By Paul Burgin
[Editor's note: Brian Barder asks me to make it clear that his post to which this refers neither argued for Regional Assemblies, which he in fact opposes; nor, as suggested in a later comment, has he argued against an English Parliament, which he strongly favours in the context of an eventual move to a federation of the four UK nations.]
Recently Brian Barder put forward a compelling argument for Regional Assemblies on LabourList. It was thoughtful, concise, but had one major flaw. Notably that the only referendum that has taken place so far with regards to a Regional Assembly, saw a heavy vote against it by 78%.
There is, however, an argument that support some of the ideas Brian has suggested, and indeed deal with the thorny issue of Regional Assemblies being unpopular with a significant proportion of the electorate and that is to consider the argument for an English Parliament.
An English Parliament would have the powers currently held by the unelected regional assemblies, it would cut significant red tape, it would be cost effective and cheaper to hold a referendum and set up if there was a "Yes" vote. It would also help to encourage a sense of English identity that would not be dependent on one region, such as Essex, Kent, the Cotswold's, Norfolk, or Yorkshire (with due respect to each of those areas).
That is not to say I wholeheartedly agree with such a proposal and I can see some of its drawbacks, not least the question of where this leaves Westminster (and that can't be simply fobbed off with an argument on making the UK like a mini version of Canada, only with four states instead of thirteen provinces), but it is an attractive idea and one which may convince a general public, who don't like waste and red tape, more than the idea of regional assemblies.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
And we are agreed about the need for an English parliament and government as a step on the road to a United Kingdom Federation (I hope!).
Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
Similarly, I see no point in agitating for a separate parliament (and government, presumably) for England in isolation, as some gimlet-eyed English nationalists do: I strongly favour the establishment of a separate parliament and government for England, the only one of the four nations that still has neither, but only in the context of a long-term move from limited devolution to a fully-fledged federal system for the whole UK. Once that's achieved -- and I estimate that it would take a minimum of 20 years to get there -- each nation of the four would of course be free to set up regional assemblies within its own territory if its people so wished. But that could not affect the basic framework of the UK federation itself. Personally I would much prefer to strengthen the role and powers of existing local government bodies, from county councils right down to town, village and parish council levels, including elected mayors at all levels, rather than setting up another intervening layer of regional assemblies. But in a true federation, that would be entirely for each of the four constituent nations to decide for itself.
Brian
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
Partial devolution was Labour's biggest cockup and if the Union is destroyed, it'll be down to the likes of Brown. He has let the nationalist genie out of the bottle and the people of England are sick of seeing poorer, more deserving areas of England and Wales subsidising wealthier Scots' superior health and education services. (BTW thanks for swinging the vote on a tertiary education tax for the English working class whilst simultaneously rejecting it for Scotland)
We urgently need to create a level playing field and the only way to do that is either a) reverse the devolution process to pre-1998 levels, or b) devolve power to the County Councils (or Regional Assemblies) or c) create a Parliament for England that matches the powers held by Hollyrood (not the regional assemblies).
The first is untenable, the second is demonstrably deeply unpopular (see North East referendum), so that leaves us with an English Parliament. No one could argue against the fairness of this proposal and it would be a vote winner. So I'm sure the executive will reject it and we'll all be assigned to political oblivion (AGAIN!).
I am sure contributions generate plenty of answers to 'what would X say' -- but if there was a genuine expectation that authors would respond then I suspect the comments would take an entirely different tone.
I think your aim should be to get to the point where you can demand that authors do at least one cycle of reponses - preferably at least two. If they don't want to play ball then they don't get published.
Brian doesn't explicitly advocate an English Parliament and the picture opposite did give another impression. He also gave forward some arguments against an English Parliament. That said, if I have misread his intention then I apologise
An English Parliament for England, no voting by scottish MPs on English matters? The right thing.
I did notice that when opposition MPs were asking questions, they weren't being drowned out by the Tories. Why is it that Labour MPs always seem to attempt to drown out opposition question nowadays?
Excuse my language, but CRAP. Wishful thinking Jonathan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi7KZueD_wM
Sounds like answers to me...
Waiting lists, Irish terrorism...
It could not be more different to having the unpopular and undemocratic Regional Assemblies which we did not want but which were foisted in us anyway.
It sounds like a supremely beneficial way forward for us all.
Regional assemblies failed for many reasons. Mainly there isn't really a regional identity relating to where the regions are drawn. Some counties (Yorkshire, Cornwall) have stronger identities than others, but these are not and cannot be reflected in such regional assemblies. The boundaries are totally artificial and this is just a repeat of the unpopular changes to the historic counties made in the 1970s.
The final point is the regions as proposed reflect the regionalisation as required by the EU. Many people would prefer to assert a united English identity simply to prevent the advancement of this and see regionalisation as a deliberate weakening of English identity. Many are also suspicious of labour party motives as a strong, united English identity also tends to favour Tory governments.
There are many factors going on here, but regardless of the case people simply don't want regional government. Mind you most people don't seem to want EU government either, but they don't let that minor inconvenience stop them. It's a measure of the mentality of this government that rejection of ELECTED regional assemblies was seen as business as usual for the UNELECTED regional assemblies. From this point of view the proposals from the Tories to scrap these altogether are very welcome.
Regionalisation is pointless, give more power to existing county and borough councils.
Whether or not we have an English Parliament, we should have all the elections on the same day, that way we won't be voting for our local councils and our MEP's on the basis of what we think of the current PM. I suggest that on the day of the Euro elections Parliament should also have a general election and so should the local authorities, with Parliament having the option of having more elections inbetween if it wants, rather than fixed term Parliaments. Unless we have an elected Lords, which I don't agree with, when we could have Commons and councils elected on the Thursday and Lords and MEP's elected on the Sunday following.
The vote against the NE regional assembly had more to do with being against the government than whether it was a good idea.
If we had a english parliment that would mean the death of the union ( in my eyes), What we need is minsters being honest and not blaming anyone else , We need house that is good a holding the goverment to account but whenever i see pmqs gordon doesnt answer any questions , How is that good for goverment ?
ricki