The Scots have decided. Now the real debate begins there and elsewhere.
One demand we are going to hear time and again now is that England, and maybe its regions, should have devolved responsibility to govern. It's an interesting idea, but power without responsibility is meaningless and taxing power without the requirement to spend would be as pointless, so before going further, what precisely are we talking about existing and new local governments having responsibility for?
I am guessing that defence, foreign affairs and international development are all going to be central functions? I would also presume a lot of justice would be as well. I am rather hoping criminal law is fairly consistently applied whilst responsibility for policing has already been devolved. What is left of the probation service is vital, but not much to argue over, although I would agree that on this issue local delivery is vital, as it can be on others. But, delivery, whilst important, has to be undertaken within established frameworks set nationally. That won't excite passions.
Education and health would do that, but in England they've moved a very long way from local control. I would very strongly argue that these should be under local government management subject to minimum service standards , but is anyone going to really deliver that? If not, what is this debate about?
Once upon a time a great deal of transport and energy policy was also established locally. But now we're pretty much down to minor roads and bus route subsidies being in this domain. They're important, but a residual. And only so many places need a tram.
So what else us there? Well housing, obviously, and planning, which is already devolved. Of these two housing policy would be enough to revive local government. We need more housing and there is possibly no issue of more importance in many localities But will decades of centralisation and dogmatic control on this issue be changed by central government and will the control of the necessary finances be given? Without courage nothing might happen - especially if localism equates to nimbyism.
And finance? What does all this mean for fiscal control? Can the Treasury accept that the democratic demand requires that they pass over control? This would require an unprecedented change of view in Westminster.
The semantics of the day matter.
The proposals for democratic reform matter.
But what I also want to know is what will actually change.
And that's hard to see without enormous changes on issues - not least those addressing the existing de facto privatised control of education and health - how the demand for democratic accountability can be delivered.
And that to me is now core to this debate, because the question will be what is government for? And not many people have a coherent answer right now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I read yesterday that Gordon Brown interventions have been decisive in the No campaign. That a book he published last year, which set out his thoughts on more devolution for Scotland but within the UK, had formed the basis for the “promises” the No campaign gave on devolution. And that Cameron and others had been consulting him on a regular basis over the last few weeks.
All I can say is that, as when he was Chancellor and then PM, he has once again served the interests of the elite and establishment that run this country at a cost to the rest of us. And as for all this talk of devolution to the countries and regions of the UK, I treat that with the same credence I gave Cameron’s pre 2010 election promise that there would be no top down reorganisation of the NHS: not worth the air used to make the utterance.
The UK will now see the right wing in the UK and all those corporate and institutional entities that support and underpin it, take the No vote as the signal for vengeance and a reaffirmation of their god-given right (as they see it) to govern, control, plunder and exploit in any way they see fit.
That is how I also see their interpretation of No
English votes for English Laws. It’s really quite simple Mr. M. – no Scots MPs voting on laws that are only English in nature or Welsh in nature or NI in nature.
And of course no English MPs to vote on Scottish, Welsh and NI laws.
Do you think the Scots should be getting more per head than a deprived area like Grimsby and Scunthorpe and Darlington and Rotherham – areas of high unemployment? Why should a Scots pensioner get more cash than an English pensioner in terms of services via the Barnett Formula? Is a pensioner in Doncaster in less need than a pensioner in Scotland?
We have Englush votes for Englush laws
England is 85% of the Union
And since almost all devolved powers are to vary all UK law it is essential there are universal rights to vote on all laws
Is it perfect? No
Is is vastly better than anthing else? Yes
Is what you propose an assault on democracy? Indisputably
And the answer for this in need in England is more redistribution if English wealth
It’s to lend the appearance of respectability to looting and robbing the nation. The bankers couldn’t do it if there wasn’t a government with their chums in it. The landowners couldn’t have arranged for there to be taxes on just about everything under the sun except land ownership without the existence of a government packed with landowners. On and on it goes. I suspect all other functions of government are side-shows.
I think this question of devolution to the regions is a red herring. People have been asked before and don’t want it. Labour want it because it avoids the bigger problem of an English parliament but there is no public demand for this, as the referendum on it a decade ago shows and the risible turnout for police commissioner underline.
What is wanted however is fairness. The Barnett formula is clearly unfair (even Barnett says so) and needs to be jettisoned. And MPs from devolved regions should not be able to vote on matters that have been devolved to those regions. That is all anyone wants.
The problem, of course, is that it means it is possible, even likely, that following the next election one finds a Labour government that is unable to legislate for England. How that will work, in practice, is a nightmare.
But frankly, that is what happens if three party leaders with no particular authority to do so promise to make constitutional changes on the hoof without consultation on the basis of a rogue opinion poll. In any properly run democracy there would be a vote of no confidence at this point, but when you have lost confidence in everyone (or in the case of UKIP, never had it), what’s the point?
I see all this as a concentration of the key power in a nation, that of public spending, being further concentrated in westminster.
Local satrapies will be loaded up with responsibilities with no recource but to increasingly tax their increasingly poor electorate while central spending will be solely devoted to ‘preferred bidders’.
Devolved power is a sop to the electorate. Do the electorate get that power if it’s exercised by yet another group of politicians in a regional parliament? No. The electorate get the same control over those powers as they do in Westminster elections – through voting for politicians. Devolution does little other than create a new class of politicians and divide the legislature of a supposedly united country.
People voted in their droves in Scotland, not because they want more ‘power’, but because their votes counted, and the choice was clear. These are two features missing from our General Elections, and the low turnout is the consequence.
I feel compelled to reply to such egregious inaccuracy. Sorry.
LWT; “Devolved power is a sop to the electorate.”
No; it is a rational response to demonstrated public opinion. Was the grant of the vote a ‘sop’ to the Suffragetes? The grant of devolved powers in Wales and Scotland a ‘sop’ to evident nationalist wishes?
LWT; “Do the electorate get that power if it’s exercised by yet another group of politicians in a regional parliament? No.”
Your assumption that all politicians are dysfunctional is wrong; there are some useful and ethical ones as well who do well with the trust the voters place in their hands. And you seem to assume that all local politicians elected are homogeneous; that’s a poor assumption, easily shown to be incorrect.
LWT; “The electorate get the same control over those powers as they do in Westminster elections — through voting for politicians.”
More error here as well, I’m afraid. You are under-informed about the various avenues through which local politicians can be influenced and the frequency with which that influence can be exercised; the many public meetings, committee and task group fora that exist all provide opportunities to exert considerable pressure on a daily basis. You might wish to find out about these ..
LWT; “Devolution does little other than create a new class of politicians and divide the legislature of a supposedly united country.”
No, it doesn’t. As to the ‘united country’ remark, are you aware of the prevalence of a federal system and how successful it can be? Perhaps a small amount of reading might enlighten you if you were to consider the strengths a federal structure delivered to the United States of America or to post-war Germany, two of the strongest economies in the world. Something to ponder, eh?
Am I an ardent federalist? No but neither am I unaware of the possibilities.
Am I certain that devolved powers would not be misused? certainly not but it is no certainty the other way either.
Am I a terrible internet pedant? I don’t think so; your concatenation of ‘wrong’ in one post has stirred my first comment here.
Please return to your regularly scheduled programmes. Thanks for reading.
“make constitutional changes on the hoof”
This isn’t on the hoof, or as the media seems to be claiming “a new idea”, it was the ConDems plan all along. New powers were being promised over 14 months ago if Scotland voted ‘no’, and the ConDems also wanted to devolve as much as possible to not only Scotland but Wales and NI, the caveat being that English MPs are to be given the power to “veto” Westminster laws that do not relate to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, something Labour denounced as “a hare-brained scheme”. What Cameron is saying today was the end game all along he’s just got something to Trojan horse it with now.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/english-revolution-in-house-of-commons-plan-to-give-englands-mps-right-to-veto-on-issues-not-affecting-scotland-wales-or-northern-ireland-8698505.html
If the ConDem’s et al are going to ‘revolutionise’ the constitution how about proportional representation? Maybe that’s another reason the turn out for the Scottish ref. was so high, everyone’s vote counted.
You’ve already had a referendum on the voting system,haven’t you?
Yes, the people don’t want PR so that’s that.
But I suspect they do want fair constituencies.
Labour could find itself in power next year, having both lost the popular vote, and being forced to rely on MPs from devolved constituencies to pass legislation that they cannot vote on in their home country.
I wonder if Miliband would even ask the Queen to allow him to form a government in such circumstances. And I wonder what she would say?
That would be the very definition of a constitutional crisis.
She’d say yes
Just as he’d be right to ask
When New Zealand had two elections where the winning party had more seats and fewer votes than the second, they held a referendum on their British legacy system and made sure the voters were informed. We had a few ‘party political broadcasts style’ presentations of about five minutes from (privately funded??) two organisations and a five minute superficial on the mechanics on the BBC. The content of the anti-AV side was appalling. We were lied to.
In New Zealand they then voted to chose which of four options would replace first past the post. With two main parties in the UK but three others Lib Dem, UKIP and Green, plus nationalists in the other countries, the system we have now doesn’t work. It fact it reinforces a false support for the ‘big two’ as people vote to keep the other out.
We need a proper debate and then decide, i hope , to have more representative system-as they do in the rest of Europe.
But that’s another issue off the agenda for a lifetime
Not really, the only question asked was should the “alternative vote” system be used instead, which is not proportional representation. The Conservatives equate the rejection of AV with the people not wanting electoral reform, which is not the same thing at all. The only thing I exercise on election day is my legs, as I walk to and from the polling station to cast a vote that simple does not count, and never will, as I live in a Conservative safe seat, and I don’t vote for them. That’s the same for a Conservative voter living in a Labour safe seat or a Liberal democrat living in a Conservative safe seat, millions of votes that end up being nothing more than statistical talking points in election specials on the television news but having no impact on the outcome.
@ Paul “You’ve already had a referendum on the voting system,haven’t you?”
@ Richard M “But that’s another issue off the agenda for a lifetime”
@ Roger Phlegm “Yes, the people don’t want PR so that’s that. But I suspect they do want fair constituencies.”
Sorry to all three of the above, but I have to agree with Rod Brown “Not really, the only question asked was should the “alternative vote” system be used instead, which is not proportional representation”, which deals with Paul’s query, and also calls into question Roger’s assertion that “people don’t want PR”, which implies a rather longer time-frame than Richard M’s “for a lifetime”
Further, I simply do not believe that people do not want PR (and certainly the failed AV referendum is NO indicator of that – the “offer” was simply too piddling for people to feel able to “upset” the current FPTP system, and the Lib_Dems were truly spineless in not voting to bring down the Coalition, rather than accept the bodged offer of AV, which is only in use in about 3 countries in the world, Australia being one of them.)
No, people are used to versions of PR in many parts of the UK – the GLA and London Mayor, Euro Elections, Scottish local Government, Welsh and NI Assemblies etc – and it could easily be brought in for Westminster, with sufficient political will. Which is why I resigned from the Labour Party in 2001, when Blair pusillanimously refused to put the Jenkins proposals to the country: I said then, in resigning that the Labour Party had NO right to make that decision, and that ONLY the electorate could do so.
Recall what Jenkins proposed – AV+ – meaning each constituency would require the winner to garner 50% of 1st and further preferences (I think only John Major in Huntingdon actually managed to do that, with almost all MP’s securing less than 50% of the vote). These would have been for 500 new constituencies, slightly larger than those we now have, with the + coming from 125 top-up MP’s, selected on the basis of the overall vote in the UK, introducing a REAL element of proportionality, while retaining the constituency link.
This was a semi-proportional system, that yet paid homage to our constitutional history, the implementation of which would surely have ensured more Green MP’s, and so, likely, would have avoided the current misbegotten chimaera that we now have.
I would now go further: in an earlier post I suggested a Federal Parliament at Westminster, which I would now wish to see elected on the Jenkins system, with this difference: instead of 500 constituencies, I would have 250, double-size ones (and PLEASE don’t tell me that would be too large – just cast a glance over to the USA, and consider the size of a Senator’s electorate!). These double-size constituencies would have TWO MP’s each, BUT one would be on a All-Male list, and the other on an All-Female list, leading to a 50/50 split. The remaining 125 top-up MP’s would introduce proportionality to the system, and might even end up with something close to s 50?50 male/female split as well. (It would also meet Roger Phlegm’s request for fairer constituencies)
I believe such a REAL offer WOULD enthuse the electorate, and could be properly debated, as we have seen happened in the Scottish referendum (or at least, we saw REAL engagement by the electorate – whether the YES and NO campaigns themselves were anything more than bullying and daydreaming is quite another question), because people genuinely felt they had a voice.
NO such feeling, or perception, held good in the appalling AV campaign, to which I apply (as I have done before, I believe) the words of the Roman poet, Horace (Quintus Hoaratius Flaccus): “Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.” (Ars Poetica line 128) (“The mountains will be in labor, and a piddling little mouse will be brought forth.”)
Final point, on votes cast and seats won: 1) Atlee won MORE votes, but LESS seats than Churchill in 1951: 2) Heath won MORE votes, but LESS seats than Wilson in February 1974. IN both cases, the Monarch asked the Leader of the Party with most seats to form a Government, namely Churchill and Wilson.
Andrew
I agree with you – I am sure there is a massive demand for PR
Richard
Much has been said/speculated in/on the news about the reasons for voter apathy in elections and so far no one has even mentioned it may be as simple as ‘why bother, my vote doesn’t count anyway’. People ruling out PR when it would accurately translate votes cast into voting power in the parliament may want to ask them seleves if they really do think democracy is the best system. First past the post is an historical anachronism that often produces highly undemocratic results, which is exactly how those who benefit from those results have engineered it. Why have the People never been permitted to choose the form of government they prefer for their country? I think the answer is really quite obvious.
The problem for Scotland is that we are now faced with having to help reform the whole UK instead of just getting on with our own wee bit.
I always thought No would be worse for everyone
Devolved regions having the power to issue their own bonds to raise money? Or, if it is not regarded as too radical, their own local banks?
There are some exiting possibilities and opportunities that could arise here if the left were bold enough.
But really this will just be used to cut democratic accountability in Westminster
In discussions of local devolution of power, consider this phenomenon and its future implications.
I live in Tower Hamlets, a borough that includes one part of the centre for transnational capital, Canary Wharf and butts up to the other part, the City of London. So it is no insignificant place.
Power in the borough is in the hands of the directly-elected Sylheti mayor, dumped by the Labour Party before his election first time round for being an Islamist. He selects his cabinet, which is the sole locus of power – other councillors now count for nothing.
His cabinet is only Sylhetis – an extremely racist set-up. This, despite the fact that supposedly only one third of the borough is Sylheti.
Voting, organised through mosques, to which, in turn, the Mayor dishes out public funds (to ‘faith organisations’ but these are overwhelmingly mosques) ensures that voting is concentrated to win.
Other people choose across different parties, hence opposing votes are split. In the recent mayoral election, the same mayor was reinstated because 4000 people chose to vote Green.
Housing is obviously in the hands of this group and other people have little chance of access to public housing.
‘Transparency’? The mayor refuses to answer questions about finance, and recently all members of his party left the chamber when such questions came up.
Council meetings slip into Bengali language.
Bangladesh is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, by measurement. It is easier to see why that would be imported wholesale than not.
This is a phenomenon of concentration and channelling of voting for ethnic/religious groups to achieve local power that is likely to increase (the Tower Hamlets Mayor’s party is not called ‘Tower Hamlets First’ for nothing).
Yet our system of ‘democracy’ has no way of dealing with it.
For all my desire to wrench power away from where it now lies, essentially with puppet national governments directed by transnational financial services, I see too much of the pitfalls of localising power – that will only grow – to want to see it increased.
“All I can say is that, as when he was Chancellor and then PM, he has once again served the interests of the elite and establishment that run this country at a cost to the rest of us. ”
This set me thinking. Brown’s machiavellian and megalomaniac tendencies are well documented. Labour and the Tories look like they are going to rip themselves apart over this. It is not in Brown’s gift to deliver any devolved powers. That seems like a trap for the SNP and the Scottish Parliament
The English vote was not in issue in this referendum. It offered two choices in answer to a simple question “Should Scotland be an independent country” it said nothing about an English parliament, which already existed the last time I looked. if English MPS get to vote on English matters whatever that means this will only serve to undermine the utility of Scottish MPs, who are overwhelmingly labour. That will only work in the interest of the Conservatives. Once achieved I can see them wanting to go further and get rid of Scottish MPs? Will Brown Switch sides and becoming king of the ruins?
I hope these are just paranoid imaginings, though some approximation of this is eminently possible. I’m not sure what solely English matters are. The Scots pay their taxes to the English Exchequer which returns a percentage of what is raised. Depending on who you believe, Scotland is a net contributor to UK Tax revenue. The UK Executive decided the size of the global budget. every spending decision taken by the UK affects Scotland, albeit indirectly in some cases.
I do not think it worthwhile to point the finger of blame at no voters. the Yes camp didn’t succeed in persuading enough voters of its case. That is why they lost the vote. The bullying by peoples employers effectively blackmailing them to vote no probably had a large impact. My heart goes out tho those whose instinct was to vote yes but voted no because a gun was put to their head. that said we still have freedom of speech and i think i am entitled to complain about the consequences of a no vote.
It was always my belief that the last minute offer of further powers, which had been cobbled together in a panic at one pole giving yes a narrow lead, would be reneged on at the first opportunity. Salmond must now regret the haste of his resignation. this wasn’t so much about the SNP as the grassroots campaign, which is not going away. Like Salmond, I am only surpassed at the haste of the parties tearing up the pledge.
Those who are tearing up that promise are tearing the heart out of democracy
Richard,
I think that is exactly the point i was trying to make. It is becoming abundantly clear that those that voted with their wallets rather than their hearts have bought into a transparent lie. It will be the ruination of democracy both in Scotland, England and Wales.
The spurious appeal to English patriotism by Cameron and co. and the refusal to endorse it by Miliband are just disguising their true aims which is to advance the interests of their parties.
Patriotism truly is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
No, democracy itself is being revealed as a meaningless sham. What was covert is becoming overt. We’ve never had democratic accountability over certain fundamental issues, like land taxation, as they’ve never been properly considered. We’ve been ruled by others while believing we ruled ourselves. That illusion’s now ending. No bad thing I think as cards are finally hitting the table. When they’re all in open display, maybe we can genuinely deal ourselves a better hand.
No, the very opposite. The three leaders believed that they were empowered to make the promise when they were not. None of them ever campaigned on giving Scotland more devolution. They all mistook leading their party for leading their country. They had no tight to make the promise, no democratic mandate to give the vow. Such powers can only be given either by a referendum of the donor power or by parliament as a whole.
I think you have forgotten that government is by the executive
Parliament is the check and balance
What are your thoughts on Labour’s ‘public housing’ policy? Does it sound like another public/private sector thing brought in at the behest of lobbyists. “By creating a National Housing Investment Bank, run by people who understand banking rather than by civil servants, and which can attract private sector investment by offering bonds with a guaranteed rate of return over a lengthy time period, and combined with taxpayers’ money to finance the construction of at least 200,000 homes a year, a Labour government could ensure that the money was there for councils to use the land they own in order to provide the housing that is so badly needed. The bank would be run efficiently along business lines but on a shoestring so that finance costs would be as low as possible. This would not be another Department of State but a delivery vehicle for public housing construction.
It’s well known that construction is one of the best ways to regenerate an economy. It provides the opportunity for many jobs, for necessary skills training, and most construction materials are sourced within the UK, so it doesn’t suck in imports. New homes also create demand within a local economy for soft and hard furnishing, white goods and other services, especially if the construction is done by local building firms using local labour.” I support using RBS/NatWest as a national investment bank. But it’s the bit about, ‘people who understand banking’ that worries me. Exposing social housing to the private bond market sounds like a recipe for a lot of public money going towards private returns and going for as big a return as possible in what effectively will be another layer of the private rented sector, rather than meeting genuine housing need. And the figure of 200,000 looks too few to meet demand.
http://www.fabians.org.uk/labours-britain-a-public-housing-boom/
I share your concern
Otherwise this is remarkably like something I proposed a decade ago
Labour needs to catch up
Experience would tell us that basic needs, such as social housing, should be kept as far away from the market as possible; from contracting out council housing to system building private contractors in the 1960s (when governments of all hues out did each other in how much they pledged to spend on public housing and a huge load of public money ended in private hands) to the council house sell-offs since the 1980s and the various mortgage bubbles, letting the market anywhere near housing has proven a recipe for disaster.
Agreed