster to municipal authorities is hardly a "radical change in the way we are governed" - even if it involves the creation of administrative bodies that span 'regions' (however defined). It strikes me that you object more to any administrative entity that is a 'region' in principle more than anything else.


    You've not heard of the Regional Assemblies Act then? Nor the referendum which took place in the North East where the voters rejected the idea of a Regional Assembly by 500,000 votes?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    angarrack wrote: »
    You've not heard of the Regional Assemblies Act then? Nor the referendum which took place in the North East where the voters rejected the idea of a Regional Assembly by 500,000 votes?

    Why do reactionaries always reply in non sequiturs when they can't make a coherent logical argument? The current proposals have nothing to do with the North East so-called devolution proposal (which was nothing of the sort, but rather more centralisation from local authorities poorly disguised as devolution).

    If you can't respond to the actual points made, then stop wasting my time.
  • angarrackangarrack Posts: 5,493
    Forum Member
    mithy73 wrote: »
    Why do reactionaries always reply in non sequiturs when they can't make a coherent logical argument? The current proposals have nothing to do with the North East so-called devolution proposal (which was nothing of the sort, but rather more centralisation from local authorities poorly disguised as devolution).

    If you can't respond to the actual points made, then stop wasting my time.

    The question posed on English Devolution by the OP was basically one between an English Parliament or Regional Assemblies.

    I have said that when the proposals have been properly defined the public should be consulted by referendum.

    You say that such questions should not be put to the public by referendum because there is no need. Yet there has already been an attempt to establish a Regional Assembly (which would have been a forerunner of others) and that was decided by referendum. In other words there is a precedent for what I suggested.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    angarrack wrote: »
    The question posed on English Devolution by the OP was basically one between an English Parliament or Regional Assemblies.

    I have said that when the proposals have been properly defined the public should be consulted by referendum.

    You say that such questions should not be put to the public by referendum because there is no need. Yet there has already been an attempt to establish a Regional Assembly (which would have been a forerunner of others) and that was decided by referendum. In other words there is a precedent for what I suggested.

    That's not a logical reason to do it again. One swallow does not a summer make.
  • angarrackangarrack Posts: 5,493
    Forum Member
    mithy73 wrote: »
    That's not a logical reason to do it again. One swallow does not a summer make.

    A very poor response given all your previous bombast.
Sign In or Register to comment.