24-April 2023 : LAB 44% / CON 29% / LDEM 11% / GRN 5%

[jimjam]

Don't think think this from Survation was posted:

The R&W may have been at the edge of Moe but the current SNP lead over Lab for Westminster Elections does appear to be 5% or lower.


''
NEW Scotland Polling

Westminster Voting Intention:

SNP 37% (-1)
LAB 34% (+2)
CON 17% (-1)
LD 9% (nc)
OTH 4% (nc)

F/w 23rd - 28th June. Changes vs. 27th April - 3 May.

⁦@vasilsurvation⁩ investigates the findings. survation.com/scots-keen-on-… pic.twitter.com/rxcZ9XsZSx''

[Danny]

Jul 5, 2023 21:08:32 GMT Mr Poppy said:

We need to grow GDP as a bigger pie allows more spending.

The government insisted on using GDP figure rather than per capita. Per capita is rather what everyone feels, but GDP can rise even as per capita falls, ie lots of births or immigrants. In particular in international comparisons, another developed country can be making a lot more per head than we are, so their ability to buy care  for individuals is more than ours.

Then due to ageing population and new treatments/drugs we need to increase spending on healthcare in real terms.

Well, we dont need to , we can simply let people die a bit quicker. In fact con decided to let people die faster when they came to office. We might tighten the decision making on who is going to be fast tracked because their treatment will give real benefits, and who will be left on the waiting list forever. You might remember thats rather what we did in the first wave of covid, decide who to just send home to die.

It is unlikely that GDP growth will be faster than the need to increase healthcare spending (which is why throwing money at the NHS money pit is doomed to failure - IMO).

Its true demand is growing because we have more old people, because medicine keeps advancing. But the reason for so much pressure on the NHS right now is because the conservatives decided to go for a poorer level of service. Demand can never be met and never has been in history. Especially with a service free at the point of use. Doctors have to decide not to treat certain things. Or governments. We could double NHS spending and then redouble, and still find uses for the money. Or we could continue what con have been doing even harder and halve it. Whatever you did there would be unmet demand. Its hard to tell whether we could alter how we are spending it for better effect. Various reports suggest our effecriveness in spending is up to the same standard as others, but all health services might suffer from group think. (as for example the  massively not cost effective world lockdown)

So, to increase healthcare spending faster than GDP growth then the spending needs to come from either increased taxation (that neither CON or LAB seem keen on doing) OR from "co-payment via mandatory and/or private insurance" (as per most other countries).

It still comes from the public, however you raise it. Co-pay means more comes from the poor. Or the poor cant afford it, so they do not get health care, but certainly that means the rich get better care. Thats a moral not fiscal decision.

most polling on the issue is 'cakism' as it doesn't state how the "fiscal black hole" (aka "money pit") will be funded.

The real problem here is the idea that you cannot tax the rich. That simply isnt true, its a choice. The rich managed to subvert the concept of taxation around the Thatcher era. Capital is inadequately taxed, its absurd you can use financial tricks to convert your income into capital growth and halve your taxes, or better.

Hence no party is going to state in a manifesto that they'll 'evolve' the NHS but instead they'll promise more nurses and more money thrown into the money pit. However, once in power, then...

Well actually we can look at the track record of the last three governments, Thatcher/Major con and our current Cameron/May/Johnson/Truss/Sunak con both were spending less quite dleiberately on the NHS whereas Blair/Brown lab spent more. It is very likely to be the case a new lab government will spend more. Because fundamentall con want to abolish the NHS and turn the whol thing private. Its their stock policy to privatise everything and thereby add to private under taxed capital. They systematically always do that.

The somewhat separate issue of reducing NHS demand with 'tough love' WRT to self-inflicted obesity and those who make 'bad choices' getting something like "three strikes and you're out" is.. somewhat separate -

It is certainly a red herring. If you persuade everyone to live more healthily then maybe they get 10 years extra healthy life....but then they start getting sick and costing NHS money. The diseases may be different but people still get sick as they get older and their bodies pack up. You might delay it by interventions early giving people more healthy life, but you are only delaying the time people still need that final years and expensive care. You do not cut costs with these sorts of interventions, you actually make them worse. You have the extra costs of the campaigns, on top of the final years care just the same.

[Danny]

Jul 5, 2023 21:49:02 GMT mercian said:

Call me old-fashioned, but I think they should be shot with radioactive lead bullets and then buried where their corpses can pollute the environment.

Not at all, thats a very modern twist on an old idea, to use radiation.

[Danny]

Jul 5, 2023 21:51:04 GMT mercian said:

Jul 5, 2023 14:28:24 GMT Danny said:

All the money was spent on aircraft carriers. They are really great to stop a Russian tank invasion.

About as good as tanks would be to cross the channel I suppose.  

I am assuming that we've packed loads of explosives in the Channel Tunnel just in case.

Aircraft carriers are useless for defending the british isles against attack. Their purpose is a floating airfield, but if we are defending the Uk then we already have land based airfields, which are much much easier to defend than ships prone to sinking when holed. A fleet of much smaller ships might be useful, and we need one anyway which we do not possess, for those aircraft carriers to operate anywhere effectively - to keep attackers away from those very vulnerable capital ships. What we have is two carriers which could not really operate independently of the US, to join in with an invasion overseases. Or maybe the defence of Taiwan from the sea.

But all this is useless if the idea is to defend against Russia driving into Europe. Thats why we used to have loads of tanks. Something of an irony we decided to scrap the overseas invasion capability just as Argentina invaded the Falklands, and this time decided to scrap out tanks and infantry before Russia invaded Europe once again. We have tailored our forces to integrate with the US.

[Danny]

Jul 5, 2023 22:14:39 GMT mercian said:

Whether they like it or not he is their king.

A king is someone who rules. He doesnt. He always did like acting, and he got his wish: an actor paid to pretend to be king.

[Danny]

Jul 6, 2023 0:18:54 GMT expatr said:

Jul 5, 2023 21:48:54 GMT pete said:

No need to be brain washed Mr snide, it was  doing good until your mob got there dirty grifting hands on it.

This is correct.  There is a plausible argument that pound for pound the NHS was the highest performing health system in a major developed economy in 2010.  And a very strong argument that it was the most improved.  It is now a basketcase.

It really isnt a basket case. That is spin. It is adapting as it is designed to do to funding shortfall and staff shortages. Obviously that means reducing service levels and growing waiting lists because the waiting list is how it rations services.

As someone who has literally spent 30 years working in the administration of very different health systems across three continents, I am pretty convinced that, provided they are properly funded, universally available free (or nearly free) at the point of use services outperform other models, and those that are tax funded tend to be more efficient than those that are based on insurance schemes.  The paradoxical weakness of tax funded systems is that they are easier for governments to underfund.

That seems to be what all the independant health reports say too. It also incidentally seemed to apply to the GPO when it ran the Uk telephone network. Very effective but underfunded. It was always attacked because it took so long to get a phone installed, but that is exactly the same as the NHS. Waiting lists used to manage demand. British rail proved far more effective and cost effective than privatised rail. State owned water services did better. State owned energy was so effective it broke the unions, despite relying mostly on coal mined in the UK.

Governments do not like to admit they are setting the price point which determines who gets a treatment and who does not. Anyone dying because of NHS waiting lists needs to put the blame exactly where it belongs, on government policy.

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 5, 2023 21:38:04 GMT jib said:

RE @trevor's statement "Streeting is a Tory".

Please! Looking at his family history "Streeting was born in Stepney, London, on 21 January 1983. His parents were teenagers when he was born. He has five brothers, a sister and a stepsister. His maternal grandfather was an armed robber who spent time in prison, and his grandmother became embroiled in his crimes and ended up in Holloway jail, "

No Trevor, he's working class. He probably cares about other human beings outside politics..

Believing in reformed, effective public services doesn't make you a Tory. Believing that public services are fundamentally inefficient and are best made more efficient through austerity cuts does qualify one as a Tory boy, and a Knighthood too!

?!!? You can get Tories from working class backgrounds and people like Tony Benn who was a Socialist.

Perhaps try reading what Streeting has been saying about NHS 'reform'. 

Healthcare spending is going to need significant increases due to ageing population and new treatments/drugs. As I stated then I am reading between the lie-ns as no party is going to say they'll mess with 'our precious' (the NHS) in a GE manifesto. So when reform doesn't achieve miraculous savings then what will Reeves-Streeting do? Continue with the "money pit" approach and hike taxes or maybe chuck rich people out of the free queue? TBC but my guess is Streeting will prove to be more of a Tory (reducing the role of the state) than the CON artists that adopted the socialist approach of throwing money at something that is clearly broken.  

Wes Streeting says NHS must be reformed rather than 'pouring more money into hospitals'
www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/wes-streeting-says-nhs-must-29774455 

PS The Torygraph go a bit OTT in some areas but not their comment on the 'cult of the NHS'.
Thirteen years of Tory failure have shifted Britain radically to the Left
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/05/thirteen-years-of-tory-failure-shifted-britain-left/

[alec]

lens - "Rubbish!"

Rather than exert a knee jerk reaction against any efforts to contain covid transmission, I think it's more appropriate to look at the data. Yes, this article was written by someone who declared an interest in the development of apps, but it references independently verified data and makes other valid insights.

The three things I would suggest you think about in a bit more depth are firstly the point about centralized vs de-centralized contact tracing. I think this point is well made, and the line about how we were developing 21st century technology within a 20th century administrative framework was well made. Despite what PHE, NHS and Whitehall said, we don't need a centralised system, and a distributed network that keeps the contact data on the users own phones offers greater functionality, privacy, and security. I don't think you should dismiss that point quite so emphatically.

Second, the author is criticising the fact that governments and the WHO have dumped phone app tracing from their future pandemic planning, and calls for the learning from this exercise to be developed. I would have though we could all agree that this is a good suggestion.

Finally, the data. Reference 10 covers this. They estimate that the number who test positive after receiving an exposure notification (TPAEN) was around 5 - 7% as a lower bound, with PHE estimating at that time the number of positive cases was around 1.5 - 3 times higher than those captured by confirmed tests. This suggests something like 8 - 21% of pings were valid. That's potentially very good, if it's nearer the 1 in 5 level, but certainly room for improvement.

Reference 10 also found that there were 2,138,000 notified cases leading to 7,005,000 alerts, so 3.28 pings per confirmed case. That's pretty low, and given that the ref 10 authors also estimate (using the lower bound TPAEN mind) that 1m cases were averted from those 7m pings, I'd say that's very promising indeed.

So I don't think the data backs up your rather angry dismissal of the original article, although I would agree that we need to be careful in how we assess claims made by those who could be perceived to have a vested interest, which is exactly what I did before making the original post.

Bottom line here is that we are going to face many more pandemics, and we need every tool in the box. Phone apps are a tool we are going to need, and I think it's a big mistake to abandon these.

[Danny]

Chairman of Shell says their policy has changed to increasing oil and gas production. He argues reducing production would be dangerous for the world. Oh, and they are thinking of moving their headquarters to the US. Not yet seriously, but thinking. Also pulling out of the north sea.

He is of course right that although states have set targets to switch to renewables energy, they have done very little to bring it about. The plan has been to create a shortage of fossil fuels, push up prices, and therefore force a change. meanwhile the UK has a government which has in effect banned new land based wind turbines, and is happy to see a ten year waiting list to get them connected to the national grid. And we have abandoned the drive to install insulation, which actually is a cornerstone of switching to renewables home heating, aside from saving fossil fuels until you do.

[crossbat11]

Jul 6, 2023 6:22:29 GMT jimjam said:

Don't think think this from Survation was posted:

The R&W may have been at the edge of Moe but the current SNP lead over Lab for Westminster Elections does appear to be 5% or lower.


''
NEW Scotland Polling

Westminster Voting Intention:

SNP 37% (-1)
LAB 34% (+2)
CON 17% (-1)
LD 9% (nc)
OTH 4% (nc)

F/w 23rd - 28th June. Changes vs. 27th April - 3 May.

⁦@vasilsurvation⁩ investigates the findings. survation.com/scots-keen-on-… pic.twitter.com/rxcZ9XsZSx''

I know some of Labour's resurgence in Scotland can be put down, as political revivals of all sorts usually are, wherever they occur, to the mishaps and pratfalls of their political adversaries, but I wonder if we should also recognise the effective hand that Anas Sarwar, the SLP leader is playing in all of this. He seems to be finding the net with the open goals being presented to him, unlike his predecessors who tended to fire over the bar. Admittedly, when Salmond and Sturgeon were in their pomp, fewer open goals were offered up so willingly. Still, they have to be converted however easy the tap-ins.

I pose the same rhetorical question about Starmer and Labour's revival across the UK since 2021. It is easy, and a bit trite too, to put this down almost entirely to the travails and inadequacies of the incumbents. Of course that's a factor, but it would be both curmudgeonly and a little unfair to deny Starmer any credit for the improvement in Labour's position and electoral prospects.

His steadily improving personal approval ratings, and recent consistent besting of Sunak as preferred PM, can't all be put down to luck and credit earned by default, as much as his sceptics wish that to be so.

I see a politician, more plodder than showman admittedly, navigating his way along a treacherous road quite adroitly.

As is nearly always the case with these things, from my experience anyway, when you escape the claustrophobic confines of political hothouses, you find the public take surprisingly different views. Put another way, voters devoid of fairly pickled political views think more freely and objectively about such matters. Unencumbered as they are by thoughts of betrayal and ideological infidelity, their perspectives on politics differ.

These people are called the electorate though, and the clue to what their role is in deciding who governs us is in the title.

[domjg]

Jul 5, 2023 23:33:13 GMT mercian said:

Jul 5, 2023 22:38:59 GMT domjg said:

He's the ceremonial head of state of the United Kingdom not their king or anyone's king.It's perfectly rational in 2023 to object to him fulfilling that role and not to revere him or have any emotional attachment to him or to the institution he represents. Feeling some kind of fealty and deference to an aged man you've never met seems more reflective of non reality to me.

He's the king of the UK, Australia and various other places. I understand that some people don't like that, and there is no obligation to show deference or to revere him or have any emotional attachment. I don't have a great deal myself. But it is a fact that he is our king. The clue is in the name. This is part of his title as announced at his mother's funeral:
"Charles III, now, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King,"

Denying facts seems to be the latest fashion. e.g. flat earthers and people thinking that they magically change sex by dressing up. 

He's nothing but a constitutional figurehead, a tool, nothing like the 'divine right' kings of centuries ago who demanded fealty. We're citizens not subjects (still). If I decide he's 'not my king' then he isn't. 

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 5, 2023 22:17:20 GMT mercian said:

Jul 5, 2023 18:01:47 GMT pjw1961 said:

If only that were true!

Mind you the Torygraph probably thinks Sunak is a socialist. 

Isn't he? All those free handouts during Covid and the fuel price increases (help with energy costs)?

I'm guessing you meant help with energy costs as Hunt froze fuel duty?

'Red Rishi' continued the 'cult of the NHS' where a CON HMG is throwing money at something that is clearly broken (which is a socialist approach) rather than reducing the role of the state (which would be a Tory approach)

NewLAB threw a lot of money at the NHS but Blair inherited the NICE decade. Since 2021 then CON have adopted the 'throw money at it' approach (see: "Changes in health spending per capita, adjusted for demographic changes" in link below) 🤦‍♂️

www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-past-present-and-future-of-government-spending-on-the-nhs

Starmer-Reeves-Streeting are unlikely to have a NICE decade where Reeves can adopt the Brown approach of throwing money around and paying for stuff with off-balance sheet PFI. They will have a simples choice. Throw a lot more money at the 'precious' OR fix something that is very clearly broken.

Bevan is dead so we've no idea what he'd do in the modern era where people live longer and we have new/expensive treatments+drugs. Probably whack up taxes to pay for it and maybe Starmer-LAB do that, although my guess/hope is that they use a large majority (purged from Socialists) and 'grasp the nettle' by 'rightsizing' the NHS to something affordable via general taxation (with those who can afford to pay more chucked out of the 'free' queue)

[graham]

8 week suspension recommended for Pincher.

[neilj]

'Chris Pincher MP is facing a suspension from the House of Commons for eight weeks after a report into groping claims against him.'

Can't see him fighting it so by-election almost certain
From ElectionMapsUK
Vote Share within the Tamworth Constituency in the 2023 Local Elections:

🌳 CON: 38.9%
🌹 LAB: 38.6%
🧑 IND: 17.0%
🔶 LDM: 3.2%
🌍 GRN: 1.0%
💷 UKIP: 0.8%
➡️ RFM: 0.4%

*2 Wards are split between constituencies so results for those have been estimated.

[Rafwan]

Jul 5, 2023 11:12:59 GMT crossbat11 said:

Jul 5, 2023 9:06:16 GMT Rafwan said:

So two-thirds of voters want a congestion charge and one-third don’t, and the ‘don’t’ group ‘wins’ the representative? That brings a whole new meaning to “imperfect”.

And sorry, PJ, don’t see what there is to ‘agree’ with at all. Nor do I understand why ‘national’ politics will somehow be invulnerable to such aberration.

You'll have to translate your last paragraph, I'm afraid. I've read it a number of times and, quite simply, don't really understand a word of it .

Makes perfect sense to me! So I guess it is simply one more sign in the growing mountain of evidence that I am, in fact, going doolally ... . I have been expecting this for a while.

[neilj]

Tamworth 2019 election
Conservative 66.3
Labour 23.7
Libdem 3.2

Very clear Labour is the ABT vote

[crossbat11]

Jul 6, 2023 8:20:30 GMT Rafwan said:

Jul 5, 2023 11:12:59 GMT crossbat11 said:

You'll have to translate your last paragraph, I'm afraid. I've read it a number of times and, quite simply, don't really understand a word of it .

Makes perfect sense to me! So I guess it is simply one more sign in the growing mountain of evidence that I am, in fact, going doolally ... . I have been expecting this for a while.

Fear not, it could be down to me and your cryptic words and thoughts are beyond my limited ken.

I knew a Ken once and, thinking about it, he was very limited in a number of respects.

[steve]

Brexitanians why aren't you out there picking crops?

youtu.be/ZGHM1t65hJc

[athena]

Jul 5, 2023 8:37:19 GMT pjw1961 said:

I don't think you can blame the Blair government - the problem was that people didn't want England broken up. The poll in the North East - considered the region most likely to back it - was 78% against.

I have already recognised that my opinion might be a minority one and I stand by it. People in England weren't given the opportunity to vote for a federal structure - nor were Scotland and Wales, for that matter. The Blair government's attempts at devolution were piecemeal - an ad hoc, temporary solution to discontent with a distant, overweening central government, not a coherent programme of constitutional reform - and we're paying the price now, in various ways.

My parents were living in the NE at the time of that referendum and it was not presented as the first step towards a federation - quite a lot of people saw the proposals as a way of making them even more cut off from the centre of power than they already were. Nor did they much care to be treated as guinea pigs.

Referenda on regional assemblies were presented as a sop to John Prescott (cf. the AV referendum), whose image was that of Blair's tame working class idiot (I've no idea whether that was Blair's doing or not). The lack of commitment at the very top of government was also clear from the limited powers that the regional assemblies were to be offered - they fell far short of those of the Scottish parliament and Welsh Assembly and this helped opponents to present the proposed assembly as just another layer of useless bureaucracy.

It's also worth noting that if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, devolution puddings have proved very tasty. For example, the referendum on the establishment of the Welsh Assembly passed by a very narrow majority, but now that they've experienced it in operation very few Welsh residents would want to go back to the status quo ante.

[crossbat11]

There is a breed of dog called Pinscher and, according to my dog eared edition of the Crufts Manual (1957 Edition), its character is defined as "clever, playful, independent and friendly".

Maybe this is what Johnson saw in Pincher ( the English spelling of the breed) all along. Sadly the playful part of his personality appears to have rather trumped its other more endearing character traits.

There is also a rare new breed of dog called a Ukrainian Truss, I believe. My Crufts Manual doesn't include this new arrival into the canine world, I'm afraid, although I believe it is a rather exotic cross-breed of a bulldog and a poodle.

[steve]

Stand up who thinks they'll retain their seat?



Attachment Deleted

[neilj]

Joined Threads Meta, not because I like Meta but because I dislike Musk more
As of 2 hours to go they had 10 million signed up
Still a while to go before they overtake Twitter, but wouldn't be surprised if they did

[athena]

Jul 5, 2023 8:37:19 GMT pjw1961 said:

To me the obvious problem with our current constitutional arrangements is the lack of an English parliament. This results in Westminster being a de facto English parliament rather than a UK parliament (due to population) and creates all sorts of problems and resentments on all sides.  If England, like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, had its own parliament elected by a form of proportional representation (I would prefer STV) and Westminster was a much smaller entity dealing with only UK issues (defence, some foreign affairs, etc.) most of the grievances would be addressed. I would have the small Westminster parliament indirectly appointed from the 4 elected national assemblies to avoid the need for another set of elections.  

The obvious objection to an English parliament is that it would do nothing to address the problem of overcentralisation which affects the English regions. I live in Yorkshire and I'm fed up of being governed from Westminster (or wherever else you put an English parliament).

As far as a putative British federation goes, I don't think it would be viable to have it dominated by one member, which would be hard to avoid if it consisted of England, Scotland, Wales and NI. In any forum involving all the state premiers the English premier would expect his/her voice to carry the greatest weight - perhaps almost as much as that of the Federal PM/president. Using majority decision-making would be contentious (because England could be outvoted despite its dominance by population size). It would make it very difficult to have a second chamber in which all the states had equal representation.

As an aside, your proposal for an English parliament doesn't sound so very different from EVEL, which I think originated with Hague, way back when Scottish and Welsh devolution were introduced.

[neilj]

I would support a Parliament for England, I wouldn't support Regional Government in England
I would also argue that whatever system was introduced they should have exactly the same powers and responsibilities as other constituent countries
This would also mean increasing the powers of Wales and Northern Ireland in line with Scotland

[steve]

Chris Pincher should be suspended from Commons for 8 weeks over 'grave' sexual misconduct, report says
Chris Pincher, the former Tory deputy chief whip, should be suspended from the Commons for eight weeks, the Commons standards committee has said.

If the serial sex pest doesn't resign and a vote on the recommendations occurs anyone like to hazard a guess what excuse Sunakered will have for not being there?

Waiting for a helicopter from number 10?
Opening the summer fete at pratts bottom?
Attending the AGM of the manhole covers appreciation society with Jeremy Corbyn?

[steve]

The Liberal Democrats are challenging Rishi Sunak to actually vote for the suspension of Chris Pincher. In a reference to Sunak missing the votes on suspending Owen Paterson and notionally suspending Boris Johnson (he had quit the Commons already by the time his suspension was proposed), which came up in a testy exchange at the privileges committee on Tuesday, Wendy Chamberlain, the Lib Dem chief whip, said:

Chris Pincher adds his name to the long list of disgraced former Conservatives caught up in sleaze and scandal.

After missing so many vital votes in parliament, Rishi Sunak must finally show some backbone and confirm he will vote to suspend Chris Pincher.

[Mr Poppy]

Jul 6, 2023 8:52:59 GMT athena said:

Jul 5, 2023 8:37:19 GMT pjw1961 said:

I don't think you can blame the Blair government - the problem was that people didn't want England broken up. The poll in the North East - considered the region most likely to back it - was 78% against.

I have already recognised that my opinion might be a minority one and I stand by it. People in England weren't given the opportunity to vote for a federal structure - nor were Scotland and Wales, for that matter. The Blair government's attempts at devolution were piecemeal - an ad hoc, temporary solution to discontent with a distant, overweening central government, not a coherent programme of constitutional reform - and we're paying the price now, in various ways.

My parents were living in the NE at the time of that referendum and it was not presented as the first step towards a federation - quite a lot of people saw the proposals as a way of making them even more cut off from the centre of power than they already were. Nor did they much care to be treated as guinea pigs.

Referenda on regional assemblies were presented as a sop to John Prescott (cf. the AV referendum), whose image was that of Blair's tame working class idiot (I've no idea whether that was Blair's doing or not). The lack of commitment at the very top of government was also clear from the limited powers that the regional assemblies were to be offered - they fell far short of those of the Scottish parliament and Welsh Assembly and this helped opponents to present the proposed assembly as just another layer of useless bureaucracy.

It's also worth noting that if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, devolution puddings have proved very tasty. For example, the referendum on the establishment of the Welsh Assembly passed by a very narrow majority, but now that they've experienced it in operation very few Welsh residents would want to go back to the status quo ante.

Firstly, I agree the current system is a mess.

However, might I ask if you would propose to remove "unnecessary" layers in a regional assembly model for English regions?

EG Pudsey, Leeds, W.Yorkshire. Pudsey being a market town between Bradford and Leeds

Currently:
1/ Municipal Borough of Pudsey
2/ Leeds City Council and a Mayor for Leeds (Councillor Al Garthwaite)
3/ Leeds City Region (Not to be confused with Leeds or City of Leeds) which morphed into West Yorkshire Combined Authority and has a Mayor (Tracy Brabin)

Would you propose to scrap some/all of those and instead have a 'Yorkshire and the Humber' Regional Assembly covering the area defined by arbitrary lines drawn on a map to define the region of 'Yorkshire and the Humber'? 

Scotland, Wales and NI have clear borders (although the last one is somewhat divisive). The 'regions' within England are quite arbitrary and combine cities with rural or coastal areas that have very different issues.

FWIW then I'd be quite happy to scrap all the layers of unnecessary 'local' government chez nous and be part of a SEAL IT region (South East, Anglia, London Independent Territory) with devolved tax+spend powers, outwith the Barnett Formula (as we're a massive net contributor to the 'throwing money' aspect of national devolution). Quite happy to use the existing arbitrary lines on the map or chop out a few of the shitty* bits that East.Midlands (or the rebirth of Mercia) can have   

* To be specific then in breaking up the "unnecessary" layer of "Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority" then Mercia can have Peterborough (for free!)
cambridgeshirepeterborough-ca.gov.uk

[steve]

Where's Rishi?
Attachment Deleted

[steve]

Blair had the rallying cry of education,education,education after nearly two decades of Tory underfunding.
Starmer says let's have debating classes!

Where are the big ideas?

#abitlessshitthantheTories

[domjg]

Jul 6, 2023 8:52:59 GMT athena said:

Jul 5, 2023 8:37:19 GMT pjw1961 said:

I don't think you can blame the Blair government - the problem was that people didn't want England broken up. The poll in the North East - considered the region most likely to back it - was 78% against.

I have already recognised that my opinion might be a minority one and I stand by it. People in England weren't given the opportunity to vote for a federal structure - nor were Scotland and Wales, for that matter. The Blair government's attempts at devolution were piecemeal - an ad hoc, temporary solution to discontent with a distant, overweening central government, not a coherent programme of constitutional reform - and we're paying the price now, in various ways.

My parents were living in the NE at the time of that referendum and it was not presented as the first step towards a federation - quite a lot of people saw the proposals as a way of making them even more cut off from the centre of power than they already were. Nor did they much care to be treated as guinea pigs.

Referenda on regional assemblies were presented as a sop to John Prescott (cf. the AV referendum), whose image was that of Blair's tame working class idiot (I've no idea whether that was Blair's doing or not). The lack of commitment at the very top of government was also clear from the limited powers that the regional assemblies were to be offered - they fell far short of those of the Scottish parliament and Welsh Assembly and this helped opponents to present the proposed assembly as just another layer of useless bureaucracy.

It's also worth noting that if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, devolution puddings have proved very tasty. For example, the referendum on the establishment of the Welsh Assembly passed by a very narrow majority, but now that they've experienced it in operation very few Welsh residents would want to go back to the status quo ante.

Federalism works best in states with a strong history and tradition of regional self government like Germany. It's hard to impose it on an arbitrary region with no history of that level of self government. I can imagine that trying to set up a federal system in France which has such a tradition of centralisation would be equally if not more difficult.