Bottom up, not top down
Up to Forum
Posted by
"Constructaregion" is fun and instructive and a credit to its makers, but I hope that even Nick doesn't imagine that we can any more contemplate creating regions by decree in the wake of the NE referendum debacle.
Prescott's bungling has poisoned that well for perhaps a decade. That fact, plus the growing irritant of the West Lothian Question, an apparent and rather surprising re-emergence of English cultural sentiment, and a public aversion to "another tier of politicians" makes, in my view, "top-down" regionalism a very hard sell indeed.
Yet the UK, and England in particular, remains damagingly centralised.
We already advocate giving more powers to local government and shifting the balance of revenue-raising accordingly. I believe that if we offer freedom, people will want more of it. I suggest that the way forward for regional governance should be "bottom up", specifically by offering to local authorities (or groups of contiguous local authorities that decide they want to combine for the purpose) the power to enact secondary legislation.
Regional government has been a Lib Dem policy since at least 1991. Back then, we envisaged that the areas would be "chosen by the people themselves". Perhaps it is time to return to that vision.
Since I have gone this far, may I tentatively float one more notion? I think it is time for the party to seriously debate the idea of an English Parliament. An EP would answer the WLQ in a sustainable fashion, as opposed to "English Votes on English Matters" (EVoEM), and it would do it more more quickly than waiting for a comprehensive regional tier to emerge. Another bonus, close to our hearts: it would introduce PR for England as it has done for Scotland and Wales.
I am aware that the above suggestions leave two important areas unaddressed: the status of the existing regional structures and, crucially, the size and composition of the UK federal government. I have a strong suspicion that an English Parliament covering 80% of the UK population would make federal governance completely unworkable - but I still think it would be worthwhile examining the issue to decide one way or the other.
Prescott's bungling has poisoned that well for perhaps a decade. That fact, plus the growing irritant of the West Lothian Question, an apparent and rather surprising re-emergence of English cultural sentiment, and a public aversion to "another tier of politicians" makes, in my view, "top-down" regionalism a very hard sell indeed.
Yet the UK, and England in particular, remains damagingly centralised.
We already advocate giving more powers to local government and shifting the balance of revenue-raising accordingly. I believe that if we offer freedom, people will want more of it. I suggest that the way forward for regional governance should be "bottom up", specifically by offering to local authorities (or groups of contiguous local authorities that decide they want to combine for the purpose) the power to enact secondary legislation.
Regional government has been a Lib Dem policy since at least 1991. Back then, we envisaged that the areas would be "chosen by the people themselves". Perhaps it is time to return to that vision.
Since I have gone this far, may I tentatively float one more notion? I think it is time for the party to seriously debate the idea of an English Parliament. An EP would answer the WLQ in a sustainable fashion, as opposed to "English Votes on English Matters" (EVoEM), and it would do it more more quickly than waiting for a comprehensive regional tier to emerge. Another bonus, close to our hearts: it would introduce PR for England as it has done for Scotland and Wales.
I am aware that the above suggestions leave two important areas unaddressed: the status of the existing regional structures and, crucially, the size and composition of the UK federal government. I have a strong suspicion that an English Parliament covering 80% of the UK population would make federal governance completely unworkable - but I still think it would be worthwhile examining the issue to decide one way or the other.
Paul
These issues need to be carefully considered and thought through, in terms of their implications, before any kind of policy formulation takes place.
This topic very quickly becomes emotive, highly charged, irrational and subject to infiltration by single-issue pressure groups pursuing a dogma-orientated agenda.
Some general points relevant to the debate:
1. There is a basic trade-off between the benefits of size (economies of scale) and heterogeneity of preferences (diversity of opinion/choice). This principle is explained in great detail by Alesina and Spolaore in their book - "Size of Nations”.
I wouldn't claim to be all knowledgeable on this subject but certainly one’s rationale in determining what constitutes an ideal Region (or community as a more general term of usage) is prejudiced by what you comprehend as the primary function of said entity.
If like me, you believe that traditional larger nation-states are well past their sell by date within an integrating pan-European environment, your ideal Region would tend to be bigger than someone who thinks the role of such tiers of governance should be essentially ‘local’ in nature. Certainly larger Regions (millions rather than thousands, population wise) present a more credible alternative to the traditional European model of sovereign Nation-States, whilst achieving the seemingly improbable goal of bringing the processes of government closer to the public/electorate
In trying to strike a balance I would say that the size of English Regions currently presented as official UK govt. orthodoxy are generally too large. There is a credible argument for breaking up SE and SW England into three Regions, which are more well founded in terms of their respective historical influences.
2. No matter where a border between two Regions is drawn, there will always be some people who would rather have the decision revoked / reviewed / changed /delayed because they want to be on the other side of said line. These individuals tend to become very organised and very vocal.
3. An English Parliament – I agree with your idea that this concept should be included in the general discussion but I think you put too much faith in the power of rational argument. This is precisely where the role of single-issue pressure groups begins to distort a seemingly plausible and perfectly reasonable process of public consultation/engagement. I have had some indirect dealings with the CEP and have found them to be dogmatic, vocal and very clever at drumming up support from ill-informed and ignorant public opinion. Try their website: www.thecep.org.uk to discover a flavour of their tactics and political disposition. They have links (well hidden) with some dubious and extremely vitriolic anti-European groupings.
In short, you will be opening a Pandora’s box of trouble if you go down the road of presenting an English Parliament as a potential constitutional settlement. Better to stick to a rational and objective debate based on the premise of English Regions being similar in size to their Welsh, Scottish, N.Irish and London based counterparts, in terms of their average population size. This would create English Regions that are both economically and culturally self-sustaining.
Peter Davidson
Alderley Edge
NW.England
These issues need to be carefully considered and thought through, in terms of their implications, before any kind of policy formulation takes place.
This topic very quickly becomes emotive, highly charged, irrational and subject to infiltration by single-issue pressure groups pursuing a dogma-orientated agenda.
Some general points relevant to the debate:
1. There is a basic trade-off between the benefits of size (economies of scale) and heterogeneity of preferences (diversity of opinion/choice). This principle is explained in great detail by Alesina and Spolaore in their book - "Size of Nations”.
I wouldn't claim to be all knowledgeable on this subject but certainly one’s rationale in determining what constitutes an ideal Region (or community as a more general term of usage) is prejudiced by what you comprehend as the primary function of said entity.
If like me, you believe that traditional larger nation-states are well past their sell by date within an integrating pan-European environment, your ideal Region would tend to be bigger than someone who thinks the role of such tiers of governance should be essentially ‘local’ in nature. Certainly larger Regions (millions rather than thousands, population wise) present a more credible alternative to the traditional European model of sovereign Nation-States, whilst achieving the seemingly improbable goal of bringing the processes of government closer to the public/electorate
In trying to strike a balance I would say that the size of English Regions currently presented as official UK govt. orthodoxy are generally too large. There is a credible argument for breaking up SE and SW England into three Regions, which are more well founded in terms of their respective historical influences.
2. No matter where a border between two Regions is drawn, there will always be some people who would rather have the decision revoked / reviewed / changed /delayed because they want to be on the other side of said line. These individuals tend to become very organised and very vocal.
3. An English Parliament – I agree with your idea that this concept should be included in the general discussion but I think you put too much faith in the power of rational argument. This is precisely where the role of single-issue pressure groups begins to distort a seemingly plausible and perfectly reasonable process of public consultation/engagement. I have had some indirect dealings with the CEP and have found them to be dogmatic, vocal and very clever at drumming up support from ill-informed and ignorant public opinion. Try their website: www.thecep.org.uk to discover a flavour of their tactics and political disposition. They have links (well hidden) with some dubious and extremely vitriolic anti-European groupings.
In short, you will be opening a Pandora’s box of trouble if you go down the road of presenting an English Parliament as a potential constitutional settlement. Better to stick to a rational and objective debate based on the premise of English Regions being similar in size to their Welsh, Scottish, N.Irish and London based counterparts, in terms of their average population size. This would create English Regions that are both economically and culturally self-sustaining.
Peter Davidson
Alderley Edge
NW.England
Peter
I have already attempted to "engage" with the CEP and you are correct that some of their supporters show a degree of hostility towards Scots in general and Gordon Brown in particular that is indistinguishable from racism. There is also a strong CEP/UKIP overlap; hardly surprising really as they are both essentially nationalist groupings.
However, I think it would be wrong to dismiss the idea of an EP entirely because of the extreme views of some of its advocates. To the extent that there is in fact a resurgence of a particularly English cultural identity (and it’s hard to assess exactly how widespread or significant this really is) then the CEP’s complaint of inadequate representation has at least some plausibility.
But that’s their argument, not mine. My main point is that the so-called “English question” appears to becoming more pertinent, and therefore whatever the merits of smaller regions, or city-regions, we simply may not have the luxury of waiting for these to emerge organically, and any Prescott-like attempt to impose them is likely to backfire as it did in the North East.
I know that the idea of an EP is fraught with problems, perhaps irresolvable ones, but the prospect of a relatively swift constitutional settlement, plus PR, is tantalising. If we end up rejecting the idea, at least we will know why.
We can think it through if we remember we are liberals. I hope the day never comes when I have too much faith in the power of rational argument.
I have already attempted to "engage" with the CEP and you are correct that some of their supporters show a degree of hostility towards Scots in general and Gordon Brown in particular that is indistinguishable from racism. There is also a strong CEP/UKIP overlap; hardly surprising really as they are both essentially nationalist groupings.
However, I think it would be wrong to dismiss the idea of an EP entirely because of the extreme views of some of its advocates. To the extent that there is in fact a resurgence of a particularly English cultural identity (and it’s hard to assess exactly how widespread or significant this really is) then the CEP’s complaint of inadequate representation has at least some plausibility.
But that’s their argument, not mine. My main point is that the so-called “English question” appears to becoming more pertinent, and therefore whatever the merits of smaller regions, or city-regions, we simply may not have the luxury of waiting for these to emerge organically, and any Prescott-like attempt to impose them is likely to backfire as it did in the North East.
I know that the idea of an EP is fraught with problems, perhaps irresolvable ones, but the prospect of a relatively swift constitutional settlement, plus PR, is tantalising. If we end up rejecting the idea, at least we will know why.
We can think it through if we remember we are liberals. I hope the day never comes when I have too much faith in the power of rational argument.
Paul
I cannot dispute your assertion that the approach taken by the UK Govt. (represented in this policy issue by the ODPM) has proved both ill-judged and counter-productive. However, it should be noted that the devolution programme for English Regions was complicated by a significant element of political in-fighting within the cabinet. In the prevailing political climate present at that time Prescott and his team had very little room for manoeuvre.
With the benefit of hindsight it is now obvious to me that any revival of the English Regional devolution process (we will have to wait at least six years for another referendum in the North-East) must be preceded by a comprehensive information programme designed to educate a woefully ignorant public about the issues involved. No doubt those ideologically opposed to English Regional devolution per se (UKIP, CEP et al,) would label any such process as mere propaganda so it would have to be carefully crafted to provide a neutral message. The emotive topic of precisely where to draw boundaries could be included in this consultation process. One would hope that any strong public consensus about boundaries would be taken on board, resulting in a redrawing of the proposed English Regional map (however I repeat the caveats about vocal pressure groups referred to in my previous posting).
To achieve this goal would require a concerted approach from a number of actors (not just central govt. although they would play a pivotal role) over a prolonged period of time; in other words, 2, 3 or more years rather than just a few months during the run-up to any referendum process.
I am not sure about the precise nature of Gordon Brown’s disposition toward English Regional devolution. I know he appeared on the "campaign trail" a couple of times during the run up to the North-East referendum but that is hardly concrete evidence of wholehearted support.
Given his origins I am sure he is well aware of the benefits accrued by his home country from the limited devolution granted to Scotland but whether or not his long stint at the Treasury instilled in him an overwhelming appetite for centralised control of the purse strings is difficult to judge.
Let’s be clear about the reasons behind the overwhelming rejection of the proposals for a North-East Assembly. They were many, varied and interconnected (I have a number of academic papers on file discussing the topic) but the proposed boundaries for the Region were not prominent amongst them. In fact, with the exception of some peripheral discussion about the validity of including/excluding Cumbria, I would argue that the geographical parameters of the Region were both legitimate and widely supported by the public of the North-East (I prefer the label: Northumbria).
The geographical legitimacy (historical, cultural, economic) of other English Regions can be questioned but not Northumbria.
The power of rational debate?
If you really want to be depressed visit the “Have Your Say” section of the BBC News website; then peruse the (thousands of?) comments received about the UK rebate vis a vis the EU budget negotiations. It is precisely this kind of information vacuum, in which populist pressure groups such as CEP thrive.
I cannot dispute your assertion that the approach taken by the UK Govt. (represented in this policy issue by the ODPM) has proved both ill-judged and counter-productive. However, it should be noted that the devolution programme for English Regions was complicated by a significant element of political in-fighting within the cabinet. In the prevailing political climate present at that time Prescott and his team had very little room for manoeuvre.
With the benefit of hindsight it is now obvious to me that any revival of the English Regional devolution process (we will have to wait at least six years for another referendum in the North-East) must be preceded by a comprehensive information programme designed to educate a woefully ignorant public about the issues involved. No doubt those ideologically opposed to English Regional devolution per se (UKIP, CEP et al,) would label any such process as mere propaganda so it would have to be carefully crafted to provide a neutral message. The emotive topic of precisely where to draw boundaries could be included in this consultation process. One would hope that any strong public consensus about boundaries would be taken on board, resulting in a redrawing of the proposed English Regional map (however I repeat the caveats about vocal pressure groups referred to in my previous posting).
To achieve this goal would require a concerted approach from a number of actors (not just central govt. although they would play a pivotal role) over a prolonged period of time; in other words, 2, 3 or more years rather than just a few months during the run-up to any referendum process.
I am not sure about the precise nature of Gordon Brown’s disposition toward English Regional devolution. I know he appeared on the "campaign trail" a couple of times during the run up to the North-East referendum but that is hardly concrete evidence of wholehearted support.
Given his origins I am sure he is well aware of the benefits accrued by his home country from the limited devolution granted to Scotland but whether or not his long stint at the Treasury instilled in him an overwhelming appetite for centralised control of the purse strings is difficult to judge.
Let’s be clear about the reasons behind the overwhelming rejection of the proposals for a North-East Assembly. They were many, varied and interconnected (I have a number of academic papers on file discussing the topic) but the proposed boundaries for the Region were not prominent amongst them. In fact, with the exception of some peripheral discussion about the validity of including/excluding Cumbria, I would argue that the geographical parameters of the Region were both legitimate and widely supported by the public of the North-East (I prefer the label: Northumbria).
The geographical legitimacy (historical, cultural, economic) of other English Regions can be questioned but not Northumbria.
The power of rational debate?
If you really want to be depressed visit the “Have Your Say” section of the BBC News website; then peruse the (thousands of?) comments received about the UK rebate vis a vis the EU budget negotiations. It is precisely this kind of information vacuum, in which populist pressure groups such as CEP thrive.
Peter
As a strategy for achieving regional government in England, what you say makes perfect sense. It seems the only thing that divides us is the urgency with which we view the "English question". I fear that if we take 3 or more years we may be overtaken by events. Alas, only time will tell...
As a strategy for achieving regional government in England, what you say makes perfect sense. It seems the only thing that divides us is the urgency with which we view the "English question". I fear that if we take 3 or more years we may be overtaken by events. Alas, only time will tell...
Paul
Now I'm confused.
You previously stated "Prescott's bungling has poisoned that well for perhaps a decade" and an integral element of the Regional Assemblies Act was a seven year moratorium on any repeat referendum in a Region voting NO.
Therefore, this topic is off the mainstream political agenda for at least another five years.
What events might overtake us?
A Tory Govt. under Cameron?
It's a possible (nightmare) scenario but if it does happen the only likely significant development is abolition of the unelected RDA's, which more than 95% of the public don't even realise exist anyway, and some kind of token beefing-up of local authority powers, i.e. making it look as though local authorities have more influence when the reality is nothing has changed.
The rationale/logic underpinning English Regional tiers of governance will never go away. What changes, from administration to administration is their geographical parameters, the scope of their remit and the significance of their clout within the UK administrative and political hierarchy.
Without PR for Westminster elections no “political earthquake” development is possible. Without PR, CEP and similar dogma orientated groups are doomed to the political periphery (the only argument in favour of FPTP) so it will just be more of the same, admittedly with ever decreasing levels of public participation and engagement in the democratic process.
There is another, much more optimistic, scenario.
Come the next General Election (Summer 2009?), the UK economy has not been doing so well (relatively speaking), Brown is the defending PM and Cameron is Tory leader. Public apathy and tactical voting are at all time highs and the results contrive to produce a hung parliament.
Hey presto! – Provided the leader of the Lib Dems (whoever that is at the time) does not sell us all down the river for a few cabinet posts, we get PR for future Westminster elections and then all bets are off.
This could lead to a much more consensus minded, devolution friendly administration. Under such circumstances, the notion of a long-term public information campaign leading ultimately to the devolution of meaningful political power to robust, semi-autonomous English Regions (in whatever geographical form comes out of the public consultation programme) is not so fanciful as it might seem.
Peter Davidson
Alderley Edge
NW England
Now I'm confused.
You previously stated "Prescott's bungling has poisoned that well for perhaps a decade" and an integral element of the Regional Assemblies Act was a seven year moratorium on any repeat referendum in a Region voting NO.
Therefore, this topic is off the mainstream political agenda for at least another five years.
What events might overtake us?
A Tory Govt. under Cameron?
It's a possible (nightmare) scenario but if it does happen the only likely significant development is abolition of the unelected RDA's, which more than 95% of the public don't even realise exist anyway, and some kind of token beefing-up of local authority powers, i.e. making it look as though local authorities have more influence when the reality is nothing has changed.
The rationale/logic underpinning English Regional tiers of governance will never go away. What changes, from administration to administration is their geographical parameters, the scope of their remit and the significance of their clout within the UK administrative and political hierarchy.
Without PR for Westminster elections no “political earthquake” development is possible. Without PR, CEP and similar dogma orientated groups are doomed to the political periphery (the only argument in favour of FPTP) so it will just be more of the same, admittedly with ever decreasing levels of public participation and engagement in the democratic process.
There is another, much more optimistic, scenario.
Come the next General Election (Summer 2009?), the UK economy has not been doing so well (relatively speaking), Brown is the defending PM and Cameron is Tory leader. Public apathy and tactical voting are at all time highs and the results contrive to produce a hung parliament.
Hey presto! – Provided the leader of the Lib Dems (whoever that is at the time) does not sell us all down the river for a few cabinet posts, we get PR for future Westminster elections and then all bets are off.
This could lead to a much more consensus minded, devolution friendly administration. Under such circumstances, the notion of a long-term public information campaign leading ultimately to the devolution of meaningful political power to robust, semi-autonomous English Regions (in whatever geographical form comes out of the public consultation programme) is not so fanciful as it might seem.
Peter Davidson
Alderley Edge
NW England
Peter
There are two events I have in mind:
(1) Public dissatisfaction with the failure to address the West Lothian and English questions reaches a tipping point.
(2) The Conservative Party declares support for an English Parliament.
If the second event depends on the first, and if I am ridiculously over-estimating the likelihood of the first, then there is no problem and I am Chicken Little. I concede that may be the case. Perhaps I have been lurking in CEP forums for too long!
At the very least, however, I think the party should (a) take a look at the idea of an EP, if only to be able to say definitively why we are against it and (b) consider some policy initiatives that might take the edge off the WLQ/EQ in the short-to-medium term.
(N.B: You meant the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act, right? I’m still using the Draft Regional Assemblies Bill as a paperweight!)
There are two events I have in mind:
(1) Public dissatisfaction with the failure to address the West Lothian and English questions reaches a tipping point.
(2) The Conservative Party declares support for an English Parliament.
If the second event depends on the first, and if I am ridiculously over-estimating the likelihood of the first, then there is no problem and I am Chicken Little. I concede that may be the case. Perhaps I have been lurking in CEP forums for too long!
At the very least, however, I think the party should (a) take a look at the idea of an EP, if only to be able to say definitively why we are against it and (b) consider some policy initiatives that might take the edge off the WLQ/EQ in the short-to-medium term.
(N.B: You meant the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act, right? I’m still using the Draft Regional Assemblies Bill as a paperweight!)
Paul,
I do not know whether or not the second development is dependent on the first because I have no knowledge of the inner workings of Conservative Policy formulation (I don't really want to either)
However, I maintain my opinion that the English Parliament question (and by default the West Lothian question) will remain on the periphery of those issues deemed vital by the ordinary public. Therefore I envisage no scenario where such "a tipping point" is reached.
When William Hague was leader of the Conservatives, he gave some succour to those championing the cause of an English Parliament and was immediately lambasted by a large cross-section of his political opponents for even suggesting such an idea. I think David Cameron will have much more pressing issues to deal with.
The only significant politician I know who actively supports an English Parliament position is Theresa May and she has only peripheral influence in the Conservative party.
Preparations or actual Regional Assemblies Bill? I'm not sure.
I've just trawled through my copy of the Preparations Bill and cannot (immediately) find a reference to moratorium periods. I just recall that the seven year bar on repeat votes (in any Region holding a referendum and recording a NO verdict) was widely reported in the press during November 2004.
Paul, I should inform you that I am not a member of any political party, although I tend to vote for the Lib Dems on most occasions because they espouse policies corresponding to my opinions.
Peter Davidson
Alderley Edge
NW England
I do not know whether or not the second development is dependent on the first because I have no knowledge of the inner workings of Conservative Policy formulation (I don't really want to either)
However, I maintain my opinion that the English Parliament question (and by default the West Lothian question) will remain on the periphery of those issues deemed vital by the ordinary public. Therefore I envisage no scenario where such "a tipping point" is reached.
When William Hague was leader of the Conservatives, he gave some succour to those championing the cause of an English Parliament and was immediately lambasted by a large cross-section of his political opponents for even suggesting such an idea. I think David Cameron will have much more pressing issues to deal with.
The only significant politician I know who actively supports an English Parliament position is Theresa May and she has only peripheral influence in the Conservative party.
Preparations or actual Regional Assemblies Bill? I'm not sure.
I've just trawled through my copy of the Preparations Bill and cannot (immediately) find a reference to moratorium periods. I just recall that the seven year bar on repeat votes (in any Region holding a referendum and recording a NO verdict) was widely reported in the press during November 2004.
Paul, I should inform you that I am not a member of any political party, although I tend to vote for the Lib Dems on most occasions because they espouse policies corresponding to my opinions.
Peter Davidson
Alderley Edge
NW England
It is Friday 10 March. Lord Falconer has made it clear today that there is no prospect of an English Parliament under Labour, but a BBC straw poll is currently showing 67% in favour.
Tipping point?
Tipping point?
No. Straw polls tip nothing.
The real point is to get power out of Whitehall. Neither labour-type devolution nor an EP will do that.
The Spaniards did it by setting up their constitution so that it was clearly worthwhile for their provinces to form regions. The provinces assembled themselves into the regions that they chose - from 1 to 9 provinces per Region.The regions have gone on acquiring powers, including the Health Service.
Could we do something similar?
The real point is to get power out of Whitehall. Neither labour-type devolution nor an EP will do that.
The Spaniards did it by setting up their constitution so that it was clearly worthwhile for their provinces to form regions. The provinces assembled themselves into the regions that they chose - from 1 to 9 provinces per Region.The regions have gone on acquiring powers, including the Health Service.
Could we do something similar?
Powered by
Ploneboard
Forgot your password?
New user?