As well as the question of how many regions, there is also the number of layers to decide on. In our area we already have four (Westminster>County>District>Parish) - are we talking about another? I think it makes a difference.
Parish is irrelevant, the direction of travel seems to be unitary authorities anyway. It's worth noting that other countries tend to have more layers, all more powerful than our councils.
Why does London go with Anglia particularly?
I tried to get four provinces with similar populations, using existing county boundaries. It will always be a compromise, unfortunately. I didn't want London on its own as it would have too much clout.
Given the law making ability that they would have, it would become too complicated to keep track of what laws/regulations/taxes apply where if there were too many regions.
To me a "South" regional government covering Margate to Lands End would be difficult. Where would you put the capital? Brighton? Bristol? Reading? - there is a big difference between the South West and the London-dominated South East, and I am sure there are equal concerns in the North.
Regional headquarters would also be a good option, so that one city doesn't dominate a region. A small region with a small tax take and limited population size would be less effective imo.
I believe that Yorkshire should be devolved with a regional government.
This would fragment the north too much I think. Although it would be interesting to hear if you have different ideas whilst keeping the number of provinces small, even in population, with sensible borders which comply with existing counties.
Regional government sounds good but any devolved system relies on the tax base and tax raising powers of London and the South east. Imagine a Barnet formulae for all these regions. It already causes resentment now from those that pay and those that receive.
United States and the EU have tensions between rich and poor states.
Let's calll it redressing past wrongs - London has dominated for far too long and adequately funding all regions will improve the economy outside of London.
My personal belief is that local government in the UK is far too weak. Power has been certalised more and more in London for decade after decade, but really took off under Thathcer and continued under New Labour.
My preference would be unitary councils with dramatically beefed up powers. They are also responsible for far too little of the revenue they need to operate.
Local authorities in the US can set their own sales tax/ VAT rate so why can't British councils do the same? There's always going to have to be some sort of central funding though with a formula to support the poorest areas.
I do like the idea of city regions, though they have been implemented in a very poor way as is typical in British local government.
Mind you, I am not too sure most Brits agree with me. Some people online were/ are incredibly angry Scotland and Wales had different regulations to England. Whereas I'd be pretty happy for each council to set their own restrictions most appropriate to local needs and wants.
I've always firmly believed in responsibility being given the the most local power feasible. I think defaulting to provincial governments having power unless it is essential for the central government to manage it is the best option.