You are here: Home » Comment »

Devolution Max For the North?

July 27, 2012 9:40 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

The population of England and Wales has increased by 3.7 million since 2002 which represents a huge logistical challenge not just in terms of planning local services but also in terms of addressing the widening democratic deficit in England which host the lions share of the increase. We ought to forget talk of an English parliament, which reinforces our worst top down instincts and look again at devolution for England’s regions.

The overwhelming vote for additional powers to be given to the Welsh Assembly last year, the prospect of an independent Scotland and the substantial devolved powers afforded to London underscore the continued isolation of the regions.

The coalitions localism agenda is feeble and almost entirely dependent on mayors and police commissioners which are unable to set the pace and tone of socioeconomic development. Meanwhile our Celtic neighbours forge ahead with progressive policies in education, social care and transport.

The northern regions of England are experiencing higher levels of unemployment particularly amongst 16-24 year-olds, falling property values in stark contrast to the south and a disproportionate number of folding businesses. The fall out from the coalitions economic policies provides fertile ground for the center-left to recapture its reforming instinct after dashed hopes over House of Lords reform and the Alternative vote.

The coalition’s cuts agenda gives us an opportunity to use the increasing North/South divide to radically change the political landscape in the UK by making the case for a Northern Assembly which could be the laboratory for wider democratic renewal and a means to reconnect with voters. The scale of the challenge is underscored by IPPR-North’s publication Richer Yet Poorer: Economic inequality and polarisation in the North of England.

Few of the challenges faced by the north can be tackled by tinkering no matter how well intentioned by Westminster politicians or Whitehall mandarins. A Northern Assembly could play a significant role in redressing those inequalities and play a part in reinvigorating the northern economy, which has never fully recovered from the 18 year pummelling dealt out by the Thatcher and Major administrations.

England remains one of the few countries in Europe without regional government and we’re poorer for it. Rebalancing our economy away from financial services necessitates a robust development plan for our old industrial heartlands which would be enhanced by a regional focus where politicians were not only accountable locally but fixed to a metric which exclusively served the interests of the community that elected them.

We ought to be forging those closer ties and the sounds coming from Ed Miliband are promising:

“…We should get on with devolving power away from Westminster to English local authorities and the people, without the need for mayoral referendums or such-like”.

We needn’t wait for a Labour government to get the ball rolling on this issue. Abolishing the former indirectly elected regional assemblies and withdrawing funding from Regional development agencies has stalled progress but if local authorities take the new leaders boards seriously a lot of the ground work for closer integration in the future can be done now.

Related posts:

  1. North-South Divide Widens – is it time for a North of England Assembly?
  2. The North is suffering – how do we release the potential of the Northern economy?
  3. Why stop at devolution?
  4. Causes to fight for: devolution
  5. The Tories and the North
  • JC

    Why this talk about the North as if it is somewhere special? The problem is London and the surrounding areas. Why not devolve them and then address the problems of the rest of the country? Is it because all the tax money’s there too?

    • Leeden

      We do have our own setup with the London assembly here

    • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robert Scott

      JC I really think it is special it needs a regeneration development plan and i think a regional assembly would be an excellent way to secure that. The reason I singled out the North is because of the levels of economic and social decline there which is outlined really well in the IPPR piece. I think Labour is best placed to develop that plan and I think we’d easily win  control of regional assemblies in the North. We could then use those achievements to demonstrate to the rest of England what the Labour party can deliver in the same way that we can point to the Welsh assembly  though admittedly we’re on a different metric to them in terms of political positioning.

  • Redshift

    Devolving power to the north is a long time coming. The present set up is economically and organisationally nonsensical, and therefore ends up being politically and socially totally unfair. 

    The north needs to set some of its own priorities and there needs to be devolution to do that. 

    • treborc

      Devolution of course has to have powers, to day we in Wales are told the rent cap will go ahead and we have no choice, benefits and welfare and of course Tax, and borrowing are all out side of the Welsh assemblies power, so you have to really ask why are we wasting £144 million a year on the assembly.

      • Redshift

        There are lots of things that the Welsh have got out of differing from the Westminster line though. We want that in the North too!

  • http://www.hannahmitchell.org.uk/ Paul

    A strong voice for the North is long overdue! The Hannah Mitchell Foundation was formed earlier this year to develop an informed debate on regional government for the North as a whole. We’re hoping to learn from the experience elsewhere in the UK and across Europe.  We’ve got to move on from the failed referendum of 2004 – the world has changed since then.

  • http://toque.co.uk/ Toque

    ”
    We ought to forget talk of an English parliament, which reinforces our worst top down instincts and look again at devolution for England’s regions.”

    Why not ask the people of England what they want?  It may be that they want an English parliament and greater local devolution.

    The worst top-down instincts are displayed by politicians, wonks and think-tankers continually thinking that they know what’s best for England and imposing top-down solutions (whether its city mayors, regional assemblies or a northern parliament).  Let’s have a constitutional convention with all options on the table and decide how best to govern England.  Don’t write off one option that has a measure of popular support to look again at another option that has already failed at the ballot box. 

    • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robbie Scott

      I’m really going to feed into your narrative by saying this but I don’t think the public always know what’s good for them (there i said it). Regional devolution isn’t just about representation we have that already. One of the strengths is the strategic nature of the decisions and initiatives they can develop and tailor for the regions of England.

       I  think we’d struggle in a time of recession to make the case for a new English parliament with hundreds  of new politicians which would essentially mirror the existing voting patterns. That said I really like the idea of an English Parliament but that would essentially lead to full blown federalism and I’m not sure we’re ready for that yet. Maybe we should have that debate. From a local perspective what would be the point of a English Parliament when it was controlled by Labour or the Conservatives for the other half of England? I don’t think we should give any one party that much influence. The regional route would allow for exciting policy options and trials  of new ideas across the UK.  

      What’s wrong with setting out a vision putting it in a manifesto and then having people vote on it ? I don’t think we want to get into a situation where we outsource policy to referendums.

      • http://toque.co.uk/ Toque

        Democracy works within defined boundaries, and whilst the public may not know what’s good for them in regards to some of the finer points (though it’s debatable that politicians know any better), I think the public can be relied upon to set the boundaries – to say whether they want to govern themselves as Scots, or Brits, or EU citizens; or whether they want devolution from state to county councils, city regions, regions or the nation.

        I’m presuming that you wouldn’t scrap the Scottish Parliament in favour of devolution to East Scotland, West Scotland and the Highlands and Islands simply because the Scots don’t know what’s good for them.  Maybe you would.  Maybe you have that sort of imperialist mindset.  Be warned though, history is littered with examples of peoples who either don’t like being lumped together or divided.  Look across the Irish Sea.

        Best for politicians to let the people decide on boundaries and work on how best to make democracy work within those boundaries.  I’m not opposed to regionalism.  If it was up to me the Lords would be scrapped and replaced with a federal chamber elected on a territorial basis that allowed for regional grand committees, with the Commons becoming an English parliament.  

      • Independent England

         hundreds  of new politicians which would essentially mirror the existing voting patterns.

        You mean in the way that the Scottish elections mirror Westminster voting patterns do you?

        • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robbie Scott

          Yes … In Scotland they have the SNP which is a national force. People in Scotland vote SNP for two reasons 1) they are indistinguishable to Labour in terms of policy and spending 2) Independence. There are virtually no ideological differences between the SNP and New Labour. In Wales the Welsh devolved vote (on PR) produces virtually the same result as the General. 

          An English parliament under PR would mirror a westminster elections and it wouldn’t be clear what the UK government would actually be doing.  In European elections we cut the UK up into regions. If we had an English parliament what would the constituencies be?  They needn’t be different to the ones we have for Westmister, so what would the point be exactly ? 

          Who would they be speaking for and how could you have two representatives with two different mandates speaking for the same group of people? Nobody seems to want to respond to this but the whole point of a devolved parliament is to provide a good local voice and accountability  how do you ensure that when a English parliament would represent 52 million people?  Scotland represents  5 and Wales 2 both less than Londons 7 … 

          • Independent England

             I repeat what I’ve said elsewhere:

            At the last general election the Tories got 39.6% of the English vote, Labour 28.1% and the Lib Dems 24.2%.
            An
            English Parliament elected by PR would do a far better job of 
            representing the will of the English people than the currrent
            Westminster shambles!

            Proponents of regional government conveniently take Scotland and Wales as the ideal size for devolved government, but who is to say that is correct?
            Why not split Scotland into two and make all UK regions the same size as Wales?

          • Andrew Cooper

            An English Parliament wouldnt have Scottish or Welsh MPs voting on English only policies.

            As for England representation in the EU that would be for the English parliament representing the English people to decide.
            Not for the British Parliament representing the British people to decide for England.

          • Andrew Cooper

            Nobody seems to want to respond to this but the whole point of a devolved parliament is to provide a good local voice and accountability how do you ensure that when a English parliament would represent 52 million people? Scotland represents 5 and Wales 2 both less than Londons 7 …

            Westminster has represented the whole of the UK fairly successfully for 300 years, devolution occured, supposedly, because the Scottish and Welsh felt that England being the largest part had too much say in Westminster.
            So an English Parliament representing the English people would answer to the English people, they would govern England for the English.
            And thats what scares you Unionists.

            An England governed for the people of England.

          • new puritan

            Devolution occurred because Scottish and Welsh voters were thoroughly pissed off about being consistently shafted by Westminster governments – and if things carry on as they are currently there’s a chance northern voters will do likewise.

            Take a look at the economic inequalities between the English regions if you want to see how ‘successful’ Westminster has been when it comes to acting in the interests of the north. The fact that nationalists consistently choose to ignore or play down the widening regional disparities between the south-east and everyone else suggests to me that deep down they know an English parliament would do little to redress that balance.

          • Independent England

             English nationalists don’t object to regional power in England. What they do object to is devolution from the UK level straight to English regions, bypassing the English level and ignoring England as a seperate nation. An English Parliament elected by PR wouldn’t be dominated by the SE of England. There would however be a focusing on what is important to England and the English regions, counties or whatever way power was devolved without the UK dimension..

      • AndrewcCooper

        Hundreds of new politicians! but Labour think it OK to have hundreds of new politicians in the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly.  Why do Labour feel the need to treat England less then they treat the Scots and Welsh?

    • http://www.barder.com/ephems/ Brian Barder

       Spot on, Toque.  It’s not either-or, an English parliament +or+ devolution within England.  Only an English parliament (and English government, remember) will have the legitimacy to design radical regional and city devolution for England and submit it to the English people for approval.  But the English parliament — completing the devolution project and making the UK a federation — has to come first, and it will take years to get it.  And England must remain the analogue of Scotland, Wales and N Ireland for UK federal purposes, not an arbitrary bundle of English regions, which would kill the federal project stone dead.

  • Chilbaldi

    Yes, yes, yes.

    I have long advocated further devolution. We need strong local government with assertive local champions. Make it happen please.

  • http://twitter.com/JeevanJones Jeevan Jones

     > the continued isolation of the regions.

    Please don’t patronise the 90% of us who don’t live in the Greater London area. We’re not “the regions”; we’re the United Kingdom.

    Also, Labour should put forward a far-reaching policy of devolution, for not only the north (though maybe it could be split into northwest and northeast for practical reasons), but also the West Midlands, the east Midlands, the southwest and the southeast as well. Failure to bring about full devolution simply recreates the problems that have plagued England since powers were only devolved in Wales, Scotland, London and Northern Ireland.

    Let’s not be half-arsed about it – if Labour is to complete the process of devolution, let’s do it properly.

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    Would this not end up making the north poorer?  At the moment as I understand it, there is a relative net transfer of government money from the south generally to the north generally.  If “Devo Max” is put into place, that would presumably stop and if the northern authorities want to have an equivalent level of income, they would have to raise it from northern taxpayers and businesses.

    The alternative – Devo Max but continuing the net transfer of Government money to the north which is raised from the south would be extremely unpopular in the south, so I don’t see it being put into place by the tories, and if Labour did this after 2015 it would probably be seen as bribing the core vote.

    • Robert Harrison

      Of course the idea of regionalism in England is aimed at bribing Labour’s voters in the north and midlands of England.  All parties are selfish and cynical, but Labour are easily the worst.  

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        It does not appear that anyone wishes to address the topic of what it may actually cost, either nationally, to the region, or to those who would be asked to pay for it.  What is certain is that regional government would cost in excess of the current financial costs of government.

        That of course is only the start: any level of government loves spending money – it gives them a reason to exist, and none are more pre-disposed to spending the public’s money than Labour governments. You can hardly imagine a Labour manifesto for some Northern Assembly making a promise to spend less on the North than is currently spent. Very few politicians actually care from where the money actually comes from, or if it is affordable or sustainable in either the short or long term. The answer of course is that it is not, and we are all discovering that now.

        According to the House of Commons library, public expenditure per head of population in 2010/11 in the north east was £9501, compared with £7529 in the south east, against a UK average of £8884.  Would northerners like to pay the difference in increased taxes to maintain equal levels?  (To be fair, London receives the highest amount per capita, which is equally unbalanced).

        Nor has anyone tried to enumerate the benefits, which appear to me (if they exist at all) to be entirely dubious.

        • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robbie Scott

          Why would it ?  Abolish councils or amalgamate them. Reduce the UK civil service and westminster accordingly. It also depends on what you devolve I’m not suggesting that we fast track regions to where Wales and Scotland are now it would be a gradual process. 

          Give them the power to set  additional local taxes, let them keep their business rates why does westminster pocket the money?  Explore a land value tax or a local income tax there are many things you could do to make it financially viable.  Allow the regional assembly to set a local national wage set it low attract business and use the state to match fund it up to a decent standard. What you call spend other people  might call investment. 

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            So, in favour of establishing some regional democracy, you propose abolishing local democracy?  This seems to be wilfully making one point while ignoring logic.

            The majority of your second paragraph appears to advocate setting additional local taxes (in comparison with how we currently are). Does that not sound to you as though it is an additional burden on those living in the area?

            I am afraid that you have not addressed the point at all that what you propose would inevitably cost northerners more than the current arrangement.  Would you prefer for northerners to have their own regional assembly and to pay perhaps £1000-£2000 more per head in taxes for the equivalent level of provision (that may be £4000-8000 per nuclear family – money paid after the deduction after income taxes, as is proven by Council Tax being paid from net, not gross income).  Good luck with that.

            All it takes is some simple mathematics to work this out.  As your article contained no such evidence of such thinking, did you decide to deliberately edit out these calculations in favour of the blinkered and breathless regional perspective, or did you like most politically engaged people not let these little expensive realities cross your mind?  Or, in the lexicon of the left, will someone else pay for it all, and you don’t care?

          • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robbie Scott

            Regional democracy is a good byproduct but it isn’t the main objective of regionalism at least not for me anyway. I’m not trying to create a northern personality in the way many people who advocated devolution for Scotland and Wales wanted to create separate national/ethnic identities in they UK. I wanted to stress and the IPPR report does stress the severe challenges facing the north as a region. The current council model does not allow any of these communities to either respond to those challenges anticipate new ones or even compete with other parts of the UK. Regional devolution would allow that in my opinion. 
            Local government is as good as what it can deliver. Furthermore the representative function of a councilors and policy delivery running the council etc are two different functions. People elect councilors to represent them they do not elect them to disappear off and run a council service so I don’t agree that there is a reduction in democracy because you amalgamate council services and move them up to a strategic level where you can have a wider impact.
            “Does that not sound to you as though it is an additional burden on those living in the area”.
             
            Well it depends who is paying the tax doesn’t it. The East end of London thanks to the London Assembly and the Olympics proves what regeneration can do. If you consistently push regeneration projects you attract business stem the brain drain of northern graduates to the south and grow the northern middle class who can grow the economy . It’s not an additional burden because they are ‘new’ people. Unlike Scotland, Wales and London the North, which is a far bigger population is unable to push for those projects in a coherent way because there is no strategic, voice speaking for them.
             
            I doubt you’re a fan of Ken Livingston but he was integral to the London Crossrail project, which will have a huge impact on London’s ability to attract business which I think underscores the strengths of having a regional personality. It needn’t be an additional burden because at the moment that middle class in the North is relatively small compared to the southeast so if you grow it you can taper taxes accordingly. Furthermore I don’t think a majority of northerners would object to higher levels of taxation in return for improved social services. But that’s up to them isn’t it if they don’t want higher taxes vote for a low tax political party for your regional assembly.
             
            The reason I didn’t use numbers is because this is a hypothetical discussion I did provide you with a link to the IPPRs report about the state of the North, which points out the severity of economic decline etc. When you say I’ll clobber Northerners with an additional £4000 in taxes you gloss over the fact that a huge number of them are in receipt of various state benefits many of them local ones like housing benefit so there is a large scope to moderate future tax increases as you get more people into work and less drawing on those assistance programs. Allowing them to keep business rates wouldn’t hit anybody and would provide a large income stream.
             
            You’re essentially accusing me of being a tax and spend socialist right? Who will pay for it all? The UK government. To what extent does the southern economy benefit from the northern brain drain? We’re all English I don’t have any problem with transferring wealth to other poorer regions. What would be wrong of giving a northern assembly a block grant it of what they need and let them get on with spending it how they think is most appropriate? Presumably you object to subsiding the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly?

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            I’m very glad that you (as an article author) do come back to converse with us – so many do not, so I give you great credit for that.

            There may be some language getting in the way, and some misunderstanding.  I am without shame in favour of a single United Kingdom, so do not like the current level of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – but of course I live in none of those countries so do not have a vote there, and rightly so.  That is very democratic.  I do wonder what the result would be of a vote as to whether the English wished to “keep” the Scots, or to send them off to the outer fringe to live as they wish in independence, while not having to send tax money north of the border, or to suffer incompetents like Gordon Brown.  But that is a different discussion.  So while in favour of national government, I can also understand that my local district council is best placed to decide on our rubbish collection, whether to resurface the road or to put up streetlights.  As I live in East Anglia, I don’t particularly trust some group in Norwich or Chelmsford to make those decisions for my Cambridgeshire village.

            But the fact remains that devolved powers to regions inexorably cost more – this evidence is very plain in any democratic country, and by simple mathematics and human nature, is proven by logic and history.

            So what would happen if the north got Devo Max, as you advocate?  Well, at least £800 per head per year would no longer go to the north from the UK average (see my figures above).  Unless the new northern regional assembly was cost free and regional politicians paid themselves nothing and claimed no expenses, there would be those additional costs for the north to bear and to share among northern citizens.  So the new northern assembly needs to make some choices – raise local taxes to make up the cost difference, or deliver fewer services?  

            Then there are other factors.  Which international investors will put money into the north?  Some will, certainly, and having lived in Darlington for a while I see that there are great possibilities in the north.  But on average, fewer would, and they would demand greater rates of return, because most of the profit being made by business is made in the south.  So bond rates for the northern economy would be higher.  Mortgage interest rates would be higher, savings interest rates lower.  Life gets more expensive for northerners even before the assembly decides whether to go for  increased local taxation.

            And then there is the sort of senseless argument made by the people who declare “we northerners don’t like being dominated by the tory south” (even if history reveals it’s actually a 50:50 split since 1945).  What they want by supporting northern regionalism is pretty much full time Labour administration, which is fine but Labour administrations rather like spending lots of money, all of which has to be raised, and if York or Lancaster or wherever the new assembly is located asks London for more money, they will be told impolitely to go and whistle – raise it yourselves!  And it will be expensive money, because let us face it, investors want reasonably quick returns.  And that will make companies decide to open new facilities in the south, because freed of the tax premium businesses in the south pay to support northern businesses, that’s where the money is being made.  

            And of the people?  Anyone with any sense of ambition and career will be on the M1 driving southwards.  And what will be left in the north?

            Now, I appreciate that for the purpose of argument, I make a stark case – there will of course be success stories in the north, but you should consider that on the grounds of probability my thesis follows the logic.  This is why I believe your argument is fundamentally flawed – it is the south that in this current set of decades is keeping the north afloat through a national transfer of wealth from south to north.  It was not always like that (the industrial revolution, etc), and probably will not always be like that in the future. But right now, and for at least 20 years to come it is the case.  This is why anyone sensible in Victoria Street would immediately clamp down on your idea – it would kill the Labour Party as a national force stone dead.  

            After all, what is the sense in electing a northern regional assembly solidly Labour, all having a nice party about not being under the diktat of London and no tories in sight, if 3 years later all of the brains and the talent has gone south, living standards are down and declining further, you are paying 3% more for your mortgage or business loan than a rival company in Sussex only because you are in Preston, and your personal taxes are £5000 a head a year more than your cousin in Kent, for worse services?

          • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robbie Scott

             

            I understand where you’re coming from now. As
            far as devolution is concerned I think the genie is out of the bottle we are
            where we are. I take your point on getting rid of the Scots if asked I think
            England would vote to kick them out too but it’s out of jealousy. We want the
            sorts of benefits they’re getting but we’re not organised in a way where we can
            lobby for them or even create the opportunity to earn the capital to pay for
            programs ourselves. 

             

            I understand what you mean about your local
            district council being best placed to organise rubbish collection. Local
            politicians could have almost the same input as they do now the difference
            would be that a regional assembly could negotiate a far better cost effective
            contract for rubbish collection or road repairs for example. You could ensure
            that some loony left tendency didn’t embark on un-coasted commitments by a)
            having PR to ensure better political balance and b) having voting thresholds of
            say 1/3 of those voting which is what they do in many other countries.

             

            If you think that’s small beans then perhaps an
            assembly would concern itself with for example environmental policy, which
            doesn’t respect constituency boundaries or promoting tourism, more broader
            issues like transport housing etc. Many people are languishing on waiting lists
            of 10s of thousands with no real prospect of getting anything imagine an
            integrated housing policy across a region, it would give people far more choice
            and provision and allow them to move closer to work.  The government has a on your bike mentality
            but many people can’t move to work because of housing and expensive transport
            costs that’s not going to change under the current model.  I really do think regions would benefit from
            that sort of strategic voice.  Leave the
            dry logistical stuff to a local council but the strategic decision-making
            really ought to have a regional focus.

             

            “But the fact remains that devolved powers to
            regions inexorably cost more – this evidence is very plain in any democratic
            country, and by simple mathematics and human nature, is proven by logic and
            history”.

             

            That doesn’t have to be the case. Devolved assemblies don’t have
            to have legislative powers the French ones don’t they essentially get a block
            grant to spend on fixed areas like housing health, transport. Once it’s
            finished that’s it. One issue with the Welsh and Scottish bodies is they can
            create legislation so they get bigger and want to do more which necessitates
            more money, which they don’t generate. The London assembly model rather than
            the Scottish and Welsh one would satisfy your concerns.

             

            “So what would happen if the north got Devo Max, as you
            advocate?  Well, at least £800 per head per year would no longer go to the
            north from the UK average (see my figures above).  Unless the new northern
            regional assembly was cost free and regional politicians paid themselves
            nothing and claimed no expenses, there would be those additional costs for the
            north to bear and to share among northern citizens. So the new northern
            assembly needs to make some choices – raise local taxes to make up the cost
            difference, or deliver fewer services”?

            I’d really like to iron out the numbers
            issue I’m not entirely sure what you’re numbers are based on. I listed a range
            of tax options just to float them out there. What is the £800 figure referring
            to exactly? Why do you think they’d be worse off by £800?  Why do you think that additional costs would
            be shared out exclusively among northern citizens? London is benefiting hugely
            from the Olympics but the UK is paying for it and the UK will benefit from
            inwards investment job creation and long-term regeneration in London.

             

            What about the drag on the UK economy
            because of high levels of unemployment and social exclusion experienced in the
            North outlined in the IPPR report? Do we just continue to pay that? We’ve been
            doing it for 30 plus years… 

            Also I don’t think the ‘tax and spend’ element of
            the Labour party should have such a vice hold over northern constituencies devolution
            on a PR model would change that if people want to reduce services be more financially
            prudent lower council tax etc let them experiment with that.  Let a Tory South East regional assembly pilot
            it.

             

            This doesn’t have anything to do with
            creating a Labour majority, which they already have by the way it’s about
            creating a body, which can actually make a difference. We let Labour
            politicians up North get off the hook because they can always say we want to do
            x but we don’t have the money or we’re being starved of resources from London
            or we can’t do it. Let them get on with it if they fail as they did in
            Birmingham and Scotland the chuck them out.

             

            “Then there are other factors.  Which international
            investors will put money into the north?  Some will, certainly, and having
            lived in Darlington for a while I see that there are great possibilities in the
            north.  But on average, fewer would, and they would demand greater rates
            of return, because most of the profit being made by business is made in the
            south.  So bond rates for the northern economy would be higher.
             Mortgage interest rates would be higher, savings interest rates lower.
             Life gets more expensive for northerners even before the assembly decides
            whether to go for increased local taxation”.

            I don’t agree with that because you can
            make a northern economy more competitive and the labor force more flexible.
            Abolish the national minimum wage allow regional setting then match fund the
            difference. Personally I don’t even think that necessarily has to come out of a
            northern budget because of the benefits to the UK economy as a whole if we’re
            more competitive in manufacturing for example and if we transfer wealth up
            north by ingenuity rather than welfare.   

             

            Additionally if we had regional government
            we’d be eligible for EU regional funds, which you could use to retrain, and
            upskill people. Manufacturing, IT startups and construction is what I think we
            should be looking at all of those need strategic investment.  There are things you can do to make it far
            more habitable for SMEs why wait for the private sector to gradually introduce
            superfast broadband? 

            There’s absolutely no reason why a that sort of
            infrastructure project can’t be paid for by the tax payer which will encourage inwards
            investment to move northwards then auction the grid off or rent it.  Reduce business rates whilst allowing them to
            keep a larger percentage if not all of it. Introduce a UK wide Land value tax
            which can’t be avoided and redistribute the proceeds. I don’t buy the argument
            that they’ll go to Europe either.

             

            “And
            of the people?  Anyone with any sense of ambition and career will be on
            the M1 driving southwards.  And what will be left in the north?”

             

            They’re already doing that which the IPPR
            report highlights. They’ve been doing it for the past 30 years and we need to
            respond to it. For me this doesn’t have anything to do with giving Labour
            control they already have that anyway PR and 1/3 threshold would reduce
            influence and you do not have to have a legislative assembly you could have a
            fixed block grant and tax rasing powers. If Labour botches it up then go for a
            Tory Liberal administration that’s what they did in Birmingham. Additionally it
            depends what your vision is for the northern economy. I’m not suggesting that
            we try and compete with London’s financial services we can explore
            manufacturing renewable energy (including nuclear) there are lots of things
            like that. None of that needs to come exclusively from a northern budget but it
            does need consistent monitoring and input from a regional perspective.

             

            Yes the south is keeping the north they’re
            providing a cushion it’s patronising and paternalistic leave them to their own
            devices and let them find their own solution. The alternative is to maintain
            the status quo, which I don’t think, is acceptable. Why can’t you have an
            assembly that could look at these big challenges and continue the national
            transfer of wealth to redress them? Why do you think it’s either or?  Pumping money to councils giving people tax
            credits for 13 years hasn’t had a big impact we need to move beyond that and
            address the underlining issue around what the north is for and how we move
            towards that. The regeneration of Manchester and Liverpool are fantastic
            examples of what can be done I just don’t think we can wait through 18 years of
            tory government to deliver a 13 years of a Labour one which can deliver that
            sort of regeneration. Regional government allows for consistent small steps.

             

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            I think the problem your thesis has is mathematics.  Leaving aside whether a regional assembly and Devo Max for the north is or is not a good thing, it will be more expensive for northerners.  

            The north is a net recipient of funding from the south.  Look at the PESA 2010/11 figures from the ONS (that is where the £800 figure comes from, and that is a per head figure.  For a family it is much more expensive).  Under Devo Max, the north becomes responsible for raising revenue.  It has a choice:  raise less, raise the same, or raise more.  Everything that you propose would be additional revenue to what is currently received, and the revenue can only be raised from northerners, or by borrowing.

            So if you are a northerner, under your proposal you will either be paying more tax, or finding that the costs of credit are increasing, or some combination of both.  At the same time, costs of credit in the south would go down, as investors will perceive that the south is a safer bet than England and Wales as a complete unit.  So the south will attract increased investment.  What is a northerner to do?  Your prescription to me would increase the attractiveness for northerners to move to the south, not decrease it.  If the northern assembly wishes to attract investment and to retain the people, they will have to find extra money – more tax or borrowing.

            If you really think that the north can have a regional assembly, and Devo Max, and keep getting subsidised by the rest of the country (as much as 20% per head in comparison to the south east), you are deeply wrong.  It would not be allowed.  It would be the death of the Labour Party to propose that in an election manifesto.  Do not forget that there are only about 7 million in the north – there are 45 million elsewhere in England.

            If northerners want a regional assembly and Devo Max, they will have to wait for a Labour Government because it is not on offer from the tories, and they will have to accept that the price is either less services or increased taxes, and that their borrowing costs will increase.  Some may well wish to pay those prices, but do not for a moment imagine that it would be cheaper for life in the north.

          • Redshift

            Everything you say assumes there will be no economic benefit to setting some of our own economic priorities. 

            Our tax base will increase because we’ll be able to better address our problems

    • Andrew Cooper

      But would the south as a region send their money north? 

      Why should they.  When like Scotland they can use their revenues for free prescriptions free care for the elderly etc

      An English Parliament would spend English money on the English and unite the north and south through policies of equality and fairness.

      We have enough division and diversity in England already without allowing Labour to set northern English against Southern English.

  • JoeDM

    The real issue is that it’s time for the UK to be devolved from the EU !!!

  • wilsonandyb

    Paul Salveson of the Hannah Mitchell Foundation has written a great book about devolution in England , and the north in particular
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1551641003* it has a vision for a conversational politics that, as an only occasional Labour votor (from apathy and “they are all as bad as each other”), I find very engaging* it embeds politics in places, telling the story of a quirky, everyday politics of Labour that is rooted in the north, but must be mirrored throughout the country by other rich, local traditions of progressive politics* it is about stories, and politics, emerging from the bottom up, rather than being imposed from the top down. I’ve noticed that John Cruddas has been talking about a “national story”, but isn’t it more interesting to look for spaces for lots of different voices. Otherwise the “national story” will be one written by the people who are winning at England.

  • harrydale

    It is naive not to think regionalising England is not playing into the hands of the European government, once they have the split they crave we will be there for the taking,the people of the north east saw it years ago and told prescott(there is no such place as England) where to shove his regionalism and so it should stay that way.

    • wg

      @harrydale

       

      I’m afraid that the
      regulars on here are firm believers in the EU project.

       

      Regionalisation was
      all about breaking up Britain into manageable bits that could be controlled by
      the EU’s Committee of the Regions.

       

      But, you’ll note that
      the wish for devolving power away from government to the cities is now popular
      on LL – it wasn’t so when Labour were in power; they wished to control every
      aspect of our lives – as long as Brussels agreed.

       

      I’ve always found it
      amusing that a more integrated EU would be of benefit to us all, but a broken
      up Britain would also be of benefit.

       

      As for the North – I’ve
      always predicted that once socialist Wales and Scotland went their way, the
      North would not wish to stay with the Conservative South.

      • Redshift

        I really have very mixed views on the EU.

        Wanting devolution for the north is nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with addressing our economic and social needs, which seem to get neglected by rule from London. 

    • Robert Harrison

      So much for Labour’s talk of solidarity and unity.  They’re just divide-and-rule imperialist fascists.  By the way, Hannah Mitchell described herself as an Englishwoman, not a northerner or whatever, so it’s galling to see a divide-and-rule nazi organization using her name.

      • treborc

          so it’s galling to see a divide-and-rule nazi organization using her name.

        Jesus that a  rough on the Tories.

      • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robbie Scott

        How do you square Nazism and devolution? This is the opposite of centralising decision making. You can have unity and regional government this empowers the Tory south as much as the Labour north if they want to experiment with flat taxes go for it … Also it would make politics in the UK a lot more diverse if we used PR to elect them. Local politics ought to be about common ground and consensus it needn’t  benefit any particular party in fact in the North you’d probably end up with more Liberals and Conservatives and that’s a good thing for democracy. 

  • Ken Barrington

    I noticed on your website a little rolling graphic with lots of thought-provoking photos….. One of which has the slogan ‘Every human has rights’

    - Even English ones Mr Scott – or don’t we quite qualify? And how does that phrase sit with your reply to Toque – “I don’t think the public always know what’s good for them”….

    On the one hand you’re Ghandi and on the other you’re Uncle Joe Stalin!

    Enough of the regional blue sky thinking banter by self-obsessed floppy-haired career pencil suckers – it’s divide and rule by any other name; end of.

    If national democracy is good enough for every other democratic-loving country in the western world then it sure is good enough for us in England. And if it isn’t then what the hell makes us sooooo different?

    My national democratic right has been hard won over many, many centuries – it ain’t up for discussion, negotiation or vacillation by slimeballs who would sell their Granny’s zimmer-frame for scrap in an effort to stop war memorials getting robbed on the grounds that it’s a lesser evil…

    An English Parliament will mean smaller more focused government. It will replace the bloated Westminster model (70% of all business there is currently concerned with English-only legislation) and shave 150 – 200 elected members from the payroll. 700 Lords can also get the boot and be replaced by  a 100 strong Council of the Isles made up of members from all 4 home countries to debate and pass the ever-decreasing reserved legislation that hasn’t yet been filched by Brussels…

    We want a referendum right now on our political future. If we don’t get one then the union is finished – and it won’t be Salmond who pushes the UK to the tipping point, the irresistable push will come from an increasingly disenfranchised English public.

    • John Miller

      Best post on this thread, by a country mile.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

         No, we do not want to be dominated by the Tory south-east. The North and those areas have very little in common

        • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robbie Scott

          Exactly Mike !

        • Independent England

          Dominated by the Tory SE? You clearly haven’t seen this map of the 2010 general election results:
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/48.stm

          There’s plenty of blue in the North of England!

          • Brumanuensis

            Most of it in large rural seats. The conurbations are overwhelmingly Labour.

          • Independent England

             So how would a Northern Parliament resolve that?

          • Brumanuensis

            Resolve what? Your question makes no sense.

          • Independent England

             Northern Tory voting rural areas vs Northern Labour voting urban conurbations!

        • Gadgie

          Many people in the north east would not like to be dominated by an eternal labour government either, which is another reason many voted NO to a regional assembly.

        • Andrew Cooper

          An English Parliament would govern England for the English.  Your North regions would be competing with other northern regions and southern regions for revenues to support services.
          Regions are just a method to divide and rule.

          • Redshift

            How would it? The problem at the moment is that southerners put their own economic priorities first. How exactly is an English parliament going to change that?

          • Andrew Cooper

            Ok lets look at the Barnett Formula which the House of Lords in 2009 I believe said that it needs amending because Scotland is getting too much money.
            Labour and Conservative parties have refused to address this inequality for fear of upsetting the Scots.
            An English Parliament wouldnt have those fears because it represents England and the English.
            An English Parliaments first job would be to spend Englands money on the people of England.
            Something your devolved regions wouldnt be able to do because they would only be able to represent their region and Westminster would ignore them anyhow.

            Suddenly England will have more money to spend on the people of England.

            An English Parliament will make law for ALL of England so lets say they introduce free prescriptions then they would be applied for all of England.

            With your regions we will have what has happened now with Scotland and Wales having free prescriptions but England paying for theirs.  Some regions will be able to have free prescriptions and some will have to pay.

            You had better hope (or you already know) that you live in a region which is making money to pay for your better treatment then your neighbour.

    • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robbie Scott

      “Even English ones Mr Scott – or don’t we quite qualify? And how does that phrase sit with your reply to Toque – “I don’t think the public always know what’s good for them”

      I don’t want this to get too philosophical but that’s really a debate about direct vs representative democracy.  Take elected police commissioners what on earth do ‘the people’ know about crime policy or drug rehabilitation? The coalitions freeschool agenda is another example what do parents know about education policy or social problems that effect education attainment (necessarily)? What do Westminster politicians or perspective members of an English Parliament know or care about Education, Health etc of regions hundreds of miles away?  There interests conflict because they are elected to a metric, which asks them to maximize the interests of their particular constituency at the expense of others.

      I think those decisions are best made by politicians who are not subject to the whims of opinions which blow in the wind. Devolution removes policy from the national sphere and places it on a completely different local metric where it should be.  

       An English parliament would be largely irrelevant to huge parts of the country wherever you put it you’d geographically exclude 10s of millions of people. People forget that there are only 5 million people in Scotland and 2 million people in Wales. Londons population is 7 million Englands population is 52 million. Even under a federal model there’s nothing local and strategic about managing 52 million people.

      What would be the point of the UK parliament? You might reduce their remit to little more than Foreign policy but you’d essentially recreating a UK parliament for England. You’d probably need two chambers in a devolved English parliament to cope with the sheer workload of it, which is why regional assemblies are a better model. If not regional then give the powers to local authorities that would be another way of doing it. The problem there is you wouldn’t necessarily be able to deliver huge regeneration projects that cross boundaries  which is another reason why the regional model is better.

      “If national democracy is good enough for every other democratic-loving country in
      the western world then it sure is good enough for us in England”

      Most western countries have a form of regional government England is the anomaly. France has 22 regions, Germany 16, Italy 20 Spain 17 and they are just the ones that immediately come to mind.   Are you saying those countries don’t have any national pride?

      • Q47

        Quote:
        Most western countries have a form of regional government England is the anomaly. France has 22 regions, Germany 16, Italy 20 Spain 17 and they are just the ones that immediately come to mind.   Are you saying those countries don’t have any national pride? 
        Unquote

        You are right about England being the anomaly  –  it’s the only one listed which does not have its own national parliament and voice.

        • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robbie Scott

          I really take your point but i addressed this in a response to somebody else. And those are examples of devolved institutions .  Not all of them have legislative power some of them just spend a block grant which might also work you needn’t try to duplicate the Welsh and Scots. 

          Scotland has a population of 5 million Wales 2 million England has a population of 52 million London has a population of 7 million. There really isn’t any point of an English Parliament because it couldn’t possibly be strategic you’d end up with a  duplicate of the House of Commons. How would you champion the North under that model? Or any other region for that matter which would contain 10s of millions of people? When Labour controlled the English parliament they’d ignore the south and the tories would ignore the north that’s not good for anybody in my opinion and would be a total waste of time. England needs to go below the national level because of the numbers involved. 

          • Independent England

             At the last general election the Tories got 39.6% of the English vote, Labour 28.1% and the Lib Dems 24.2%.
            An English Parliament elected by PR would do a far better job of  representing the will of the English people than the currrent Westminster shambles!

          • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robbie Scott

            Really you mean like the current coalition government does?  To what extent do people vote for political parties rather than an individual MP ? Percentages are misleading.  PR would leave the Liberals as king makers in every election you’d have either a tory or labour minority government in coalition or liberals supplying them with votes…  So as is the case now the party that came last lost MPs would be in government calling the shots hardly representative. 

          • Andrew Cooper

            Would Labour or the Conservative govern an English parliament?

            In Scotland the SNP now hold power and in Wales it is Plaid Cymru slowly moving ahead.

            The people of England would begin to turn to whomever governed England for the English and neither Labour or the Conservatives can claim they have done so.

            A party like the English Democrats would emerge to govern England unless the Tories or Labour began to act like an English party for once.

          • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robbie Scott

            It would virtually mirror the westminster election lots of people this think this is a ploy to divide England or to give Labour some sort of permanent majority look at the facts: 

            “Of the six Labour governments since 1945 only twice – in 1964 and February 1974 – was the party reliant on Scottish votes to help keep the Conservatives from office”
            http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP08-12

            An English Parliament would be Tory or Labour controlled in a virtually the same as Westminster.

            There is virtually no policy difference at all between the SNP and Plaid Cymru and the Labour party. The only thing that separates them really is Independence. They are all Centre left/Social Democrat parties. Plaid is being pushed back by Labour in every election cycle. People vote SNP/Plaid because Labour is ‘too New Labour’ not because they have any real ideological issues with the party. 

            There is nothing stopping ‘English people’ voting the English Democrats into national government and the chances of that happening with an English parliament don’t increase. 

          • Redshift

            I beg to differ – there is something stopping people voting English democrat – the fact that they’re a bunch of fruitloops. 

          • Redshift

            What exactly is acting like an English party? You seem to want politics to be about flag waving…

          • Andrew Cooper

            Acting like an English party would be a party which governs England for the English unlike Labour Conservative and LibDem Unionists who govern England for the British.

            And what is wrong with flag waving?
            The difference between you and I is my flag is red and white while yours is red, white and blue.

        • Redshift

          The first half of your post reinforces the case for regional government in England – not an English parliament. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    100% yes

  • Lief Kinhelm

    There should only be one England. If the filth in Westminster try to break up England I will fight.

    • Gadgie

      The Labour Party has always used anti English rhetoric in Wales and Scotland to win votes, and used anti southern English rhetoric in Northern England.It is not surprising people in Southern England will not vote Labour.

      • Brumanuensis

        Proof?

        • Gadgie

          Proof, search articles in northern English press from Prescott’s Yes campaigners for a NE assembly. They were rabidly anti southern English and northern labour has always been this way.
          If the reason for a Northern assembly is to give labour and the libdems somewhere to live permanently it will not work.
          There was a survey carried out after Prescott’s failed 2004 referendum asking people in the north east of England why they voted NO to an assembly,many stated they did not like the idea of England being divided against itself.
          Also, do not forget the many labour mp’s gave little or no support to Prescott’s mission to abolish England.

          • Brumanuensis

            Regional assemblies are not a plot to ‘abolish England’. You could say exactly the same thing about local councils, except that would be absurd.

          • Gadgie

            Of course they have notionally abolished England already. Will we hear of English athletes at the Olympics?

          • Brumanuensis

            No, because we’re competing as Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  • Brumanuensis

    I much prefer the idea of greater powers for local government, albeit with a guaranteed minimum of resources to minimise inequality between rich and poor regions. Given that the UK needs a strong system of fiscal transfers, I’m not sure Devo Max is a realistic prospect for either Scotland or the English regions.

    I have no fondness for an English Parliament either. England as a political project leaves me cold. England as a cultural and sporting identity, I’m much happier with.

    • Brumanuensis

      If anything, the Spanish crisis illustrates what political autonomy without fiscal oversight can lead to.

      • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robbie Scott

        This is a fantastic point to bring in. One of the reason Spain is in so much trouble is because of the huge amounts of autonomy they enjoy.   This is a really good read not sure if you’ve seen it http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18951575.  There are clearly huge opportunities for the North under regional government but we’re a far more sensible country in terms of spending I doubt that would happen. Additionally the spanish regions enjoy legislative power we might want to guard against that. I’m just floating ideas around I don’t have a definitive answer but we might want to essentially give them the power to run themselves and control education health housing in accordance etc with  some national guideline and not give them the power to create primary legislation which is where regional government bloats. 

         Similar story in Italy too.  I really think we need to shake things up a bit London definitely isn’t going to deliver this sort of strategic vision you couldn’t have a westminster government essentially poaching business on behalf of another region from the south/europe  that’s essentially what we need to do. 

        • Brumanuensis

          Yes, I also read the BBC’s ‘Magazine’ article about the crisis in Spanish local government.

          I’m much happier trying to do more through existing structures. The government’s approach is localism without resource equality, which will create post-code lotteries. I think one good start might be to devolve the functions of the Department for Communities and Local Government to the local authorities, and wind up the department as a result, meaning no net change in bureaucracy – if people are worried by that.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            “Resource Equality” – that’s not very progressive.  I’m surprised at your desire for such.

            Based on official statistics***, the imposition of resource equality would see the following results in per capita public spending:

            North East -7%
            North West -6%
            Yorkshire / Humber +4%
            East Midlands +9%
            West Midlands +2%
            East +12%
            London -15%
            South East +15%
            South West +9%
            Scotland -14%
            Wales -13%
            Northern Ireland -20%.

            I’d say there are already post code lotteries going on.

            I can’t see any Labour Leader who hopes to be elected asking for cuts of that sort of magnitude in areas of solid Labour support, while also offering the tory shires increases in public spending of up to 15%.

            ***Table 9.2 of the Treasury’s figures in PESA 2012.  They note that the figures for London are artificially high as they include figures spent on the Olympics and Crossrail (the national benefit of the Olympics is not so obvious to me, but the Crossrail will benefit people from well beyond London).

          • Brumanuensis

            No, Jaime, I didn’t mean ‘everyone gets the same allocation from central government’, I meant ‘everyone gets a varying allocation to bring them up a minimum standard’.

            If localism was simply imposed without stabilisers, affluent areas could rely on local taxation, whilst poorer areas would struggle to meet the demands placed on them, because of lower tax receipts and higher social costs. Poole has lots of higher-rate council tax payers, Manchester comparatively few. Poole has fewer demands on resources, compared to Manchester which has a great many. Resource equality means giving Manchester equivalent funds to Poole.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Well, I’m afraid that you could have said it a little more clearly then.  ”Resource equality” means equal resources, and the way the government measure that is on a per head basis.

            What the figures above prove is that those poorer areas do already get greater resources per head, which is what you argue for.  The point I made above (somewhere up there) is that seeking Devo Max for the north is inevitably going to result in less resources being made available per head in those regions, or taxes going up.  Just the opposite result of what people wish to achieve.

          • Brumanuensis

            Yes, that’s why I don’t think Devo Max is a good idea.

            ‘Resource equality’ can mean levelling up or levelling down. You presumed it meant levelling down; I meant levelling up so that no local authority was placed at a disadvantage due to loss of central government grants without being able to make it up from local revenues. It was a conceptual term, not a technical one.

    • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robbie Scott

      You may be right here Ed Miliband didn’t mention regional government he said local authorities so you maybe onto something. But what about regional regeneration ? Integrated transport housing etc that really is big brush stuff perhaps we could redesign councils to manage these issues too with some sort of adhoc panel.We were doing that by the way the coalition came in and abolished it all.

      • Brumanuensis

        I think resurrecting the metropolitan county councils that were abolished under Thatcher in 1986 would be a good start.

  • Brumanuensis

    Another thing that bothers me about this article is that it talks about the ‘North-South’ divide. This is an annoying but common view, which effectively erases the Midlands as a distinct area of England. 

    • http://www.robbiescott.com/ Robbie Scott

      You’re quite right. I did my undergraduate degree in Loughborough and I’m really familiar with the area.  Maybe it is patronising but I think many people in the south have a ‘London Mentality’ and just view it as a homogenous mass. It isn’t and you could easily make the case for devolved regional government for the midlands. 

      • Brumanuensis

        That’s fair enough. The interesting thing about the Midlands, particularly the West Midlands, is that it is something of a micro-cosm of the country, with large conurbations, affluent suburbia and rural areas, all within a fairly short distance of one another.

        One of the government’s biggest mistakes was abolishing the RDAs. the Local Enterprise Partnerships aren’t a patch on them, especially for the metropolitan West Midlands.

        • Graham Duke

           Well the local RDA (Advantage West Midlands) were hopeless when I asked them for some assistance in setting up a small business. All the money went to buying bits of Longbridge to keep BL going. That went well.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/HMZIWHNFVPNC634OK7NDX4VFCU Chris

    Regionalisation by any mean is the breaking up of a Country, and will create a weak divided nation. Remember England is not the UK it is not Britain it is England a distinct country different from Scotland N Ireland and Wales,  The English have the same right to a full devolved nation assembly and status as all other enjoy. Any other formula is discrimination and the weakening of democracy. A full English Parliament is the correct thing and should be set up by default as all the others have theirs. It the only way to save the UK as the English are clearly unhappy with the UK set up and are urging the Scots into independence as they are generally blamed for this democractic inequality and are seen as spungers. As for a North / South divide this a is a Political divide one staged by Labour and the Cons, it is not by the people.

    • John Miller

      100% true, but you’ll have the devil’s own job getting through to the nazi knuckle-draggers who are the regulars on this site.

      • Haroldgodwisson

        Tell me, is a so-called Nazi knuckle-Dragger anything like a Commie Knuckle-Dragger?

        Look in the Mirror before you start passing rather pathetic remarks about English Folk who love their Country……Which better than Commies who have done nothing good for England but continued attempts at trying to Destroy it….

        England is a Country not a bunch of EUSSR Regions, it is a Nation, and an old one, it was governing itself long before an enforced act of Union, it was a Nation State long before the rest of this Island, your so-called Celtic Fringe, yet it is treated like the fatted cow, Hogg Tied to keep the Scots Gravy Train Going, and now you Commies are at it again trying to brake England up so it can be easily ruled by the EUSSR!

        Well you know what you Commie Knuckle-Dragger’s can do don’t you??

        • John Miller

          I was agreeing with Chris.  The people I referred to as ‘nazi knuckle-draggers’ are the Labour lot.  I’ve no doubt they don’t like being referred to as nazis, but nazis and commies are more or less the same (I’ll just mention the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to prove that point).  I love England and hate anybody who wishes England or the English people harm.

          • Brumanuensis

            Does that mean that the Partial-Test Ban Treaty or SALT I meant that the US and USSR enjoyed identical forms of government and economy?

            How nice of you to Gowin the thread btw. I’m sure your immense grasp of history equips you well to make facile comparisons between Nazism and Communism. Your point is not, alas, proven by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Try again.

            Incidentally, you chaps are sending by Right-Wing Bingo (TM) score into the stratosphere. Cheers!

          • Haroldgodwisson

            I think you’ll find that both National Socialism and Marxism are more or less the same, both wiped out thousands, both were dictatorships and both were Totalitarian and the Tri-Party Pact of this “Cool Britannia” a Multi-Cultural dump is showing all the signs of being the same, i wonder why?

            Plus if you search hard enough, you’ll find that Hitler had the same plans for Europe and Britain, as we see now under the EUSSR, e.g. 200 Regions, Britain Split between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and as the Lefties are terming, the English Regions!

            So who are the Nazis??

          • Brumanuensis

            Mm, nice conspiracy theory, but the lack of Jews and/or Illuminati makes it a bit tame. Try throwing in a reference to Rothschild and you’ll be much better.

            But anyway, isn’t it a bit late for you to be up posting on the internet? Does mummy know what you’re doing?

          • Haroldgodwisson

            Oh dear me, how very childish, what’s up, can’t you be bothered to search, Commie??

            To much trouble? Tell you what ill find it out four you and post it on here, is that better, then you won’t tax your small lefty brain to much..

            Don’t you mean Zionism?

          • Haroldgodwisson

            In the late 1930′s Hitlers economists formulated a 10 point plan for a New Socialist Europe (all of which have been realised by the EU). Point No.1 for example was to create an area named the European Economic Comunity or EEC. Point No.4 was the implimentation of a single currency. Point No.5 was to create a Central European Bank. Point No.6 was called the ‘Central European Principal’ and would divide the new EEC into 200 manageable ‘Regions’. The UK would split into twelve and become Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and the nine English Regions. In 1959 a Franco/German treaty set out a new European vision dividing Europe into the same 200 Regions. These plans never came to fruition until 1992 when the Maastricht Teaty (under the innocent heading of ‘Regional Funding’) divided the EU into 200 regions. Hence we now have a Minster for Northern Ireland, a Minister for Scotland, a Minister for Wales and a Minister for the Regions. Listen carefully to the number of ministerial speeches that refer to the ‘Nations and Regions of the UK’, (paticularly Gordon Browns old budget speeches). England cannot be found on any official EU map. The catagory of ‘English’ has gone from all government documents.
            (The last UK Census omitted the option of English). Every St. Georges day we have the annual debates about “What does it mean to be English anyway”. If you insist on being English then you’re obviously an old fashioned, narrow minded, xenophobe who votes BNP, hates ‘coloured’ people and let’s throw in homophobic as well. In fact we’d all better keep a close watch on you because your probably a little bit dangerous.
            If the Scottish electorate were to go down the road of independence then the English will wake up to the fact that their country, technically speaking, no longer exists. So to avoid such a stir all party leaders must talk down the very notion of a break up of the Union. Then again how could there be an English Paliament… Hands up whoever would like to be First Minister of a people who don’t exist, from a place you can’t find on a map. As for me, I just miss having a place of my own, you know, the kind of place you can call home.

          • Brumanuensis

            You know, if you’d restricted yourself to noting that Jean Monnet’s ideas for the reconstruction of French industry, post World War II, drew upon proposals drawn up under Vichy, then you might have been on firmer ground.

            But then you started wibbling on about how the EU is a Nazi project. Erm, ok…so if Europe has been divided into these regions – actually used for statistical purposes (see NUTS), but y’know, whatevs – what exactly is the EU (sorry EUSSR, btw I believe you mean ‘Warsaw Pact’, but that dissolved itself over 20 years ago) doing to achieve this grand project of Nazi unification. I mean, I can think of many problems with the ECB, but striving to create a racially-purified Europe under German hegemony is, well, not among them.

            The position of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland dates from 1972, over 20 years prior to Maastricht. Meanwhile, the regional ministers have gone into abeyance and only came into being in 2007 anyway. Your point about the census is hilariously inaccurate, as the 2011 census included the category of ‘English’. The reason England is not on any EU maps is the same reason the German Lander or French regions are not on EU maps. England is not a sovereign state and hasn’t been since 1707.

            Anyway, let me know if there’s anything your small righty brain doesn’t understand. 

          • Brumanuensis

            Oh and the Red House Report is less influential than you think. The main driver behind European integration was, natch, the Americans, who wanted a counter-balance to Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe (see NATO).

          • Haroldgodwisson

            My Apologies John, I took it as the likes of the Left/UAF often accuse English Nationalists of being since it their usual term………They should take a good look at themselves in the Mirror sometime these Lefties…

            My apologies again!

      • new puritan

        ‘nazi knuckle-draggers ’
        Priceless. And you English nats wonder why nobody takes you seriously. By the way, the English Democrats are riddled with BNP cast-offs so if it’s fash you’re after, I suggest you look no further than them.

        • Haroldgodwisson

          Not a member of the EDL or BNP or EDP! The BNP are finished, the EDP are Civic, and so are the EDL…

          The EDP are not what you would call English Nationalists, since they believe like you Lefties, that any and all Wealisc born or living in England are English, which they are not, they are still Wealisc, which if you understand Old English means Foreigner, out sider, that is what they are, the English are the Native Population of England!

          I know what’s coming next! You Commies are so predictable to say the least..

          By the Way, if us English Nats are not being taken seriously, then why are we refused our own voice? Why are you Lefties all ways trying to ridicule us? Why are we not allowed our own Parliament and a vote on Independence? Why should the whole Liberal/Left Establishment be trying to brake England up in to bits so it is easily destroyed? Why Won’t the Establishment allow us to be united and one Country? Why is it that England is the Home Nation being swamped by un-wanted, un-asked for, and un-invited Invaders? No its not a mis-spelling i meant invaders, since at the numbers they are being forced onto England it is invasion and Colonisation by home grown Traitors….

          So if us English Nats are not being taken seriously, then why not allow us to have what we want, what’s up, is the Liberal/Left worried about something???

          • Brumanuensis

            Perhaps when you start winning elections under the banner of an English Nationalist Party, you can start passing laws you like?

            ‘Wealisc’ eh? You really are a silly little racist. How pure are your bloodlines then? Are you sure you have no Norman or Viking ancestry?

          • Haroldgodwisson

            Oh dear, the usual Lefty retort to someone who doesn’t go along with their line of dogma…LOL 

            Hit me with your Lefty Tolerance stick, oh i am so cowed and fearful of being termed a Racist, forget it Commie, i’ve been called far worse things than that, you government brain washed bottom feeder…

            LOL……….

            Enforced Immigration and Multi-Culturalism, enforced on the Native English, who weren’t asked, or invited to have a say, instead it was undemocratically forced onto us without even the pretence of a democratic vote….

            So what do think that says of the Left? Not very Democratic was it to deliberately force Immigration on the Native English was it, i mean its more the act of a Dictatorship wouldn’t you say??

            Oh the Norse and the Normans, and where do you think the English came from?? You obviously don’t know anything of English History, typical Commie!!

          • derek

            What? hit you slowly hit you quick! I don’t think Ian Dury was a right wing nutter.
            The Greek’s probably settled in England long before the Normans or the Norsemen, those Greek’s are the ancestors of the picts and Irish.

            By the way- the stork doesn’t really delivery children.

          • Haroldgodwisson

            LOL!

          • Haroldgodwisson

            Oh and one more thing, i know my Ancestry, do you?

            Its English, i know my Family History going back to the 1400′s, and its English…

            So now Bottom Feeder, lets hear of your Ancestry?? If you have one that is………LOL

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Everyone has an ancestry, by definition.  Whether you know it is a measure of how much effort has been put into finding it out, and that effort itself is of no measure, merely an example of interest.

            I can trace my ancestry back on my father’s side to just before 1494, when 3 generations were hanged next to each other, the youngest first from the crenellations of Edinburgh Castle on the same day for leading a rebellion against James IV of Scotland, but it is only because my uncle has spent his retirement in finding out these things.  Twenty years ago, this was not family knowledge – it was literally unknown, and only now known with an unbroken line of birth, marriage and death records maintained by the church.  On my mother’s side, nothing before her grandfather left Spain in 1924, fleeing political oppression.  No one has ever tried to find out more.

            The man who empties my rubbish tomorrow into the dustcart has an equal ancestry, whether he knows it or not.  The Duke of Cambridge has a publicly well-known ancestry, but that is not to say it is more noble than you, me, or the man emptying my bins.

      • Andrew Cooper

        Would that be the knuckle draggers who want the English to have a referendum on what they want?  Who want to give a true democratic choice to the people of England or do you mean the knuckle draggers who want to impose their policies onto the English whether they want it or not.

        Because as far as I can see somepeople think that democracy isnt any good because the people dont know what they want and so should be told what they can have.

        Doesnt sound like democracy to me and it seems that your view of a knuckle dragger is as twisted as your ideals on what democracy is.

    • new puritan

      It’s telling that nats have so little to say about the regional disparities within England, which are significant and widening all the time. On pretty much any economic or social indicator you choose, the north lags behind London and the south-east – it isn’t some sort of fabrication to make a political point. An English parliament would be dominated by the same (Londoncentric) media, business and lobbying interests as the current Westminster set-up. It would do nothing for the less affluent regions and would just be the House of Commons on a slightly smaller scale.

  • carolekins

    We did have the chance to vote for a Northern Assembly, which I and about three other people did.  Most saw it as a further snouts in the trough opportunity.  I’d like us to return to a much earlier time, when many in the North supported the Scots, specifically the Jacobites.  Some were executed for doing so, viz the memorial near Brampton in Cumbria.  Admittedly this was in 1746.  I’d quite like to see a cut-off point around Scotch Corner.   So we’d be exploited/ignored by the Scots, but would this be worse than being exploited/ignored by the Southern English?  At least we nearer.

  • Independent England

     ”England remains one of the few countries in Europe without regional government”
    England is the only country in the WORLD without its own government!  We need an English Government with an English First Minister together with an English Parliament.
    Why doesn’t Labour support getting rid of the Welsh Assembly and setting up a North Wales Assembly and a South Wales Assembly to sort out the North Wales South Wales divide?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11513689

    • Brumanuensis

      That was something to do in 1998. It’s about 14 years too late.

      • Independent England

         I don’t recall England having a referendum in 1998.

        • Brumanuensis

          I meant regarding the Welsh Assembly set-up.

    • Independent England

      deleted post

  • Dan Langfen

    Hannah Mithchell Foundation – a cloak  to disguise Labours despicable continued attacks on England as an entity – why?  because an England with full representation (Parliament ) would leave Labour in nowheres ville, their Celtic power base  would be impotent, and the cash cow that is England  would begin to drift away. Prescott, Blair and the particularly onerous Straw should be tried for treason.  As should Cameron for not plugging the gaping holes in the devolution settlement that leaves England and the English disadvantaged Politically,  Economically and Culturally,     

  • Andrew Cooper

    So if England is divided into the 9 regions will each be given a parliament to complement Scotlands Parliament or will we be denied equal and fair treatment as is occuring now with Scottish and Welsh MPs in a British Westminster deciding English only governance?

    Will we have 9 Parliaments with 9 sets of devolved powers and 9 sets of MPs?
    And who pays for these new MPs?

    No.  What you really mean is give England 9 assemblies without any real power unlike the Scotland Parliament has, and how is that fair?
    What you mean is pretend England is getting local democracy without actually giving those local democracies any real power to make local changes.

    Maybe you could also inform us exactly what Westminster would do?  What would we be paying them for?  Would they be taking a massive pay cut proportional to their reduction of workload?

    Also;

    When ever i look at a map of the ‘Nations and Regions’ of Great Britain I can see Scotland.  I can see Wales but I never see England?

    All this is is Labour returning to the idea of breaking England up.  An attempt to divide the country up into a multitude of voices each so busy competing with each other for dwindleing resources that they havent the time to unite as one nation the English.

    You mention population size in your answer to one comment how Scotland has a population of 5 million so want English regions of similer sizes yet the British Parliament governed the whole of Britain fairly successfully until Labour introduced devolution to Scotland and Wales.
    So population size isnt really the issue is it. 
     
    Let England have an English Parliament then we can see if we need further devolution downwards but dont try to kid us on that regionalisation is anything other then dividing the largest nation. 

  • Aelfred

    Our ancestors saw the strength in uniting as a nation.  In a time when the leaders made decisions to benefit the people – the cynn – the nation. At a time when England thrust it’s self  in to the limelight as a major force to be reckoned with, economically, culturaly and as a fighting force. The destruction of England that has taken place over recent history is the CV of the modern day so called leaders. They have dismantled our community, flooding the country with outsiders,  dismantled our economy through greed thus enslaving the people they are supposed to serve, to the monitary system of  debt and interest, handed our soverignty  to Europe with the help of the Queen, which is high treason and sedition.

    Are we now to believe the dismanteling of our ancient kingdom by these money lusting traitors of the people , is going to benefit us ? Make us stronger ? Destruction is all these liars are capable of. If we want to start righting the wrongs of our nation, we first need to banish the very people that are proposing the dismanteling and destruction of our ancient and beautiful country, not allowing them to continue with their trail of destruction.

Latest

  • Comment Why Labour is fighting for the legalisation of Humanist marriages today

    Why Labour is fighting for the legalisation of Humanist marriages today

    By Glenys Thornton

    Monday saw the first day of Committee on the Same Sex Marriage Bill, where it became clear after a three hour debate on how to distinguish Same Sex Marriage from so called “traditional” marriage that opposition to this bill has not gone away. Despite a huge defeat on Second Reading, opponents reheated and repeated their earlier speeches, in part because their arguments rely on belief and prejudice not evidence or fact. So we sat until 11pm debating conscience clauses, Registrars [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Sometimes what is unsaid at PMQs is the most important thing of all…

    Sometimes what is unsaid at PMQs is the most important thing of all…

    By Mark Ferguson

    Well that was a bad PMQs for Ed Miliband – the second in a row. Perhaps he hasn’t gotten back into his stride after such a long period without the weekly Wednesday joust, but whatever it is, Miliband isn’t hitting his marks at PMQs. Meanwhile Cameron – who has been jousting with world leaders this week – seemed far more o top of his game than we’ve been used to seeing him lately. Alas the problem for Miliband was that [...]

    Read more →
  • Video Cameron refuses to answer question on secret government plans to hike interest on student loans

    Cameron refuses to answer question on secret government plans to hike interest on student loans

    Last week it was revealed that the government discussed secret plans to hike interest on pre-existing student loans, meaning that anyone with a student loan will be expected to pay far more than expected. Today, the Prime Minister was asked about this – he spoke for nearly a minute but wouldn’t answer the question. What does he have to hide? How much more does he expect graduates to pay?

    Read more →
  • Comment Who benefits? Delivering on energy and infrastructure

    Who benefits? Delivering on energy and infrastructure

    By John Woodcock

    Across the industrial north, it is striking how old pit villages and industrial towns are proving far less willing to embrace renewable energy than the noisier, more polluting fossil fuels and industries which shaped their identity. Energy companies are getting a nasty shock after mistakenly believing that these communities would not bat an eyelid at a few wind turbines on the surrounding hills because they had been content to make huge slag heaps part of the landscape in decades past. [...]

    Read more →
  • News Put reckless bankers in jail – Media roundup: June 19th, 2013

    Put reckless bankers in jail – Media roundup: June 19th, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this (and much more) in your inbox. You can sign up here. Put reckless bankers in jail Britain’s banking bosses should face jail if their decisions force fresh bailouts, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards says today. The commission’s hotly anticipated report urges the Chancellor, George Osborne, to oversee the [...]

    Read more →