 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Why not run HS2 from Manchester via Leeds,York,Newcastle,Edinburgh, Glasgow and back to Manchester.
Bind the union together, link big proud cities together into an economic block to rival the South East. Well in time anyway.
I know someone who made that very point when he was called to give evidence to the select committee on it. However the plans are still going ahead. My argument is that if HS2 is so important, why not start building it north to south, rather than south to north?
HS3 is more important than HS 2 and should be prioritised ahead of HS2
The problem with that solution to the West Lothian question is when the UK government does not have an English majority. It would be responsible for creating legislation but would be hard pressed to get it voted through.
That's a good thing, then - they don't have a mandate from the people who the legislation is going to affect. In any case it's not unusual that a government won't be able to get a majority for some of its legislation but will be for others.
The question was why could the MP for west Lothian vote on matters pertaining to Birmingham (I think) but not west Lothian. Refraining from voting on Birmingham matters only answers half the question.
Eh? Stopping voting on Birmingham matters that have been devolved removes the inconsistency. She can't vote on matters that have been devolved to the Scottish parliament because that decision making power has been moved away from Westminster.
And Tom has a good point too. How would any Scots minister (other than Secretary of State for Scotland) avoid acting on matters pertaining to England. Would a defence minister with a Scottish seat only be able to buy equipment for troops born in Scotland? Difficult to sort in that manner.
Defence isn't a power that's been devolved to the Scottish parliament. Non sarcastic question: are you actually clear on how federal/subfederal powers can be split and what powers the Scottish parliament actually has?
Kona bunny - you are correct; defence was a bad example. But it would preclude I think any Scots MP, no matter how talented from holding a post in a devolved department. The point stands that it would no longer be a truly British government but a strange hybrid British / English government.
On the West Lothian question the second half, how does the West Lothian MP vote on matters pertaining to West Lothian, is not answered. Now depending on how the devolution settlements in each of the countries of the UK are made it may not matter - but that it far from guaranteed, particularly if England, Wales and NI have different levels of devolution relative to Scotland and each other.
I think Scottish voters have done English voters a favour by bringing the issue of English enfranchisement to the fore.
For the record, in case anyone hasn't guessed, I'm an ethnic Scot and an English voter (on the days when I don't live in a safe seat).
Why not run HS2 from Manchester via Leeds,York,Newcastle,Edinburgh, Glasgow and back to Manchester.
Because the decision makers are in London and they are deciding what the regions need and it is to be closer to them.
they don't have a mandate from the people who the legislation is going to affect. In any case it's not unusual that a government won't be able to get a majority for some of its legislation but will be for others.
Who proposes this legislation though?
You could have labour being the govt but there being 50 + Tory majority in England on votes where , presumably labour still propose the legislation. IMHO you will just end up with stand offs and a weak /paralysed England govt.
If the claim is england dominates [ it dies but thi sis just a numbers game and inevitable] I am not sure how you counter this by still having their seat in westminster and all the others not using westminster.
IGM - I was chatting with you after the SS event as I was "daves mate " - DONK
Because the decision makers are in London and they are deciding what the regions need and it is to be closer to them.
You could just as well argue that those in the North know nothing about London or why they need good links there.
But it would preclude I think any Scots MP, no matter how talented from holding a post in a devolved department. The point stands that it would no longer be a truly British government but a strange hybrid British / English government.
That's not true. Ministers are part of the executive, not the legislature. You don't even [i]need [/i]to be an MP to be a minister. There's no reason why a Scottish MP couldn't be a minister for an area that is devolved to Scotland - Parliament still controls whether legislation passes or not.
On the West Lothian question the second half, how does the West Lothian MP vote on matters pertaining to West Lothian, is not answered.
She (already) doesn't get to vote on devolved matters relevant to West Lothian - her counterpart in the Scottish Parliament does. There aren't any bills going through Westminster that deal with those topics any more.
She does get to vote on non-devolved matters relevant to West Lothian - and her counterpart in the Scottish Parliament doesn't. There aren't any bills going through the Scottish Parliament that deal with non-devolved topics.
No-one is getting two bites of the cherry. I don't see the paradox or contradiction anywhere.
Who proposes this legislation though?
You could have labour being the govt but there being 50 + Tory majority in England on votes where , presumably labour still propose the legislation. IMHO you will just end up with stand offs and a weak /paralysed England govt.
The government still runs the legislative timetable. I think you're overstating the importance of Scottish MPs to Westminster and the novelty of a situation in which a government can't count on all of its MPs to vote the way it wants.
What's so good about having a government with an absolute majority anyway? It doesn't reflect English political opinion or voting trends.
I'm in Wales and have no problem at all to only English MPs voting on those matters that equate to those matters which are devolved to the Scottish NI and Welsh governments - that only right in my view.
What really boils my p*** is the different levels of devolved powers - they should equal accross the board, the below is a case in point- it may as well have been the French or US govt making the decision for all the influence we can bring to bare on the Tory Westminster gov't . We have a govt who is not allowed to make equivalent decisions to the gov't in Scotland.This is just massivly insulting.
Devolved powers to all of the home nations but equal devolved powers.
Oh, and Wales is not part of England.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-29177799
Ministers are part of the executive, not the legislature.
They are they are both as we draw them from both chambers - there is no separation *[ if we ignore the head of the Civil service- Cabinet secretary]
I am not sure about the one [ I forget the name] who gives legal advice though.
You could just as well argue that those in the North know nothing about London or why they need good links there
You are right they do not know what they need and thankfully London does know what is best for us
GAWD BLESS EM 🙄
It is not controversial to say the North is in a better position to decide what the North needs than London any more than it is controversial to say London knows what london needs more than the North.
Kona bunny - you're making a good case for s devolved English parliment and a federal Britain - even if you don't realise it.
It's a sign of this countries priorities that the only city with devolved powers is London. Without doubt the city that needs it least, as it's interests are more than amply catered for by Westminster. So London MPs have had their part in deciding that HS2 takes priority over the improved transport links the north actually needs - HS3.
But the northern MPs will not be voting on any transport decisions in London as that has been devolved. Emporer Boris and chums decide those issues.
It's a pretty indefensible state of affairs, and there really is no good reason for other cities not to have the same devolved powers that the capital enjoys. And before anyone says that the regions were offered this and rejected it... We weren't. We would have just had another level of beurocrats and politicians (more jobs for the boys), but with none of the autonomous powers that London presently enjoys. Hence the resounding rejection! We don't even need that now. We need councils to be given back the powers successive governments ( of both colours) have stripped them of.
It's obvious to everyone who lives in the North that HS3 is of far far more use to the region, and is urgently needed investment. But HS2 is what we've got instead, who's benefits for the north are questionable, to say the least!
They are they are both as we draw them from both chambers - there is no separation
I think you're being deliberately obtuse but I will rephrase: the position of minister is an executive one. There serve in that capacity because they have the confidence of the Prime Minister (formally, the monarch) not because they have won an election. It is convention (but not a requirement) that they are persons who are also serving in the legislature. When ministers act as ministers, they do not act in the interests of their constituencies and they exercise executive power, not legislative power. There would be no democratic deficit in appointing an MP from a Scottish constituency as UK minister for education.
But the northern MPs will not be voting on any transport decisions in London as that has been devolved.
MPs have never voted on local transport issues (horse and cart licensing in Brimble-on-Sea or whatever) and regionally/nationally important stuff like CrossRail etc was the subject of Parliamentary debate.
We have a govt who is not allowed to make equivalent decisions to the gov't in Scotland.This is just massivly insulting.
[i]You people [/i]didn't want a parliament on the model of Scotland's. The Scots did.
What's so good about consistency (or "symmetric devolution") anyway?
Elected Lords as a counterbalance to Westminster
Lords should be selected at random and do a two year term - like jury duty.
the novelty of a situation in which a government can't count on all of its MPs to vote the way it wants.What's so good about having a government with an absolute majority anyway? It doesn't reflect English political opinion or voting trends.
All MPS should be absolutelly free to vote in whichever way they see fit on any bill - in the best interests of their constituency.
It is not controversial to say the North is in a better position to decide what the North needs than London any more than it is controversial to say London knows what london needs more than the North.
We can all decide what we need - what we can't do without a sensible discussion is get our priories straight. This really has to be done centrally otherwise nobody will have the kind of budget for a big national project. The law of diminishing returns would imply that projects outside of London ought to achive better outcomes.
Personally I think the whole Scottish referedum has been set-up to take the focus away from Europe and the fact that British politics is basically borked. If we'd lost Scotland that would probably have left us in 2015 with a weak Conservative government with an EU referendum on their hands. What'll happen now is anyone's guess.
All MPS should be absolutelly free to vote in whichever way they see fit on any bill - in the best interests of their constituency.
But back in the real world, MPs get elected because they stand on a party platform. That's not a bad thing.
But back in the real world, MPs get elected because they stand on a party platform. That's not a bad thing.
Ummm - no - it's absolute bollocks. The parties ideals were all set way back when all that mattered was where you pencilled in your beaty spot and what kind of codpiece you wore. The differnces between the parties are miniscule and most people don't even know why they vote the way they do.
Most of the Parliamentary and Council candidates around here don't even have twitter - to the under 30's they may as well be fictional characters.
Why not start all over again?
Without doubt the city that needs it least, as it's interests are more than amply catered for by Westminster.
Not entirely sure I agree with you there binners.
till they value progression and loyalty to the party above their constituents [ and sometimes their own] views
I think you're being deliberately obtuse
What you said was wrong.
It is convention (but not a requirement) that they are persons who are also serving in the legislature.
true but there is only one I am aware of and that was during WW1 - are there other examples? [ genuine Q]. I am aware of people being appointed and then made Lords - Mandy being the last iirc
Lots of our conventions are never broken although they can be.
For example the Crown[monarch] picks the PM by convention they pick the winner but they do not have to. Its unlikely they will ever pick the loser but they technically could.
molgrips - MemberYou could just as well argue that those in the North know nothing about London or why they need good links there.
that makes zero sense
Much like most of this thread then eh?
So you are not going to defend your comment to two challenges ?
Bizarre.
Ok molls. Give me a list, in running order, of which British cities interests Westminster prioritises above those of London, and I'll concede the point.
Go......
molgrips - Member
Much like most of this thread then eh?
No, not really.
Ok molls. Give me a list, in running order, of which British cities interests Westminster prioritises above those of London, and I'll concede the point.
Over simplifying I think.
How about a list of quantified attention from London adjusted for population. No? Can't really measure it very well, can we? So that makes it all a bit subjective.
So you are not going to defend your comment to two challenges ?
It wasn't anything that needed defending. All I'm trying to point out is that to me, what you're all saying doesn't seem to make sense. There are so many people involved in these decisions and there are so many interests that someone will always be able to point a finger and say they get more X than we do, it's all bias and a big conspiracy or whatever.
I'm sure there is bias at some level, but better to campaign positively and say 'we would like to see this specific thing in our area can we please do it' than rant about bias and Tory Bullingdon scum etc etc. It just ends up being waffle and it's easy for all sides to dismiss.
So Binners, governments are elected solely because of London? They are able to ignore all the rest of us?? How do any local MPs find anyone to vote for them. The vast majority of MPs I have spoken to devote a large amount of their time and efforts dealing with the issues that relate directly to their constituents. To ignore this, is little more than ranting IMO and if people choose to vote on other criteria then that's their problem.
Step back for one moment - London has a bigger population than Scotland and Wales combined and accounts for 22% of UK output and it's the villain? No wonder the guys at the LSE are arguing that the real debate should be devolution for London!!!
What I'm asking is pretty simple. Why has no other city in England even been offered the same devolved powers as London? Why hasn't Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, or Newcastle? And there simply isn't a defensible answer.
So in light of further powers being devolved to Scotland, and Wales (who's total population is similar to Greater Manchesters, and who's economy is smaller) this situation is now completely untenable IMHO
While the ideas of devolution being talked about with power for the regions are good, the reality we are about to face are going to be very unpleasant. There will be no power for the North and the views of England as a whole- right wing, bigoted, short sighted and stingy- will reign if we have English devolution. We are fairly dependant on the Scottish left wing votes to.keep this country at least slightly in check or we really will be dancing straight into a conservative eutopia with no public spending, privatisation, an oppressed lower class and thinly veiled racism.
Depressingly, that's probably true. And pretty worrying. That's a big reason why Scotland wanted indepence, to try and fashion a less mean-spirited society, which the Tories evangelical neo-liberal, yet petty and small-minded attitude dictates. This is why the north has to push for a degree of separation from this society shaped entirely in the interests of the City and corporate lobbyists.
And the spineless, clueless, Islington-centric Labour Party certainly can't be relied on to do anything differently. So the north needs to find it's own way. And we NEED a degree of independence from London, who still view the north through the prism of Thatchers 'managed decline'. That's of they even think of us at all. They certainly don't even consider our interests when making policy. Which is why there isn't a single Tory MP in the northern cities.
All I'm trying to point out is that to me, what you're all saying doesn't seem to make sense.
So it makes no sense to say that manchester knows what Manchester wants more than London knows it?
Why does this not make sense?
I am not sure why anyone needs to debate this point let alone call it nonsense
rant about bias and Tory Bullingdon scum etc etc
Utter straw man Binners even said all parties have done it
Its about London centric westminster politics it is not about parties or them in particular- are you sure you are reading this thread as you seem to be making stuff up with which to attack us?
PS is this meant to be sense rather than nonsense?
Over simplifying I think.How about a list of quantified attention from London adjusted for population. No? Can't really measure it very well, can we? So that makes it all a bit subjective.
I wish we could post as clearly as that i really do
You know you cannot answer his question, we all do
binners - Member
What I'm asking is pretty simple. Why has no other city in England even been offered the same devolved powers as London? Why hasn't Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, or Newcastle? And there simply isn't a defensible answer.
Other than an ability to remember 2004 and the result!?! How about people didn't want it when it was offered. Defensible enough?
Well said Binners,my thoughts entirely.
Clearly you're having problems reading THM. I've clearly stated devolution IS NOT what was offered. What was offered was a talking shop, with no actual power whatsoever. It bore no similarity at all to what London has. It was just another level of politicians, so more of their mates could jump aboard the gravy train.
But then we're all simpletons up north. Show them some shiny beads and they'll be dazzled. Except we're not. Hence us rejecting it. It was insulting and patronising to even offer it! And to call it devolution? Please. They must have thought we'd all just fallen out of a tree 🙄
But thanks for chipping in yet more patronising, condescending nonsense that the usual (southern) suspects are doing so well in contributing
*doffs cap*
Don't forget before the condescending, patronising BS, that I am not a Southerner and I am in favour of decentralised power. But that doesn't mean resorting to half truths (at best) to make the same point.
And when you think about it, the answer is blindingly obvious why we do not devolve the same powers to lots of different cities.
Fair enough. You didn't make that clear.
You suggested the north was offered devolution in 2004. It most certainly wasn't offered that. It was offered something john Prescott dreamt up in the pub to try and placate the Labour heartlands rightfully moaning about being ignored by Tony and his Islington chums, and their new best mates in the City.
And everyone saw straight through it, as it was as ill conceived and nonsensical as anything else that's ever sprang from the mind of John Prescott. Would you like another layer of local government? With no actual power to do anything other than rubber stamp Westminster dictats? No?
We'll I have in other threads, but thanks
(and TBH I only half read you post too 😉 )
The practicalities of devolved power are difficult and it's a major challenge - I was also scarred by watching the extent of local corruption in the midlands as a child including seeing dads of school mates locked up!
Ah dear John, talking of lists for mol, did our dear ex-deputy PM ever see a policy through and make a success of it at at any stage? The master of knee-jerk politics and yet revered as a so-called statesman. Wouldn't it be great if we had more people like John Prescott????
I would take a prescott, and all his shortcomings , over a clegg or a mandleshon [spell?] or an Osbororne or a Gove.
Most of this is good but requires a formal "written constitution" not one that is a result of legal opinion. (Yes I realise the inherent problem with this, but it would help expand the legal industry and maybe keep some silks out of representation politics where they have very little in common with their less well of constituents).
As an East of England dweller it is abysmal that we have to go into London by rail to cross the country or go North in a timely fashion.
I know what you mean thm. There's the cronyism too. Which is shocking in some labour councils in the north. Amply demonstrated by the elected PCC's. Which might as well have been labelled the 'jobs for the boys' initiative.
But as I said earlier, Manchester has very effective civic leaders, who have been incredibly effective in the regeneration of the city. They are largely trusted by the electorate, some of them even genuinely popular and respected. Though not trusted or respected enough by Westminster to be given any real power. Which is ironic given the general contempt in which they are deservedly held. The whiff of corruption in local government being small beans when compared to flipping any overclaiming hundreds of thousands on expenses!
No wonder the guys at the LSE are arguing that the real debate should be devolution for London!!!
[url= http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/a-devolved-government-for-london-would-be-a-big-step-towards-rebalancing-power-in-the-uk/ ]This is quite a good article.[/url]
London could be devolved, but only if the regions are devolved as well, and have the same level of devolution as London. This is important, because the monster coming over this particular hill will be London wanting control of all the revenues it makes. If it gained that sort of control and money made in London stays in London, then the regions will suffer as a result.
It would also be bad for ordinary Londoners who are being priced out of the city already, the city state of London would be able to set its own business rates/corporation tax/income tax which would make it very attractive to those overseas allowing property developers to put more "apartments" up hat are already inaccessible to the average Londoner. London would not technically be part of the UK any more.
This could be classed as a worst case scenario, but the power and influence London has over Parliament, it could very well happen, albeit a creeping devolution.
Allow London and the regions to receive income from from local taxation such as congestion charges, local business rates, transport, but Income tax, VAT, and Corporation tax must stay in the hands of UK Government.
London would be able to set its own business rates/corporation tax/income tax which would make it very attractive to those overseas allowing property developers to put more "apartments"
Overseas buyers of London properly don't pay business rates, corporation tax or income tax in the UK anyway.
I think all this "Chinese billionaires have bought all the Mayfair apartments and that's why my two bedder in Cleethorpes is so expensive" stuff is just xenophobic bollocks anyway.
Its worth noting that none of this is back of a fag packet stuff, the work has been going on for some time behind the scenes in Parliament
only last year, the Mackay commission report was completed on the effects of devolution on parliament and possible future options:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130403030652/http://tmc.independent.gov.uk/
and in June this year, the cross party report on devolution of fiscal powers was produced:
So, the work is done, and the consequences investigated - this also paints the other parties into something of a corner since the reports above are independent or cross party, so seeking to enact their conclusions in a constitutional settlement does not really need to be footballed about any longer with delaying tactocs.
So Binners, reading these links, do you believe that there is any evidence of politicians doing things that you say deny they do? (And on a cross-border basis?)
It's all interesting stuff. The LSE full devolution for London one particularly makes an awful lot of sense.
Whatever your political leanings, it's just a fact that London is now an independent city state in all but name, squatting in the centre of a stratified two tier economy. And the present way both are governed suits neither particularly well.
London should be governed as an independent state. And power (such as it is) devolved to the regions, as in economic policy terms, the power of the city dictates policy set for the entire country. Which suits London just fine, but can have devastating consequences elsewhere, which then barely register in the capital.
That's the rub. If done properly then devolution could be as beneficial for London as anywhere. There's just no point pretending any more that you can knit these two disparate economies together. It's ridiculous. And delivers the worst of both worlds.
But do you think we've got politicians possessing the imagination to make them capable of even contemplating such radical options? Never mind delivering them. It's ironic that there's more creativity in economic policy going on in places like burnley than there is in Westminster or Threadneedle Street, as they're not shackled to a totally discredited neo-liberal concensus, which failed so spectacularly, yet is still being held up as the only option
We are all being held hostage to the dearth of imagination in government, and the timid mediocrity of those involved. Surely it's worth devolution to truly release some genuine entrepaneurial spirit, and the willingness to try something different?
I think all this "Chinese billionaires have bought all the Mayfair apartments and that's why my two bedder in Cleethorpes is so expensive" stuff is just xenophobic bollocks anyway.
Overseas buyers who are looking to work in London I was referring to. I don't know what the property market is like in Cleethorpes, but the reality is high prices in London is making it an unaffordable place to live for the average Londoner, that goes for other cost of living expenses as well.
But you are right that it is being used by the likes of UKIP to stir up xenophobic tensions, which appear to come to the surface all to easy for a number of citizens in the UK.
Why would rest of UK want to cut themselves off from the fiscal transfers from London? No need to shoot yourself in the foot at the start.