Vocal Voices

fishandart in the Guardian comments section* wrote:If the Tories are really serious about the importance of English votes then regions roughly the size of Scotland must be given comparable powers to Scotland. England can not be governed from Westminster, the differences between the English regions are at least as significant and real as those between England and Scotland. An English Parliament at Westminster would have no credibility or legitimacy outside of the South- East! Regional Assemblies in England with real powers must be the start point for any substantive discussions about Constitutional reform.

I personally wouldn't mind an "English Parliament" to give four Assemblies within the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Wales, and those who still mutter that they don't want to associate with us ), but I suppose the divide between the south east and the rest of England needs to be addressed. So we might be looking at England being governed by a further 4 Regional Assemblies i.e. (a) the Sarf-East (b) Wessex (c) Mercia and (d) The Lands of the Multi-hued Roses (if they can work together ... ). I don't favour anything more micro, i.e. city-states, because we've all seen what a flippin' mess somewhere like Birmingham can get into thanks to the current party political ideologies.

Of course this is only the initial framework of the new building - how we elect representatives within the English Assemblies (including neutralising the above-mentioned ideologies) will be worthy, in due course, of another thread.

Does anyone have any thoughts on any of this?

* http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... f-comments

And I do commend this Guardian leader to you - my thoughts exactly!

Hmmmmm I am so not sure on this issue! I tend to believe we are better sticking together, but then England (indeed the whole UK) is sooooo London (and SE) centric that possibly it might have some virtue

Having lived in the West for a few years now, I honestly believe there is as much, if not more, of an East/West divide than the North/South one we hear so much about. So much of the SW is poverty stricken - it is certainly a pretty place to live, but not generally a wealthy one once you get away from the pockets of wealth in the Cotswolds and along the M4 corridor

Maybe we would be better off as Wessex?

Well, we both have West Country roots, Kaz. And I can also attest there was wealth divide in the area I lived and worked in for 20+ years (Somerset / Dorset / Devon border).

Rural poverty isn't a myth - there needs to be some sort of legislative body which will recognise and champion the plight of the rural poor. A Westminster-based parliament hasn't done so in the past and probably won't do so in future. But a Wessex Regional Assembly would - as long as it has the power and the resources delegated to it to do so.

I'm increasingly thinking that we do need Regional Assemblies. And I'm beginning to play with the idea that half the membership of any Regional Assembly should be made up of folk with no political party affiliations.

Now, how are we going to accomplish this?

Goodness only knows Ossie, but it definitely exists and something really ought to be done

Its all looking rather complicated and rather expensive. Personally I would be satisfied with English-only MPs voting on English-only issues. I've no problem with Westminster remaining at the centre for the whole of England. It's the same in Scotland and Wales surely. Possibly with English-only voting MPs, the electorate will be re-vitalised as we have witnessed in Scotland - the turnout was phenomenal, so who knows, the English electorate could be inspired instead of being disillusioned.

I very, very strongly disagree with the person who wrote the piece quoted by Ossie in his OP.

The last thing England needs is a set of regions all squabbling with each other over who gets the biggest share of the spoils like primary school children: We're more important than you so we should get..... Ah, but without us there would be no...... and on it would go. England needs its own parliament, but one that works for us all: equally. For that reason the one assembly we do have, London, would have to go. It is the most divisive element in English politics.

Any English parliament has to treat us all equally, whatever we do and wherever we are from. Funding for things such as transport, education, welfare etc., should be on a per-capita basis, not per-capita with more for him and less for her, this place or that place. West Yorkshire should get the same as Westminster, Cornwall the same as Chelsea.

Once we have got an England parliament up and running all four parliaments should look at at a UK parliament, and the none of them should conflate the England parliament and the UK parliament . The UK parliament, from where the UK government is drawn, has to be a separate entity from all four other parliaments within the UK.

Aggers wrote:Surely there has to be a central governing body for the whole of the UK?

Yes, absolutely, but it therefore has to be separate from all the assemblies otherwise it belongs to one country, as is the case now, and that is where all the problems are arising from.

Aggers wrote:But if we gave County Councils greater powers surely that would fit the bill,
without all the complications and expense of separate assemblies ?[/b]

But who disburses the funds to the CCs? It cannot be the central government of the UK. It is not English and they are English councils. And not all CCs are equal, so there would be in-fighting.

We need a completely new model, not one cobbled together in a few days in Chequers by the same old faces with the same old ideas.

The last thing England needs is a set of regions all squabbling with each other over who gets the biggest share of the spoils like primary school children:

I think you counter that, Frank, by giving each regional Assembly Devo-max, just as we are giving Scotland. Each authority has its own tax-raising powers and its own ability to budget expenditure as it wants. Purely for example, (I haven't researched the actual figures, it's the basic principle I'm looking at) you could completely scrap national VAT and replace it with a local sales tax set by and within each of the four regional assemblies, at a rate which can vary within a band of say 10%.

Funding for things such as transport, education, welfare etc., should be on a per-capita basis, not per-capita with more for him and less for her, this place or that place. West Yorkshire should get the same as Westminster, Cornwall the same as Chelsea.

Indeed, there is already an eye-watering difference, for example, in the per-capita amount spent on transport in the North of England compared with London, although I suspect the figures are very much being skewed by Crossrail. There is a cogent argument, however, that London needs a Crossrail project, Leeds and Leamington Spa do not.

That said, I agree with you in principle. From the proceeds of taxes raised nationally,why not indeed have a single per-capita sum remitted to each of the four assemblies, based on respective populations, as a bedrock for each assemblies' financial budget. Straight per-capita and not Barnett-skewed; the Sarf-East would still receive more but based on population alone.

Once we have got an England parliament up and running all four parliaments should look at at a UK parliament, and the none of them should conflate the England parliament and the UK parliament . The UK parliament, from where the UK government is drawn, has to be a separate entity from all four other parliaments within the UK.

Yes absolutely, but surely it's not any great step to then have either (a) four English regional assemblies sitting under the English parliament (not conflated with it, as you say), or (b) simply ditch the concept of an English parliament and have my four regional assemblies standing in its place, each ranking equal alongside Wales, NI and Scotland. The latter would be less bureaucratic and I see no real difference between having 4 and 7.

You may argue it diminishes the English identity as such but then perhaps we want to get away from having an "overarching English identity" comprising 60% of the landmass and 85% of the population, or whatever the actual figures are. It might even help draw the UK closer together....

Ossie, on the first point you quote I was talking specifically about English regions, but maybe didn't explaining it well. Never mind.

However, can you see what we are doing here? Within the space of a few hours a few of us have come up with a different set of alternatives from those of the Westminster set. By being outside the bubble we have been able to think out of the box.

This is the process that needs to be gone though by those who will eventually have to put something in place.