English devolution discussion

[Noddy]

In a development, Essex County Council, Southend-on-Sea City Council and Thurrock Council are in negotiations on a Level 2 Devo Deal.

This would create a Greater Essex Combined Authority, but unlike elsewhere won’t have an Elected Mayor.

Pedant alert but the current North East Combined Authority (NECA) in operation since 2014 doesn’t have a mayor either. The new combined combined authority (NECA and North Tyne CA) which will also be called the North East Combined Authority is due to have a mayor.

 

[Wynd]

Whereas other administrations do not squander money? Anyone living in Scotland knows better than that!

Personally I don't expect politicians, of any hue and at any level, not to waste money; After all, they are just fallible humans like the rest of us.

Lets not confuse, or transpose, fallibility with flagrant corruption.

The PPE scandals are outragous breaches of spending policy and should be getting a lot more scrutiny.

Handing your pals billions of pounds is in no way comperable to a government body missing spending targets on projects.

Anyone making the comparison is an apollogist for the insipid corruption at the heart of Whitehall and Westminster, which is not mirrored in any way at Holyrood.

If you state an opinion (‘I think the UK government are a bunch of charlatans’) there is no issue. But if you present a claim as fact:

Unfortunatly the UK Government, and Whitehall, are very much in the wrong when it comes to both use of public funds and logn term economic planning. Charlatans are a plenty, see above PPE scandal.

It is a fact, one which evey UK citizen is acutely aware of.

GERS goes in to some detail about its own shortcomings, I suggest you read the various explinations around the methodolgy yourself.

 

[ainsworth74]

Came across a local example of the Centre (Westminster) deciding it knows what's best locally recently. Department for Levelling Up apparently wanted to spend £20m due to deprivation locally on children and young people. The various local council executives who this would be relevant to went into a meeting with the Department's representatives with all sorts of ideas for how they could use £20m to improve outcomes for children and young people, using their on the ground knowledge, identifying the issues that exist locally, the gaps in provision of services that already exist and what extra support is required and where. A transformative sum of money that could make a real big difference and that the local council had concrete ideas on how to best use it.

However they were told shortly after they began describing their thoughts for how to use the money that the Department was only interested in capital expenditure. They would happily build, say, a new community centre but had no interest in providing any funding for the centre to be of any use. They had decided from down in Westminster that what was needed was shiny new buildings and that was that no matter how compelling the arguments were for using the funding on a wider basis.

 

[THC]

In a development, Essex County Council, Southend-on-Sea City Council and Thurrock Council are in negotiations on a Level 2 Devo Deal.

This would create a Greater Essex Combined Authority, but unlike elsewhere won’t have an Elected Mayor.

A lot of work has gone on locally since last year on building towards a Level 3 deal but this announcement isn't altogether surprising, as I know at least one of the named authorities wasn't in favour, at least initially.

I should also say that it was DLUHC which offered a Level 2 deal, rather than the other way round, which is a reverse of the previous Government policy of prioritising Level 3 Mayoral deals.

THC

 

[Noddy]

Unfortunatly the UK Government, and Whitehall, are very much in the wrong when it comes to both use of public funds and logn term economic planning. Charlatans are a plenty, see above PPE scandal.

It is a fact, one which evey UK citizen is acutely aware of.

GERS goes in to some detail about its own shortcomings, I suggest you read the various explinations around the methodolgy yourself.

Whether or not any of this is true it has absolutely nothing to do with your original statement, which you presented as fact, and the complete and utter lack of evidence you have since supplied to support it.

 

[Wynd]

Deleted.

 

[Falcon1200]

which is not mirrored in any way at Holyrood.

I await with interest the results of the Police investigation into Ms Sturgeon and Mr Murrell.....

 

[Cloud Strife]

As more and more powers are devolved to London, Scotland, Wales and NI the issue is only going to get worse.

It is a very real and serious problem, because while the devolved nations have a strong argument that England can dictate to them, they can also dictate to English voters. It's completely absurd that a Scottish MP can vote on English tuition fees, while English MPs largely do not have a say on Scottish education matters.

As proposed in the 2003 the assembly settlement would clean up much of this mess so you are simply left with three tiers.

I would argue that for the sake of consistency, it would be better to have an English Parliament sitting below the UK Parliament. This way, you could implement Devo Max in each country, perhaps with a new "Right of Devolution" that would require the consent of the devolved parliament to change aspects of the constitutional settlement.

England is certainly big enough to have four levels of administration. It doesn't make sense in Scotland or Wales, but England is big and diverse enough to benefit from it.

 

[Noddy]

It is a very real and serious problem, because while the devolved nations have a strong argument that England can dictate to them, they can also dictate to English voters. It's completely absurd that a Scottish MP can vote on English tuition fees, while English MPs largely do not have a say on Scottish education matters.



I would argue that for the sake of consistency, it would be better to have an English Parliament sitting below the UK Parliament. This way, you could implement Devo Max in each country, perhaps with a new "Right of Devolution" that would require the consent of the devolved parliament to change aspects of the constitutional settlement.

England is certainly big enough to have four levels of administration. It doesn't make sense in Scotland or Wales, but England is big and diverse enough to benefit from it.

Personally I’m not sure that having four tiers would work that well-having three generally means there can be clear dividing lines in terms of who has responsibility/jurisdiction for what. Having four would, I imagine, start the blur this (and this lack of clarity in the existing setup is one of the issues I think regional parliaments would help to resolve). Are there any successful examples from around the world where there are four tiers of governance?

 

[Merle Haggard]

It is a very real and serious problem, because while the devolved nations have a strong argument that England can dictate to them, they can also dictate to English voters. It's completely absurd that a Scottish MP can vote on English tuition fees, while English MPs largely do not have a say on Scottish education matters.

Scottish MPs may have an incentive to vote a particular way on English - only matters if it results in the transfer of money from England to Scotland under the Barnett formula. It might have been that was the motivation for the way Scottish MPs on tuition fees.

But proportional representation and retaining the UK parliament might alter the balance...

 

[Cloud Strife]

Personally I’m not sure that having four tiers would work that well-having three generally means there can be clear dividing lines in terms of who has responsibility/jurisdiction for what. Having four would, I imagine, start the blur this (and this lack of clarity in the existing setup is one of the issues I think regional parliaments would help to resolve). Are there any successful examples from around the world where there are four tiers of governance?

The Polish system has four, or even arguably five tiers of governance: village council (or district councils in cities), municipal council, county council, provincial parliament and national parliament. Each layer has clearly defined duties, and they can add additional things as they feel is appropriate. So for instance, take transport:

My municipality is responsible for organising bus services within the municipality, as well as buses to the nearest big city. The county council is responsible for public transport between the municipalities that make up the county. The provincial parliament is responsible for the provincial train services that stop here, while the national government is responsible for the train lines that pass through here.

It generally works well because each layer has different responsibilities. For instance, the provinces are responsible for allocating how EU money is spent, while the county council has responsibility for operating "post-primary schools". Primary schools are the responsibility of the municipality.

The general idea is that most municipalities are actually quite small, so their responsibilities are quite small as well. For instance, the budget of my municipality is around 30m GBP yearly. However, a lot of the things that affect us (water, schools, parks, roads, spatial plans) are a municipal matter, whereas the county council takes responsibility for more important roads, health matters and so on.

There's generally not that much conflict between different layers of administration, because the competences of each layer is described. They can take on additional tasks, but they can't interfere with another layer's administration.

 

[Noddy]

The Polish system has four, or even arguably five tiers of governance: village council (or district councils in cities), municipal council, county council, provincial parliament and national parliament. Each layer has clearly defined duties, and they can add additional things as they feel is appropriate. So for instance, take transport:

My municipality is responsible for organising bus services within the municipality, as well as buses to the nearest big city. The county council is responsible for public transport between the municipalities that make up the county. The provincial parliament is responsible for the provincial train services that stop here, while the national government is responsible for the train lines that pass through here.

It generally works well because each layer has different responsibilities. For instance, the provinces are responsible for allocating how EU money is spent, while the county council has responsibility for operating "post-primary schools". Primary schools are the responsibility of the municipality.

The general idea is that most municipalities are actually quite small, so their responsibilities are quite small as well. For instance, the budget of my municipality is around 30m GBP yearly. However, a lot of the things that affect us (water, schools, parks, roads, spatial plans) are a municipal matter, whereas the county council takes responsibility for more important roads, health matters and so on.

There's generally not that much conflict between different layers of administration, because the competences of each layer is described. They can take on additional tasks, but they can't interfere with another layer's administration.

Ok interesting to know! Will have to look it up and research it a bit more.

I would point out that strictly there are parish/town councils in most of England (so in your system you would have five levels of governance-mine would have four) but that layer is not present in cities, again adding to the complication!

 

[Cloud Strife]

I would point out that strictly there are parish/town councils in most of England (so in your system you would have five levels of governance-mine would have four) but that layer is not present in cities, again adding to the complication!

Yes, I think this is really why there's a need for major administrative reform in England. There is some issues in Poland in that the original system wasn't decentralised, so for instance, there are a lot of provincial level institutions that are under the control of the government rather than the provincial parliaments.

I think four layers can work well, it's just a question of sitting down and making sure that it's done properly rather than rushed through. For instance, you can have the English Parliament decide on how the health system is funded in England. They might establish a funding formula, so each regional assembly would be given a set amount of money to spend by the English government along with the list of things that must be carried out. The regional parliaments would then decide which facilities to fund and where, while local councils would take the responsibility of actually operating the facilities. You could amend this as appropriate, so for instance, it might be better in the SW assembly with a large rural population to have health care directly run by the assembly, but then SE England might be happier with hospitals being ran directly by large local councils.

The UK Parliament here would essentially only control the all-UK institutions, such as those responsible for approving new drugs.

 

[Wynd]

I await with interest the results of the Police investigation into Ms Sturgeon and Mr Murrell.....

An SNP internal party inverstgation which has absolutley no comperability to the fact that Whitehall and Westminster handed out billions of poiunds of UK Taxpayer money to their mates.

So again, Holyrood has no compariosn in that regard.

It is a very real and serious problem, because while the devolved nations have a strong argument that England can dictate to them, they can also dictate to English voters. It's completely absurd that a Scottish MP can vote on English tuition fees, while English MPs largely do not have a say on Scottish education matters.

Kind of like the absurdadity that 63% of Scotlands voters voted to remain within the EU, and now dont even have single market accesss, let alone EU Citizenship.

EVEL was withdrawn for a reason, by the UK Government.

Therer is no reason to keep the current Whitehall/Westminster system, and in fact it has demonstrated to all of us in the UK that it is dystfunctioanl and should be scrapped.

There is zero evidence that they do anything better than if decisions were made in York, or Cardiff or Edinburgh.

Why not have an English domestic administration in York, and then have a centralised government that is federated?

All domestic English, Scottish, Welsh revenue and spend decisons are taken at the respective centres, Cardiff, York, Edinburgh, and then have the federal governemnt setup like a board, with representatives from each of the 4 parts of the UK.

If 3 vote one way, and England votes another, then the direction is set, with all members having a veto on forign and defence matters. Had this happened we would not get Brexit, or the Iraq war.

It solves the issues around representation becasue all spending decisions in England would be made by the English reps in York, for example.

Borrowing would be devolved to the respective country administrations, with Cardiff and Edinburgh responsible for raising any debt, in much the same way as minicipalities do in the states. I suppose this is getting pretty close to the Swiss model, with the Cantons.

The primary absurdidity of the UK is that power is totally centralised in London, with the executive branch being far far too powerful, with an unelected PM able to change course at a whim, with zero parliamentary oversight.

 

[Noddy]

An SNP internal party inverstgation which has absolutley no comperability to the fact that Whitehall and Westminster handed out billions of poiunds of UK Taxpayer money to their mates.

So again, Holyrood has no compariosn in that regard.

Kind of like the absurdadity that 63% of Scotlands voters voted to remain within the EU, and now dont even have single market accesss, let alone EU Citizenship.

EVEL was withdrawn for a reason, by the UK Government.

Therer is no reason to keep the current Whitehall/Westminster system, and in fact it has demonstrated to all of us in the UK that it is dystfunctioanl and should be scrapped.

There is zero evidence that they do anything better than if decisions were made in York, or Cardiff or Edinburgh.

Why not have an English domestic administration in York, and then have a centralised government that is federated?

All domestic English, Scottish, Welsh revenue and spend decisons are taken at the respective centres, Cardiff, York, Edinburgh, and then have the federal governemnt setup like a board, with representatives from each of the 4 parts of the UK.

If 3 vote one way, and England votes another, then the direction is set, with all members having a veto on forign and defence matters. Had this happened we would not get Brexit, or the Iraq war.

It solves the issues around representation becasue all spending decisions in England would be made by the English reps in York, for example.

Borrowing would be devolved to the respective country administrations, with Cardiff and Edinburgh responsible for raising any debt, in much the same way as minicipalities do in the states. I suppose this is getting pretty close to the Swiss model, with the Cantons.

The primary absurdidity of the UK is that power is totally centralised in London, with the executive branch being far far too powerful, with an unelected PM able to change course at a whim, with zero parliamentary oversight.

Personally, I think that all primary elections should be made on a one person, one vote methodology. As someone who has lived and worked in both Scotland and England (I also currently work on an almost daily basis in Wales) at different points in my life, I don’t think my vote should count more or less depending on where I happen to live in the UK. For an upper house, which is an approval body, I think there is potentially merit in weighting things differently.

On your last point regarding the unelected PM. I would much rather have a Prime/First minster within an elected parliament/assembly than transition to a presidential system. I note Nicola Sturgeon was not elected by anybody in 2014, and Humza Yousaf was elected by the SNP membership, not the wider Scottish electorate, but I am perfectly happy with this as in my view although imperfect it is better than the alternative of a presidential system or repeated snap elections.

 

[Meerkat]

Have a proper regional assembly in York, where they dont send their revenue to Whitehall where it will inevitably end up in the hands of the various crooks and charlatans in the tory party.

How is the investigation into the ex Liverpool mayor going?

Actually this reminds me of a reason why northern regionalists should be careful of what they wish for.
Regionalisation with tax raising etc is likely to involve highlighting where England’s tax money comes from, and where it is spent.
The transfers between London/South East and the rest of the country will become very apparent and controversial.
Northern taxes should be spent in the north sounds great until London says “yeah, we like that concept”.

 

[Falcon1200]

An SNP internal party inverstgation

There is also, as I am sure you are aware, an ongoing Police Scotland investigation into SNP issues. But, of course, the parties involved are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, which status applies equally to those politicians in Westminster accused of corruption; Have any been charged with such?

But at least we can, hopefully, agree that when the Scottish Government (as possibly opposed to the SNP in it's internal dealings) squanders money it is due to nothing more than utter incompetence.

 

[KashmireHawker]

Pedant alert but the current North East Combined Authority (NECA) in operation since 2014 doesn’t have a mayor either. The new combined combined authority (NECA and North Tyne CA) which will also be called the North East Combined Authority is due to have a mayor.

Yep and it was the promise of a lot more money, which no doubt eventually saw both CA’s agree for the merger.

 

[KashmireHawker]

Three more devolution deals are edging closer:

East Yorkshire - covering East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Hull City Council, which will have an Elected Mayor.

East Riding and Hull are negotiating for a Level 3 mayoral combined authority. This offers the most devolved powers and increase in funding. A combined authority for East Yorkshire would create an East Yorkshire Mayor, providing residents with the power to set the region’s direction and to have the greatest say on their own future.

Devolution

www.eastriding.gov.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Oct 2023 ==


Greater Essex - covering Essex County Council, Southend-on-Sea City Council and Thurrock Council, and will not have an Elected Mayor.

Essex, Southend-on -Sea and Thurrock make up Greater Essex. The Government has confirmed that Greater Essex will work towards a Level 2 devolution deal.

Under the Level 2 deal, there would be a new Greater Essex Combined Authority. This would mean the three authorities make collective decisions about the power and budget given to them by the Government.

Level 2 devolution deal in development | Essex County Council

The deal would strengthen the local economy in Greater Essex.

www.essex.gov.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Oct 2023 ==


Lancashire - covering Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council, Blackpool Council and Lancashire County Council, and will not have an Elected Mayor.

Representatives from Lancashire County Council, Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council and Blackpool Council have met with Government officials to discuss the possibility of approving a devolution deal for Lancashire.

If approved, the deal will transfer new money and powers from central government to a newly created Combined County Authority allowing it to tackle key local priorities.

The deal would not require a change to the established democratic structures across the county or the need for an elected Mayor.

Combined County Authority

Information about the ongoing discussions with other councils in Lancashire to create a combined authority for Lancashire.

www.lancashire.gov.uk

 

[Sad Sprinter]

There's no point of having these half-hearted devolution attempts without care and housing being devolved from a local council to regional authority

 

[THC]

Three more devolution deals are edging closer:

East Yorkshire - covering East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Hull City Council, which will have an Elected Mayor.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Oct 2023 ==


Greater Essex - covering Essex County Council, Southend-on-Sea City Council and Thurrock Council, and will not have an Elected Mayor.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Oct 2023 ==


Lancashire - covering Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council, Blackpool Council and Lancashire County Council, and will not have an Elected Mayor.

All being lined up for formal announcement by the Chancellor in his Autumn Statement on 22 November. The word I've heard is that only three new deals will be announced this time so there will be some disappointed areas, e.g. Greater Lincolnshire, who have been working and briefing hard on their own proposals.

THC

 

[KashmireHawker]

In

All being lined up for formal announcement by the Chancellor in his Autumn Statement on 22 November. The word I've heard is that only three new deals will be announced this time so there will be some disappointed areas, e.g. Greater Lincolnshire, who have been working and briefing hard on their own proposals.

THC

I believe that to be the case too.

Greater Lincolnshire and Dorset I suspect will the unlucky one’s this time.

Perhaps they will sort it all out before the Spring Budget.

In other news, the East Midlands (Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire) and York and North Yorkshire shall have Mayors elected next May, with the official passage of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act in Parliament this lunchtime.

The latter, alongside South Yorkshire and the West Midlands will get Police and Crime Commissioner Powers.

 

[SteveP29]

The policy got as far as a referendum for a regional assembly in the North East, which was rejected by a big majority.

The Durham area of the referendum was a loaded question.

We had, do you want a regional assembly, if not, you're getting a unitary authority

The vote for the whole of the North East was an overwhelming No, so in County Durham, we got, in 2009, the the district councils Durham (City), Easington, Sedgefield (Borough), Teesdale, Wear Valley, Derwentside, and Chester-le-Street were abolished.
Now we (I say that as a we as I'm still a regular visitor back home) have a single council for the whole county (Darlington excepted) that concentrates on Durham City, leaving just about every area to suffer from insufficient investment to maintain and grow them.

Creating regional areas may seem like a good idea with less duplication of costs etc, but does it really suit the needs of the populace, who need to see that those representing them are doing the utmost for them in their areas, not the region as a whole.

 

[KashmireHawker]

Four further Devolution Deals announced today:

Level 3 Mayoral Deals in:

East Yorkshire - covering East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Hull City Council, which will have an Elected Mayor through a Mayoral Combined Authority from 2025.

Hull City Council and East Riding of Yorkshire Council have welcomed the Government's announcement of a proposed devolution deal for Hull and East Yorkshire.

The deal was announced today as part of Chancellor Jeremy Hunt's autumn statement, after several months of negotiations between the two councils and the Government.

The full proposed deal is now available to read here and will be considered by both local authorities' full council meetings in December.

Subject to councillors' approval, a period of statutory public consultation will follow in January.

The deal would bring significant investment into the area, helping to create more job opportunities and establishing a Hull and East Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, led by a directly elected mayor, who could be elected in May 2025.

Devolution deal announced for Hull and East Yorkshire

www.eastriding.gov.uk

Greater Lincolnshire - covering Lincolnshire County Council and the two unitary authorities of North East Lincolnshire Council and North Lincolnshire Council, which will have an Elected Mayor through a Mayoral Combined County Authority from 2025.

Council leaders from Lincolnshire County Council and the two unitary authorities of North East and North Lincolnshire have been working with government on a proposal for devolution, that has now been finalised.

A devolution deal would mean £24m of government funding would come to the area every year for 30 years, along with additional responsibilities.

The overall aims are to promote economic growth, put councils in charge of money that was previously spent from Westminster and take more decisions locally.The proposal includes the set-up of a new body (called a Combined County Authority) to oversee these powers, that would include a Mayor elected by Lincolnshire residents.

The existing councils would remain, and would continue providing the services they do now.Until a Mayoral Combined County Authority was established in 2025, it’s proposed that Greater Lincolnshire would also receive £28.4m for capital investment in priority projects, next year.

https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/new...nces-greater-lincolnshire-devolution-proposal

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2023 ==


Level 2 Non-Mayoral Deals in:

Lancashire - covering Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council, Blackpool Council and Lancashire County Council, and will have a Combined County Authority but not have an Elected Mayor.

Today's Government announcement of the potential for an historic devolution deal for Lancashire has been heralded as 'amazing news' for the county.The announcement to offer the deal was made by Chancellor Jeremy Hunt as part of today's Autumn Statement.

If given approval, the proposed deal will transfer new money and powers from central government to a newly created Combined County Authority.

For the past six months, leaders from Lancashire County Council, Blackburn with Darwen Council and Blackpool Council have been working together to progress a devolution deal for the area.

The proposed deal would give local leaders extra powers to tackle key priorities such as better public transport, boosting economic prosperity and improving employment and skills.

https://news.lancashire.gov.uk/news/devolution-announcement-heralded-as-amazing-news-for-county

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2023 ==

Cornwall Council - with further powers being given directly to the Local Authority, similar to the agreements with Norfolk and South County Councils, but unlike them this won’t be with a Mayor.

This historic deal marks a new devolution agreement between the government and Cornwall Council. The deal transfers new powers to Cornwall Council, providing local leaders with more control and influence over the levers of local growth, including devolution of the Adult Education Budget. The agreement also includes £500,000 of funding to support Cornish distinctiveness, including the protection and promotion of the Cornish language.

This Level 2 deal builds on the previous 2015 devolution deal for Cornwall and is the next step to deepening devolution for the region. The deal unlocks the benefits of devolution for the ~570,000 people living in Cornwall. A 2022 Level 3 devolution deal was also agreed with Cornwall but was not taken forward to implementation.

This agreement is subject to ratification of the deal by all partners and the statutory requirements referred to within this document, including the consent of Cornwall Council and parliamentary approval of the secondary legislation implementing the provisions of this Deal.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...lution-deal-kevambos-digresennans-kernow-2023

 

[WatcherZero]

Memorandum of Understanding was signed on the West Midlands/Greater Manchester single financial settlements.

Essentially Barnet like formula for funding (exact formula to be agreed by next April) where however much the government spends on a certain area the combined authorities get a %share to do with as they please. The government will set broad budgets for 5 'Themes' and the CA can move upto 10% of that themes figure out to redistribute between themes apart from Local Growth and Place which has no limit on how much can be taken out. The five themes are Local Growth and Place (Local/Regional development); Local Transport (local transport and multimodal rail fares, local rail integration and rail branding); Adult Skills; Housing and (brownfield) Regeneration; and finally Pilot of buildings retrofit (upgrading social housing & public buildings to reduce energy use)- which is a temporary theme and may or may not continue in future. Other themes under consideration for future inclusion are Prevention/Early Intervention on social deprivation issues, Affordable Homes Provision and Business Support Programs.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/655d0945d03a8d001207fe19/Memorandum_of_Understanding_for_the_Single_Settlements_with_Greater_Manchester_and_West_Midlands_Combined_Authorities_FINAL.pdf

They also both received 100% business rates retention where they keep all local business rates but the government deducts 75% of that gross revenue from their central government funding so in practise its 25% local retention of the gross tax receipts. Between the two CA's its worth about £160m a year from 2025 onwards.