|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 6, 2023 15:15:03 GMT
You only need two levels: Regional government and Local government, reflecting the old County Council/District Council split across most of England. In London it is the GLA (which would have to be expanded to handle its new powers) and the Boroughs. Your SEAL is just fudge. Happy to agree that a load of the middle layers should be scrapped but in a separate reply* you state
"There are other natural units for a federal system including Cornwall, although for much of England it is difficult to draw natural borders"Cornwall has a population of <600,000 people. London is nudging 10million people and the somewhat arbitrary borders around "London" have a huge amount of 'movement' (ie above average income tax paying individuals commuting in to corporate HQs in London). How would you split out the tax powers between the arbitrary region of almost 10million people known as "London" and the surrounding arbitrary commuter regions (of SE England and Anglia)? Compare the states in the Federal Republic of Germany. Bremen is the smallest with a population of 680,130 in 2020.(1) In the same year, the population of the most populous state, North Rhine-Westphalia was 17,925,570. So are you telling me that Germany cannot work as a Federal State? (1) If you don't like me using the city-state of Bremen, then Saarland has a population of 983,991 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_Germany |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 6, 2023 15:25:36 GMT
In other polling news then perhaps Starmer has discovered the most important issue that is right at the top of people's concern? Those geniuses at LAB HQ have their fingers on the pulse and picked a sure fire winner... As he keeps telling us then Starmer's dad was a tool maker and if anyone is up for a vacuous cliche speech that ignores stuff like it was NewLABv1 that set 50% target for people to go to Uni (which IMO was a major factor in the public's "attitude towards vocational education"), then..
Keir Starmer unveils Labour’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity at every stagelabour.org.uk/press/keir-starmer-unveils-labours-mission-to-break-down-barriers-to-opportunity-at-every-stage/Rishi is pushing maths skills and Starmer is pushing 'Oracy' and creative arts in a review of the national curriculum - he even gives a shout out to Goke. 🤦♂️ |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 6, 2023 15:39:01 GMT
Happy to agree that a load of the middle layers should be scrapped but in a separate reply* you state
"There are other natural units for a federal system including Cornwall, although for much of England it is difficult to draw natural borders"Cornwall has a population of <600,000 people. London is nudging 10million people and the somewhat arbitrary borders around "London" have a huge amount of 'movement' (ie above average income tax paying individuals commuting in to corporate HQs in London). How would you split out the tax powers between the arbitrary region of almost 10million people known as "London" and the surrounding arbitrary commuter regions (of SE England and Anglia)?Compare the states in the Federal Republic of Germany. Bremen is the smallest with a population of 680,130 in 2020.(1) In the same year, the population of the most populous state, North Rhine-Westphalia was 17,925,570. So are you telling me that Germany cannot work as a Federal State? (1) If you don't like me using the city-state of Bremen, then Saarland has a population of 983,991 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_Germany?!?! You were trying to tell me that SEAL (in a comment with a  ) couldn't work as a Federal State within UK - which I guessed (wrongly?) was to do with its size. Cornwall has 'existed' for a long time with the natural border of the river Tamar and has a Level2 devolution deal*. Would you scrap that and dump Cornwall in with a SW region? The German state system has existed for a long time. It is not the size of the individual states that matters (although I can see why you thought that was what I meant - given that was the 'can't be done' reason I thought you meant about SEAL being too big). The simples reason most countries stick with whatever devolved set-up they currently have is: 'if ain't broken, don't fix it'As you yourself stated: "for much of England it is difficult to draw natural borders"Very happy to agree with you and hence why I think it would be daft to try to put arbitrary borders in place to create English Regional Assemblies. More importantly then the very limited polling on the matter (which itself suggests few people care) shows that few people outside of Scotland/Wales/NI care about devolution. I doubt many people in Germany want to change their system just for the sake of changing what they currently have. I assume you have no intention on answering the question about how you'd split out the tax powers for arbitrary regions. Drakeford seems to pretend he doesn't have devolved powers to hike Welsh income tax. My inspired guess being that, unlike the Scottish side of Scotland/England border, a lot of working people live just inside the Welsh side of the Wales/England border and Drakeford isn't an idiot. TBC what comrade Khan would do if he was given more tax raising powers in the current arbitrary English polity of Greater London Authority - my guess being he'd use them as extensively as Drakeford has (ie pretend they don't exist). * www.cornwall.gov.uk/people-and-communities/2022-cornwall-devolution-deal/PS What is amusing/hypocritical is that some people who like the EU ('ever closer union') seem to think England/UK needs to move in the opposite direction. IMO there is a lot more important stuff that our elected HMG/HoC need to be spending their time on and polling certainly suggests stuff like Economy, Healthcare, Immigration are very important but if LAB wants to find something to waste it's time on when it gets into power then fine.. tinker with devolution. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 6, 2023 16:05:32 GMT
Compare the states in the Federal Republic of Germany. Bremen is the smallest with a population of 680,130 in 2020.(1) In the same year, the population of the most populous state, North Rhine-Westphalia was 17,925,570. So are you telling me that Germany cannot work as a Federal State? (1) If you don't like me using the city-state of Bremen, then Saarland has a population of 983,991 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_Germany?!?! You were trying to tell me that SEAL (in a comment with a ) couldn't work as a Federal State within UK - which I guessed (wrongly?) was to do with its size. Cornwall has 'existed' for a long time with the natural border of the river Tamar and has a Level2 devolution deal*. Would you scrap that and dump Cornwall in with a SW region? The German state system has existed for a long time. It is not the size of the individual states that matters (although I can see why you thought that was what I meant - given that was the 'can't be done' reason I thought you meant about SEAL being too big) it is as simples as 'if ain't broken, don't fix it' As you yourself stated: "for much of England it is difficult to draw natural borders"Very happy to agree with you and hence why I think it would be daft to try to put arbitrary borders in place to create English Regional Assemblies. More importantly then the very limited polling on the matter (which itself suggests few people care) shows that few people outside of Scotland/Wales/NI care about devolution. I doubt many people in Germany want to change their system just for the sake of changing what they currently have. I assume you have no intention on answering the question about how you'd split out the tax powers for arbitrary regions. Drakeford seems to pretend he doesn't have devolved powers to hike Welsh income tax. My inspired guess being that, unlike the Scottish side of Scotland/England border, a lot of working people live just inside the Welsh side of the Wales/England border and Drakeford isn't an idiot. TBC what comrade Khan would do if he was given more tax raising powers in the current arbitrary English polity of Greater London Authority - my guess being he'd use them as extensively as Drakeford has (ie pretend they don't exist). * www.cornwall.gov.uk/people-and-communities/2022-cornwall-devolution-deal/You need a Barnett-formula approach to taxation. As it's been in place for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for almost 50 years, there's no reason not to use it for English regions. As for locally-raised taxation Khan increased his mayoral precept by 10% this year, way above the overall increase in Council tax here, and he is using ULEZ expansion to get more money from Outer London (but now even Starmer is opposing him) www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/06/rishi-sunak-news-live-starmer-speech-labour-tories-latest/A Labour split over the expansion of the Ulez scheme in outer London has worsened after Sir Keir Starmer backed the party’s candidate in the Uxbridge by-election who said it should be delayed.
Danny Beales said it was “not the right time to extend Ulez in outer London” in a direct challenge to Sadiq Khan, the Labour Mayor of London, who is rolling out the policy.
Sir Keir was asked today if he agreed with Mr Beales and he said the party’s candidate was “right” to “stick up” for his would-be constituents.
He said: “Danny Beales is our candidate in Uxbridge, very good candidate too, and he is rightly raising concern on behalf of what he hopes will be his constituents in relation to Ulez because we all understand the impact it has financially. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 6, 2023 16:24:36 GMT
You need a Barnett-formula approach to taxation. As it's been in place for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for almost 50 years, there's no reason not to use it for English regions.... We're talking at crossed purposes. IMO the Barnett formula should be scrapped and the devolved nations start using the tax raising powers they've been given (as Scotland has started to do) and be given more rope if needed so they are not propped up by English taxpayers. I have NFI, make that ANFIW, in splitting up England (although if we did then I'd be OK with SEAL IT provided that was outwith Barnett Formula - as I stated before you started wasting my time) Drakeford pretends they don't exist but:
The Wales Act 2014 and Wales Act 2017 devolved taxation and borrowing powers to the Welsh Government and National Assembly for Wales.
www.gov.wales/welsh-taxes#I'm aware councils can raise council tax (or similar such taxes) within England's existing mish-mash of polities and whilst the current mish-mash is not ideal then our elected HMG and HoC have much better things to do than fix something that is messy, but not broken (as I stated before you started wasting my time) PS Starmer being opposed to ULEZ expansion is yet more evidence that Starmer is a Tory. I'm to the left and 'green' of Starmer-LAB and agree with comrade Khan WRT to expanding the ULEZ (as I have stated before). I'd extend it across the whole of England using a more sophisticated approach (which I've covered before and can't be bothered covering again). Maybe with a large majority then Starmer can 'remember' he's supposed to be 'green' and that we have to raise more tax from somewhere and taxing fossil fuel car pollution is a #nobrainer IMO. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 6, 2023 16:29:21 GMT
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. Hague wasn't proposing an English parliament nor proportional representation, just English MP only votes in an unreformed Westminster, so nothing like my idea. My answer to the question of balancing the remnant Westminster by size is that I am giving it the absolute minimum to do, mainly foreign policy and defence, which traditionally have not tended to be that party politically controversial, apart from a few people on the far left of Labour (see current cross-party support for Ukraine and NATO for example). Therefore the chance of anyone feeling too oppressed by anything it does is slim. Personally I would be happy if the 4 nations had equal representation, but that might be a bridge too far for many. The House of Lords would be abolished of course and the Westminster parliament wouldn't need to be much more that 10-15% of its current size. After all, legislation at that level would scarcely be needed. Most of what Westminster currently does would be decided by the national parliaments - so the English parliament would decide English policy on education, social security, transport, etc., as the Scottish one would for Scotland and so on. Basically, a true federal system. (None of this is going to happen of course. We would probably have to lose a war to get change on this scale). |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 6, 2023 16:31:38 GMT
You need a Barnett-formula approach to taxation. As it's been in place for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for almost 50 years, there's no reason not to use it for English regions.... We're talking at crossed purposes. IMO the Barnett formula should be scrapped and the devolved nations start using the tax raising powers they've been given (as Scotland has started to do) and be given more rope if needed so they are not propped up by English taxpayers. I have NFI, make that ANFIW, in splitting up England (although if we did then I'd be OK with SEAL IT provided that was outwith Barnett Formula - as I stated before you started wasting my time) Drakeford pretends they don't exist but:
The Wales Act 2014 and Wales Act 2017 devolved taxation and borrowing powers to the Welsh Government and National Assembly for Wales.
www.gov.wales/welsh-taxes#I'm aware councils can raise council tax (or similar such taxes) within England's existing mish-mash of polities and whilst the current mish-mash is not ideal then our elected HMG and HoC have much better things to do than fix something that is messy, but not broken (as I stated before you started wasting my time) You cannot do away with transfers from richer areas to poorer areas and it would be entirely wrong to do so. Your position is so right-wing that even the present Tory government won't go that far. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 6, 2023 16:39:43 GMT
We're talking at crossed purposes. IMO the Barnett formula should be scrapped and the devolved nations start using the tax raising powers they've been given (as Scotland has started to do) and be given more rope if needed so they are not propped up by English taxpayers. I have NFI, make that ANFIW, in splitting up England (although if we did then I'd be OK with SEAL IT provided that was outwith Barnett Formula - as I stated before you started wasting my time) Drakeford pretends they don't exist but:
The Wales Act 2014 and Wales Act 2017 devolved taxation and borrowing powers to the Welsh Government and National Assembly for Wales.
www.gov.wales/welsh-taxes#I'm aware councils can raise council tax (or similar such taxes) within England's existing mish-mash of polities and whilst the current mish-mash is not ideal then our elected HMG and HoC have much better things to do than fix something that is messy, but not broken (as I stated before you started wasting my time) Your position is so right-wing that even the present Tory government won't go that far. Take that up with LoC NATS who want to break away from UK. Of course we can stop transferring ££ from England to Scotland/Wales/NI which is what would happen if any of those broke away from UK. The main point of giving Scotland and Wales more tax raising powers was IMO to stop them sponging off English taxpayers and blaming Westminster for not having enough money for X,Y,Z. Sadly, we haven't yet scrapped the Barnett Formula so the devolved nations can fully stand on their own two feet - but hopefully one day. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Jul 6, 2023 16:47:40 GMT
Compare the states in the Federal Republic of Germany. Germany of course has only been one united country for 150 years. England for very much longer and it didnt unite its constituent nation by mutual agreement but conquest. If anything german states have more identity than Scotland, having been independent much longer. Although England has always acted more as conqueror than equal partner to Scotland. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Jul 6, 2023 16:50:45 GMT
You cannot do away with transfers from richer areas to poorer areas and it would be entirely wrong to do so. Your position is so right-wing that even the present Tory government won't go that far. Plus the fact that London is subsidising the tory shire counties, not just Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 6, 2023 17:47:18 GMT
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. Depleted uranium bullets would be better, the Army has a supply of materials for those (depleted uranium is almost pure U-238). Lead as the end-point of radioactive decay chains isn't naturally radioactive itself (which is why it is used to shield sensitive radiation detectors). I'm sure you're right. I was just trying to think of the two most polluting things I could. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 6, 2023 17:51:16 GMT
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. , which although geographically in London does not represent London's views. I would be quite happy with Yorkshire as an equal partner in a federal system if I could have London as one of the partners. London voted Remain in 2016 (I still have my Britain Stronger In Europe T-shirt from the campaign). There are other natural units for a federal system including Cornwall, although for much of England it is difficult to draw natural borders. Mercia controlled London 'back in the day' (that's to annoy the fecklemeister 😁) but I don't think we'd want it now. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 6, 2023 17:51:22 GMT
Compare the states in the Federal Republic of Germany. Germany of course has only been one united country for 150 years. England for very much longer and it didnt unite its constituent nation by mutual agreement but conquest. If anything german states have more identity than Scotland, having been independent much longer. Although England has always acted more as conqueror than equal partner to Scotland. I don't think that is true. Scotland did very well out of the Empire (or at least its upper and middle classes did, much as in England) and was content enough with its role as junior partner in that vast money making scheme. The voting patterns in Scotland and England didn't become materially different until the 1960s, which is when the discontent with the union gets going in a significant way, additionally stoked by the development of the North Sea oil fields which seemed to offer a credible economic case for Scotland as a stand-alone entity and then turbo-charged by the Thatcher regime which Scotland never voted for (mind you, nor did Wales or swathes of northern England) and which had a distinct air of English middle class egotistical satisfaction about it that grated with many. Using Scotland as test bed for the disastrous poll tax probably did look and feel like a colonial regime at work. Labour's attempted fix of devolution then gave a forum for the development of a specifically Scottish politics, to the benefit of the SNP. But I would argue this is all relatively recent - last 55 years at most. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 6, 2023 17:57:36 GMT
I live in London and I'm fed up of being governed from Westminster too, which although geographically in London does not represent London's views. I would be quite happy with Yorkshire as an equal partner in a federal system if I could have London as one of the partners. London voted Remain in 2016 (I still have my Britain Stronger In Europe T-shirt from the campaign). There are other natural units for a federal system including Cornwall, although for much of England it is difficult to draw natural borders. Mercia controlled London back in the day (that's to annoy the fecklemeister 😁) but I don't think we'd want it now. Actually it was controlled by Essex most of the time, albeit it was a rather unimportant place in that era. If you google 'heptarchy' you will see the maps typically show London north of the Thames as part of Essex - here for example: www.robertsewell.ca/heptarchy.html |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 6, 2023 18:11:10 GMT
I live in London and I'm fed up of being governed from Westminster too, which although geographically in London does not represent London's views. I would be quite happy with Yorkshire as an equal partner in a federal system if I could have London as one of the partners. London voted Remain in 2016 (I still have my Britain Stronger In Europe T-shirt from the campaign). There are other natural units for a federal system including Cornwall, although for much of England it is difficult to draw natural borders. Mercia controlled London back in the day (that's to annoy the fecklemeister 😁) but I don't think we'd want it now. London changed hands a few times. Those pesky Danes had it for quite a while. I'd be happy to take London (and SE) into Anglia, back to the glory days of the mighty Kingdom of Essex c500-664 AD* See Fig10 in attached: Net fiscal balance per head (where -ve => a surplus) London : -£4.3k SE: -£1.5k Anglia (aka East of England on the arbitrary lines drawn on current map of UK): +£0.4k (which is pretty close to zero) England average: +£1.1k (ie deficit) UK average: +£1.8k (ie even bigger deficit) You Mericans are welcome to rUK - good luck with the Welsh and Scots (and maybe give NI back to Ireland as they're an expensive bit of hassle you could do without IMO) www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/countryandregionalpublicsectorfinances/financialyearending2022#net-fiscal-balanceOh and * www.britannica.com/place/Essex-Anglo-Saxon-kingdom-England#:~:text=Essex%2C%20one%20of%20the%20kingdoms,London%20was%20its%20chief%20town. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 6, 2023 18:12:44 GMT
pjw1961I was aware of that. London changed hands quite a few times. It was part of Wessex for a while. It's not clear exactly who controls London from this map, but it's clear that Mercia extended well into the south-east for a time. Anyway it was just a light-hearted response to the claim that there are few natural regional borders in England.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 6, 2023 18:39:27 GMT
Germany of course has only been one united country for 150 years. England for very much longer and it didnt unite its constituent nation by mutual agreement but conquest. If anything german states have more identity than Scotland, having been independent much longer. Although England has always acted more as conqueror than equal partner to Scotland. I don't think that is true. Scotland did very well out of the Empire (or at least its upper and middle classes did, much as in England) and was content enough with its role as junior partner in that vast money making scheme. The voting patterns in Scotland and England didn't become materially different until the 1960s, which is when the discontent with the union gets going in a significant way, additionally stoked by the development of the North Sea oil fields which seemed to offer a credible economic case for Scotland as a stand-alone entity and then turbo-charged by the Thatcher regime which Scotland never voted for (mind you, nor did Wales or swathes of northern England) and which had a distinct air of English middle class egotistical satisfaction about it that grated with many. Using Scotland as test bed for the disastrous poll tax probably did look and feel like a colonial regime at work. Labour's attempted fix of devolution then gave a forum for the development of a specifically Scottish politics, to the benefit of the SNP. But I would argue this is all relatively recent - last 55 years at most. Scotland did begin to swing against the Tories in 1959 when Labour made four gains there against the national tide. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 6, 2023 19:10:43 GMT
pjw1961 I was aware of that. London changed hands quite a few times. It was part of Wessex for a while. It's not clear exactly who controls London from this map, but it's clear that Mercia extended well into the south-east for a time. Anyway it was just a light-hearted response to the claim that there are few natural regional borders in England. Don't worry, when I start talking about the heptarchy I'm not being terribly serious either. On the basis of that map I posted, England needs to be asking for Edinburgh back  |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jul 6, 2023 19:39:22 GMT
pjw1961 I was aware of that. London changed hands quite a few times. It was part of Wessex for a while. It's not clear exactly who controls London from this map, but it's clear that Mercia extended well into the south-east for a time. Anyway it was just a light-hearted response to the claim that there are few natural regional borders in England. London was the only substantial urban centre in the early Anglo-Saxon period with its role as a key port connecting to Europe. So it was controlled by whoever was the main power - initially East Anglia, but mainly Mercia. Wessex didn't get that far east until after the Danish invasions. |
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jul 6, 2023 19:40:27 GMT
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. So gradualism would be a virtue? Perhaps I shouldn't dismiss the option of adding regional governments without the seismic upheaval of producing a codified constitution and formalising federation. After all, although the Westminster parliament could theoretically unwind Scottish and Welsh devolution, in practice I think the possibility can be dismissed. During the lengthy transition we'd be stuck with an expensive, over-sized Westminster parliament gradually doing less and less, but I suppose periodic boundary reviews could largely take care of that. As to the extra constitutional fudge, we already live with plenty - we'd just have to hope a bit more wouldn't prove as catastrophic as the legendary wafer thin mint. Inching gradually towards formal federation would also have the incidental advantage of embedding names for the regions (states-to-be), thus reducing kerfuffle over names when we did finally formalise federation. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 6, 2023 19:44:31 GMT
leftieliberal mentioned the ULEZ as an issue in the U+SR by-election. You can get very good odds on CON winning but the fact that Sir Keith Stalin is selling out Comrade Khan to win one by-election is perhaps revealing about the type of person Starmer really is.
‘Don’t mention Boris’: How the Tories think they might just snatch an Uxbridge by-election wininews.co.uk/news/politics/dont-mention-boris-how-the-tories-think-they-might-just-snatch-an-uxbridge-by-election-win-2451518I personally approve of expanding the ULEZ but CON are at least consistent in saying it's a bad idea. Sir Keith Stalin can become a dictator for ELAB but he'll have issues with the natives in Wales, London and possibly the People's Socialist Republics of Manchester and Liverpool (where likes of comrade Burnham might one day hope to challenge for the West erosminster throne). He seems to have a puppet/muppet in Scotland but that is not my polity. "When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die"
Sir Keith is purging anyone/everyone within LAB who stands in his way to #10 and showing his Tory/climate denial colours in process but the resistance to Red Toryism might start in the bits that he can't purge as he helps a (soon to be) London MP go into open conflict with a key policy of comrade Khan. To undermine the current devolution system then one option is divide and rule at a lower level (ie give more powers to councils which strips powers from those who might have become a bit too big for their boots - which does include Holyrood). Kudos in advance if he pulls it off - lots of unnecessary layers of 'middle management' in UK governance and in Sir Keith Stalin we trust.
|
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jul 6, 2023 19:46:02 GMT
I live in London and I'm fed up of being governed from Westminster too, which although geographically in London does not represent London's views. I would be quite happy with Yorkshire as an equal partner in a federal system if I could have London as one of the partners. London voted Remain in 2016 (I still have my Britain Stronger In Europe T-shirt from the campaign). There are other natural units for a federal system including Cornwall, although for much of England it is difficult to draw natural borders. I think it would make a lot of sense to have London (Greater London?) as one of the units in a British federation - it's plenty big enough in terms of population, has distinct cultural and commercial identities and would dominate any other state it was included in. I'm never sure how real the 'natural boundary' problem would be, in practice. I'm sure some people would get very exercised if England ceased to be a unit of governance, by mismatches between regional identity and political region/state boundaries, by infelicities in the naming of the new states, but would it be a significant number or a tiny minority? An off-the-top-of-my-head list of factors we could include in a hypothetical boundary-drawing algorithm: population the number of major road and rail border crossings created economic homogeneity geographical features existing administrative boundaries regional cultural identity Yorkshire might seem like a natural unit, but for most purposes it's usually split and/or has bits of other counties bundled in with it. In some instances West Yorkshire gets bundled into a 'North West' unit with Lancashire... |
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jul 6, 2023 19:48:05 GMT
P.S. re gradual routes to federation
I suppose the gradual route could also proceed via the gradual dismantling of the UK. A new Federal Republic of Britain could dump the monarch and rejoin the EU, which would presumably encourage leftieliberal 's home region/state of London to vote join! |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 6, 2023 19:49:47 GMT
It would be easier to start with the House of Lords. This could be turned into a Senate fairly easily. Of course it would be ideal if the division of powers between the Commons and the Lords were firs to be codified but this isn't strictly necessary.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Jul 6, 2023 19:51:23 GMT
Just been watching a program about Kenneth Williams, which features clips from his career. Just saw a comedy sketch where he jokes about not being able to pick someone up because he weighed over 13 stone.
Average male weight in UK nowadays, 13.5 stone. Funny how jokes can go out of date.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Jul 6, 2023 19:56:50 GMT
pjw1961 I was aware of that. London changed hands quite a few times. It was part of Wessex for a while. It's not clear exactly who controls London from this map, but it's clear that Mercia extended well into the south-east for a time. Anyway it was just a light-hearted response to the claim that there are few natural regional borders in England. was the only substantial urban centre in the early Anglo-Saxon period with its role as a key port connecting to Europe. So it was controlled by whoever was the main power - initially East Anglia, but mainly Mercia. Wessex didn't get that far east until after the Danish invasions. The good people of the Kingdom of Essex didn't write much stuff down in chronicles so be careful what you believe from those mercian and Wessex liars. As for the Danes, then yeah they ran the clubs in Billeracy for a while but only coz the Essex royalty were busy playing golf (which we invited in 572AD, over a millennium before the Scots copied it). If it hadn't been for the fine lasses of Essex spreading Covid back in 590AD (over a millennium before Hastings caught it) then Essex would rule England to this day but we'd probably have given Merica its independence by now (ie we wouldn't want to make the good people of Greater Essex pay their taxes to help out those lazy, work shy, benefit scrounging Mercians). PS . I assume many of the comments forgot the to show they were joking. |
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jul 6, 2023 19:56:54 GMT
Hague wasn't proposing an English parliament nor proportional representation, just English MP only votes in an unreformed Westminster, so nothing like my idea. I grant you the PR bit is different, but the over-centralisation problem applies to both. Hmmm. I think decisions about going to war have the potential to be highly inflammatory, ditto border policy [edit: and potentially rejoining the EU - how did I manage to omit that one!]; also other things I'd be inclined to have as federal responsibilities (e.g. income tax, social security payments - how would your Westminster remnant handle redistribution?). As you say, we're heading for pie-in-the-sky territory, but it's less gloom-inducing than contemplating the future of the NHS. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jul 6, 2023 20:50:48 GMT
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jul 6, 2023 21:08:12 GMT
That's certainly the line that Labour will take - that Scots need to vote Labour to eject the Tories - even though it is palpably a false argument. In the 6 seats held by SCon, voting SNP is the best way to eject the Tories. Replacing a Tory MP by an MP from any other party helps to eject the Tories : replacing an SNP MP with a Labour one doesn't damage the Tories in any way at all.
Of course, false arguments do sometimes work in politics, as the Brexit campaign amply demonstrated, so some voters in Scotland will be seduced by Labour's specious argument. Another false argument from one of our Scottish members. What Labour need to do is to win 326 seats and winning seats in Scotland from the SNP helps them do that. The SNP can never replace the Tories because they only stand in 59 seats (57 at the next General Election). Of course Labour will have to win seats in England as well, but the target is the same regardless of where in the UK that Labour win their seats.
If every constituency in Scotland elected a Lib Dem MP, it would change the Lab/Con balance at Westminster by precisely 5 seats in Labour's favour. What you are talking about is how Labour get an overall majority in HoC - which is a very different matter.
On that, it is clear that if England votes sufficiently strongly for Labour, then it can gain a sufficient numerical superiority over the Tories to become the largest party, and could form a minority government from that alone, regardless of how the other polities vote. Add in Wales, and a Labour government seems assured.
There are a number of posters on this board who would prefer to see a UK Labour government, but wouldn't like it to have an overall majority, preferring that it needed support from progressive parties to put through their legislation.
There has been quite a lot of discussion today about options for reconstructing the governance of England. I didn't see anyone proposing (as you, and those who liked your comment seem to do) that an acceptable democracy in England would exist if its domestic affairs were managed by a party with minority support in England, but forced through by MPs from rUK who weren't affected by the measures.
The falsity of argument lies with you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2023 21:27:50 GMT
“ The falsity of argument lies with you.” Blimey.  |
|
) couldn't work as a Federal State within UK - which I guessed (wrongly?) was to do with its size.
