Category Archives: Devolution

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland spending much more on public services than they collect in tax

Robert Henderson

The Office for National Statistics (ONS)  has produced  its first regional analysis of UK  public spending  and tax collected. The ONS describes the statistics as experimental and the methodology can be found here at the beginning of the analysis.

The data  shows  the public spending of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland considerably exceeds  the tax collected those countries.

Per capita their overspending is as follows in the latest year calculated (2015/16)

Scotland    £2,824

Wales         £4,545

N. Ireland £5,437

The total overspend in each country  calculated  by multiplying the per capita sum by the population of each of the three countries  gives these figures:

Scotland £2,824 x 5,373,000 (population)   = £15,173,352,000

Wales  £4,545 x 3,099,100 (population)       = £14,085,409,500

N. Ireland £5,437 x 1,851,600 (population) = £10,067,149,200

Total of public service spending by Scotland, Wales and N Ireland  over and above the money collected in those countries is £39,325, 910,700

England spends only  £599 per capita more than it collects in tax.

The population of England is 54,786,300

The excess  of spending over revenue in England is s £599 x 54,786,300 = £32,816,993,000

Total excess of UK spending  over revenue is £39,325,910,600 + £32,816,993,000 = £72,140,190,600

England has 86% of the UK population and 44% of the excess of spending over revenue

Scotland, Wales and N Ireland have 14% if the UK population and 54% of the excess of spending over revenue.

Population Estimates for  England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are taken from the  Office for National Statistics

Public spending per capita  in the four home countries

“In 2015/16, public spending per head in the UK as a whole was £9,076. In England, it was £8,816 (3% below the UK average).  This compares with:

Scotland: £10,536 (16% above the UK average)

Wales: £9,996 (10% above the UK average)

Northern Ireland £10,983 (21% above the UK average).”

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE BREXIT SUPREME COURT CASE


THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SUPREME COURT CASE


The Brexit Supreme Court case result, was not so surprising, given the shambolic and incompetent way in which the Government’s lawyers, led by the Attorney General, had conducted the case.

As I have mentioned in a previous posting not only did they agree to things that they certainly should not have agreed to, making life much easier for the Remainers to win the case, but also failed to argue the points that they ought to have argued. The most significant failure was to do what the Government had promised to do in the booklet that they sent out to all voters i.e. to immediately implement the decision and also David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn had both stated in Parliament that if Leave won then the Article 50 notice would be served the very next day. Here we are, however, months later with it still not served and now there is an irreversible ruling by the Supreme Court that there now has to be an Act of Parliament to authorise the service of the Article 50 notice.

It is not, however, certain that the Supreme Court ruling is bad news in the longer run. This is firstly because we do not know whether Theresa May’s Government will easily be able to get an Article 50 authorising Act of Parliament through Parliament. Maybe it will go through quickly. In which case the court case has been something of a waste of time with regard to the process of Brexit.

If, on the other hand, it is blocked in Parliament that will give Theresa May a “cast iron” Cause to have a snap General Election. I suspect that, if that happens, Labour will be very seriously damaged and UKIP would be completely wiped out since May would be campaigning for Article 50 to be activated.

The other reason why it is not certain whether this court case might not be a good result in the longer term is for us as English nationalists.

In the Supreme Court Judgment it has been made crystal clear that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no role in Brexit.

The immediate response of the Scottish National Party has been shrill and, with all due respect to Nicola Sturgeon, ill-considered. I always think it is tactically unsound to get involved in battles that you cannot win. Far better to be more modest in your aims in order to have small victories.

In First World War military doctrinal terms I am for “bite and hold” rather than the French military doctrine of the “Offensive à outrance” under which massed ranks of infantry with fixed bayonets were poured into the “beaten zone” of chattering machine guns. The delusional French “Offensive à outrance” was developed because of the French nationalist revanchist obsessional wish to be revenged for the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian War; perhaps a somewhat similar state of mind to Nicola Sturgeon’s increasing departure from reality.

Quite apart from the incongruity and philosophical incoherence of a Party claiming to be nationalists want to be ruled from Brussels, I would also just comment that Nicola Sturgeon’s strategy is quite incoherent, given that she claims she wants to get into this fight because Scotland is going to be taken out of the EU against its Will. However if she were to succeed in her Independence Referendum in getting Scotland out of the UK, Scotland will then be out of the EU as well! Go figure!

In any event it looks as if there is going to be a second Independence Referendum for Scotland, perhaps in 2019.

So far as English nationalists are concerned that is undoubtedly good news, since it is not unlikely that it will further awaken English awareness of the Scottish political class’s contemptuous attitude towards England and us English.

Anything that helps English People come to awareness of their Englishness and raises their consciousness of the separateness of England and its separate Interests is good for English nationalism!

There is, in addition, the juicy possibility that the British Constitution as it currently stands will be blocked and incapable of activating Article 50. If that does prove to be the case then the only way out of the EU for England will be the dissolution of the United Kingdom. This would trigger automatic exit, by bringing to an end the UK which is the Treaty Accession State. Ironically enough that would mean that Scotland and Northern Ireland are automatically out, not only of the UK, but also of the EU!

Theresa  May’s   “clarification” of Brexit means Brexit

Robert Henderson

May’s speech  of 17 January 2017   was  a classic Theresa May performance , mixing  statements somewhere between a  boast and a threat to give the idea that the UK would be looking to its own interests first, second and last with  suggestions  which undermined the Britain First message.   Contrary to the many media  reports welcoming it as giving clarity it is, with the exception of the Single Market, a speech with  a great deal  of wriggle room not least over her acceptance of a transitional period and suggestion that the UK should remain attached to some  unspecified   EU projects. Here is some of the Britain First rhetoric:

 “Not partial membership of the European Union, associate membership of the European Union, or anything that leaves us half-in, half-out. We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave.

“That means taking control of our own affairs, as those who voted in their millions to leave the European Union demanded we must.

“So we will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain.

Leaving the European Union will mean that our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. And those laws will be interpreted by judges not in Luxembourg but in courts across this country.

“Because we will not have truly left the European Union if we are not in control of our own laws.”

“But I must be clear. Britain wants to remain a good friend and neighbour to Europe.  Yet I know there are some voices calling for a punitive deal that punishes Britain and discourages other countries from taking the same path.

“That would be an act of calamitous self-harm for the countries of Europe. And it would not be the act of a friend.

“Britain would not – indeed we could not – accept such an approach. And while I am confident that this scenario need never arise – while I am sure a positive agreement can be reached – I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.”

Balanced against the Britain First rhetoric were statements which directly or by implication undermined  the idea that the UK would be truly sovereign.  Around a miasma of waffle the details May gave allowed for a large amount of wriggle room.    Her  “I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain”  is meaningless because she has never properly defined what a “bad deal” would be.  The only thing which could be said to be certain (in the sense that it was not  covered with overt  qualifications)  is that the UK  will not be joining  the Single Market.  However, even with that seemingly unequivocal statement  it  is important to understand that  the ground which the Single Market covers including freedom of movement  could be brought back in part by whatever agreement , if any,  is concluded between the UK and the EU.

Remaining attached to the EU 

A good example of the lack of clarity is May’s  rejection  membership of the Customs Union, but leaves  the way open for the UK to become a semi detached member:  viz:

“…I  do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff.  These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries.  But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU.

Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the Customs Union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it. It is not the means that matter, but the ends.

And those ends are clear: I want to remove as many barriers to trade as possible. And I want Britain to be free to establish our own tariff schedules at the World Trade Organisation, meaning we can reach new trade agreements not just with the European Union but with old friends and new allies from outside Europe too.”

May also wants the UK to keep open the possibility of the UK continuing to contribute  money to EU programmes, viz:

“…because we will no longer be members of the Single Market, we will not be required to contribute huge sums to the EU budget. There may be some specific European programmes in which we might want to participate. If so, and this will be for us to decide, it is reasonable that we should make an appropriate contribution. But the principle is clear: the days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union every year will end.

“…we will also welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research, and technology initiatives.”

“With the threats to our common security becoming more serious, our response cannot be to cooperate with one another less, but to work together more. I therefore want our future relationship with the European Union to include practical arrangements on matters of law enforcement and the sharing of intelligence material with our EU allies.

Britain is an open and tolerant country. We will always want immigration, especially high-skilled immigration, we will always want immigration from Europe, and we will always welcome individual migrants as friends.  But the message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe. And that is what we will deliver.

Then there is  immigration, viz:

“Britain is an open and tolerant country. We will always want immigration, especially high-skilled immigration, we will always want immigration from Europe, and we will always welcome individual migrants as friends.  But the message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe. And that is what we will deliver.

“Fairness demands that we deal with another issue as soon as possible too. We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.

“I have told other EU leaders that we could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.  “

There is a woolly commitment which could mean virtually anything as to how many EEA migrants could come to the UK, both skilled and unskilled.  Large numbers of skilled people will give British employers no incentive to train our own people and the fact May does not rule out unskilled or low skilled workers suggests there will be large numbers of these.

As for the position of UK nationals living in the EU and EU citizens living in  the UK , if an agreement is made to simply guarantee the rights of UK nationals and EU citizens in the countries which they are living,  then the UK will be losers because  the benefits which most countries  within the EU offer are much less generous than those offered in the UK to EU citizens.   Health service provision is  the outstanding example of this.  There is also the question of how honest each EU country will be when it comes to  allowing UK  nationals access to their  benefits after Brexit.   For some years there have been reports of the Spanish making access to their  health services  by UK nationals difficult and since the vote to leave the EU Spain has been trying to get the UK to pay the medical costs of UK nationals living in Spain. .

Perhaps most immediately  disturbing is May’s commitment to a  transmission period with  different  periods of transition, vz:.

“I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year Article Fifty process has concluded. From that point onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest. This will give businesses enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements.

This might be about our immigration controls, customs systems or the way in which we cooperate on criminal justice matters. Or it might be about the future legal and regulatory framework for financial services. For each issue, the time we need to phase-in the new arrangements may differ. Some might be introduced very quickly, some might take longer. And the interim arrangements we rely upon are likely to be a matter of negotiation.

But the purpose is clear: we will seek to avoid a disruptive cliff-edge, and we will do everything we can to phase in the new arrangements we require as Britain and the EU move towards our new partnership.”

Any of  the items mention under the heading of Remaining attached to the EU  might have a specious rationality about them,  but they all offer considerable opportunities to prevent a genuine Brexit simply  by  their multiplicity.

Devolved powers

May made this commitment:

“I look forward to working with the administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to deliver a Brexit that works for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Part of that will mean working very carefully to ensure that – as powers are repatriated from Brussels back to Britain – the right powers are returned to Westminster, and the right powers are passed to the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

So we will work to deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the Republic, while protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom’s immigration system.

Nobody wants to return to the borders of the past, so we will make it a priority to deliver a practical solution as soon as we can.”

This could be an excuse for substantial new powers to be given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in an attempt to stifle opposition to the UK withdrawal from the EU.  But every time new powers are granted to the devolved administrations this edges them nearer to independence because it prepares them for independence.

The Common Travel Area with the  Republic of Ireland 

Independence is a medium to long term problem. The border with the Republic of Ireland (RoI) is an immediate and  very  serious problem .    If the Common Travel Area is retained then the UK will not have control of her borders because anyone wishing to settle in  the UK can do so via the ROI.

May will doubtless come up with claims that new surveillance techniques  based on computer systems to identify and track migrants working  or drawing benefits,  but does anyone have any real faith that the British state will have either the resources or the will to identify those working illegally (many will simply work in the black economy) and deport them?

The lack of a hard border between the RoI and Northern Ireland  would also mean that EU goods could be smuggled into the UK if a tariff wall  exists between  the UK and the EU.

Our Europhile Parliament

But whatever  agreement is finally  made between the government and the EU it will not be a done deal.  Why? Because May revealed that she could  “confirm today that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force.”

That unequivocal commitment has more to it than might appear at first glance. By committing to allowing both the Lords and Commons to vote  on whatever is agreed she has greatly increased the opportunity for Parliament  to either delay or even thwart Brexit altogether.    Whether the vote is on a motion or on a  Bill either can be amended,  so matters could be delayed or sent back to square one not only by a vote against the motion or Bill, but also by amending the motion or Bill to overthrow the terms of the agreement between the Government and the EU .

As the Prime Minister has committed the Government to  allowing the Lords and Commons a vote,  it would be impossible to meaningfully accuse those in Parliament who voted against  terms of the agreement between the Government and the EU of acting against the will of the people because by agreeing to allowing the Lords and Commons  a vote they  have  accepted that Parliament has the right to refuse or amend  the terms agree with the EU. Not only that  it would be politically hideously difficult going on  impossible to ensure the Lords voted for whatever terms were put before them by arranging to have hundreds of new peers created who could be trusted to vote for the terms.  Not only that,  but by agreeing to a vote by the Lords May has given the peers  who want to remain in the EU a respectable excuse for going against the  referendum result and, if the Commons did vote to agree the terms,  of thwarting the Commons as well by delaying matters. The Government could use the Parliament Act  to force a  Bill through after a  year or so but has no power over a defeated motion,  so if a motion was rejected a Bill would have to brought forward which would mean further delay.  Because of this a Bill is more likely than a motion of both Houses.

There is the further complication of  legislation  to  give legal post-Brexit status  to all the EU law which the UK is already committed to – “as we repeal the European Communities Act, we will convert the “acquis” – the body of existing EU law – into British law.”

Presumably this would be  legislation separate from any  legislation brought forward to allow the Lords and Commons to vote on the terms agreed with the EU. If so that would allow further opportunities for substantial delay.  Moreover, if the UK leaves after  two years (the period stipulated in Article 50 if the EU does not agree to an extension)  without any agreement having been reached between the UK and the EU, the need to pass  a Bill making EU  derived law UK  law would still exist and  the opportunities for delay or rejection by one or both of  the Houses of Parliament would still be there,  arguably  in an enhanced form.

As things stand the earliest the UK can escape from the EU will be March 2019. The next General Election is due on 7  May 2020 according to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011.  The only ways  an election could be called earlier is either two thirds of the House of Commons (that is two thirds of the total number of Commons seats not two thirds of those who vote – 417 seats out  of 650) vote for an earlier election or the Government loses a vote of No Confidence.  With the present balance of the Commons the first option is very unlikely and the second would require the absurdity of Theresa May somehow engineering a vote of confidence against her own government.  Hence, either is very unlikely.  That would mean that when Parliament gets to vote on whatever agreement is reached by the Government and the EU , even the Lords alone would have the power to delay matters either into the general election or shortly after it.

The political weather might  change radically by 2020. It could be that the EU deliberately gives the UK the run around for two years or more and no agreement is reached  before March 2019 or one or more of the 27 remaining EU members refuses to ratify the proposed agreement.  The UK would then be forced either to leave the EU without an agreement  and trade under WTO rules or the UK government  under the pressure of time  would have to cave in and agreed to  very disadvantageous terms  for the UK.  It could even be that the  Government, their backbenchers or the entire Parliament of both Houses will secretly be delighted if  the latter happens because it would probably re-attach the  UK to the EU it is a way to enable future UK Governments  to be  able to use to embed the UK ever more firmly into the EU.  Improbable?  Well, remember this, the Government , the Commons and the Lords are strongly in favour of the UK remaining in the EU. The Prime Minister,  Chancellor and Home Secretary are all remainers at heart and the Foreign Secretary of a shameless opportunist who would come out for remain at the drop of a hat if he thought it would aid his political career.  Not only that but the Civil Service at least  at senior levels  are also very wedded to the idea of the  UK being in  the EU.

The idea of leaving and trading  under WTO rules until if and when new trade arrangements can be made with the EU is not  an unattractive one.  The problem is that  if it happens in 2019 that will have cost the UK a great deal . If it was done now it  would have a number of great advantages.  It would immediately bring certainty whereas delaying the UK’s departure until March 2019 or even later will involve a great deal of uncertainty. In addition The UK could stop paying the huge subsidy the EU extracts  from the UK each year soon, decide where the money the EU  currently returns to the UK with strings attached  may be spent, be  immediately removed from the reach of the European Court of Justice, be  free to make new trade deals with the rest of the world, control immigration from the European Economic Area (EEA)  and repeal or amend any of  the  EU inspired legislation which is on the Statue Book.

If the UK remains entwined within the EU until March 2019,  regardless of whether any agreement is reached between the UK and the EU ,  will have since the vote to leave on 23rd June  last year  have paid 33 months of  the huge  annual subsidy to the  EU   (33 months  worth would be  around  £26 billion),  have had to spend the money which the EU currently returns to the UK  on  what the EU directs it shall be spent on, accept any new  EU laws and regulations which cannot be vetoed, remain under the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction and,  most importantly , be unable to control immigration from EEA, which if it remains at the level of last year  (net EEA  immigration to the UK is estimated to be  189,000 in the  Year Ending  June 2016) would mean  around  half a million more immigrants by the time  the UK leaves the EU  (and it could easily be higher as would-be immigrants scramble to get in before the UK’s departs the EU).

The long and the short of the speech  is that  despite its range of topic  May’s speech provided  precious little clarity overall about either what the Government will be seeking or what will happen once an agreement is made between the UK and the EU  or no  agreement is made.

SHOULDN’T DEVO SAUCE FOR THE WELSH GOOSE BE SAUCE FOR THE ENGLISH GANDER TOO?

SHOULDN’T DEVO SAUCE FOR THE WELSH GOOSE BE SAUCE FOR THE ENGLISH GANDER TOO?

The devolved Welsh Government has submitted written arguments to the “Supreme” Court in the Brexit case. My eye was caught by part of their submissions:-

“6. As the Welsh Government recently said in its written evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee’s inquiry The Union and devolution, devolution has become a fundamental and effectively irreversible feature of the constitution:

(i) Whatever its historical origins, the United Kingdom is best seen now as a voluntary association of nations which share and redistribute resources and risks between us to our mutual benefit and to advance our common interests.

(ii) The principles underpinning devolution should be recognised as fundamental to the UK constitution, and the devolved institutions should be regarded as effectively permanent features of that constitution.

(iii) Devolution is about how the UK is collectively governed, by four administrations which are not in a hierarchical relationship one to another. The relations of the four governments of the United Kingdom should therefore proceed on the basis of mutual respect and parity of esteem.

(iv) The allocation of legislative and executive functions between central UK institutions and devolved institutions should be based on the concept of subsidiarity, acknowledging popular sovereignty in each part of the UK.

(v) The presumption should therefore be that the devolved institutions will have responsibility for matters distinctively affecting their nations. Accordingly, the powers of the devolved institutions should be defined by the listing of those matters which it is agreed should, for our mutual benefit, be for Westminster, all other matters being (in the case of Wales) the responsibility of the Assembly and/or the Welsh Government.”


The whole of their submissions to the “Supreme” Court can be found here >>> http://gov.wales/docs/dfm/minutes/cabinet/161125counselgeneralforwalesprintedcaseen.pdf

It is however bitterly ironic that the ‘Counsel General for Wales’ then makes no mention throughout his 28 pages of legal submissions of the dreaded “E” words – ENGLAND or the ENGLISH! 

He also switches hastily to legalistic detail instead of further general statements of constitution principle. 

I suspect that this is because the above quotation would lead naturally to a discussion of fairness, equality and the unfair anomaly that England has no English First Minister, no English Government and no English only Parliament – unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!

SCOTCH NUMPTY PARTY  XMAS NOVELTIES 2016

Single Party State Monopoly

A boardgame  for four or more players.

The object of the game is to capture all the MSP seats.

Weighted dice ensure SNP always win

 

Wee Pretendy Parliament   Kit

When assembled  looks to the casual glance  like a  real parliament  with powers to tax  and spend

WARNING Complaints that the tax functions do not work are being investigated

 

Independence Challenge!

Virtual reality site in which players attempt to be build an  independent Scotland

Fiendishly difficult but great  for lovers of fantasy

 

Brexit Cube

Intriguing puzzle which requires the player to remain part of the EU whilst staying in the UK after Brexit

See how quickly you can make it fit together

 

Nicola Sturgeon Doll

Whines incessantly when activated

Has a store of  hilarious Catch Phrases such as

“Scotland pays its way”; “Scotland would be richer after independence” and “Scotland wants to become independent by being a member of the  EU”

Uncannily lifelike

Powered by four AA batteries.

 

Guess the oil tax revenue sweepstake

Players  write down  what they think will be the oil  tax revenue will be in  twelve months’   time

Hours of innocent  fun

WARNING SNP supporters with bad hearts are advised not to play

 

Model  Hospital

Comes complete with plastic figures representing patients, doctors and nurses

WARNING: Due to problems with the finance  and the suppliers there are very few doctors and nurses  but huge numbers of  patients

Just like the real thing

 

Make your own school exam Grade inflation kit

Too  few children  are passing exams?  No problem. Our grade inflation kit will soon put that right..

Just drop the pass mark and  hey presto!  the problem vanishes

 

National Police Jigsaw

The jigsaw contains pieces which represent  all the police forces in Scotland that existed until recently. When completed the jigsaw design shows just one national force.

WARNING: ensure the jigsaw is kept in a safe place when finished or it will fall  apart.

 

Independence Referendum Roundabout

Toy roundabout with  a selection of  figures representing  the various parties in Scotland

Once set in motion it continues indefinitely

Made of the finest plastic

 

Saltire T-Shirts

Show  where your heart lies with a T-Shirt emblazoned at front and back with the Saltire

Made in all sizes

Buy one for the bairns

Become one of Nicola’s Blue and White Shirts

 

STOCK CLEARANCE

North Sea Oil Money Tree

A popular game with Independence supporters  for many years  but now rather old hat.

 

Alex Salmond  Jock-in-a Box

A one-time Xmas favourite  which has fallen out of favour.

Still amuses small children as he pops up with his catchphrase whine

 

HURRY HURRY HURRY WHILE THE SCOTCH NUMPTY PARTY LASTS

 

 

 

 

Killing two political birds with one stone

Resolving the UK’s unfinished devolution and the Irish border  questions

Robert Henderson

Brexit provides a wonderful opportunity to  deal simultaneously with  two major political difficulties.  These  are  the  unbalanced devolution arrangements  in the UK and   what is to be done  about the

Relationship   between  the Republic of Ireland (RoI)  and the UK after Brexit.  Both  problems  could be solved by the RoI leaving the EU at the same time as the  UK and forming a federation with the UK.

The unfinished business of  UK  devolution

Three of the four home countries – Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland  – have  each been granted elected assemblies or parliaments . From these are formed devolved governments which administer increasingly significant powers such as the control of policing, education and the NHS.  The  personnel of the devolved governments and assemblies/parliaments  have by their words and actions made it clear that  do not think of the national interest of the UK but  of what is best for  their  particular home country.

The fourth home country England has neither an assembly nor a government and consequently no body of politicians to speak for England and to look after her interests.   A procedure to have only  MPs sitting for  English seats  voting on English only legislation  (English votes for English laws or EVEL for short)  began a trial in 2015,  but  it  has few teeth because  it is difficult to disentangle what is English only  legislation, not least  because  MPs  for seats outside of England argue  that any Bill dealing solely with English matters has financial implications for the rest of the UK and , consequently, is not an England only Bill. Nor does EVEL allow English MPs to initiate English only legislation. Most importantly  England , unlike Scotland,  Wales and Northern Ireland, is left without any national political representatives   to concentrate on purely English domestic matters.

  The House of Lords review of its first year  in operation makes EVEL’s  limitations clear:

The EVEL procedures introduced by the Government address, to some extent, the West Lothian Question. They provide a double-veto, meaning that legislation or provisions in bills affecting only England (or in some cases, England and Wales, or England and Wales and Northern Ireland), can only be passed by the House of Commons with the support of both a majority of MPs overall, and of MPs from the nations directly affected by the legislation.

Yet English MPs’ ability to enact and amend legislation does not mirror their capacity, under EVEL, to resist legislative changes. The capacity of English MPs to pursue a distinct legislative agenda for England in respect of matters that are devolved elsewhere does not equate to the broader capacity of devolved legislatures to pursue a distinct agenda on matters that are devolved to them

Not content with denying England a parliament and government of her own the UK government  has made strenuous efforts to Balkanise England by forcing elected mayors on cities and  the devolution of considerable  powers  to local authority areas built around cities  with Manchester in the vanguard of this development.   The ostensible  idea of this Balkanisation is to pretend that an English parliament and government is not necessary because devolution is being delivered on a regional basis to England: its covert intention is to ensure that  England cannot act as a political entity in its own right and have its representatives  asking  awkward questions such as why are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland  receiving so much more  per capita from the  Treasury each year than England receives.( The latest figures are: Scotland £10,536 per person,  Northern Ireland, £10,983  per person,  Wales £9,996  per person, England  £8,816 per person).

To balance the devolution settlement in the UK England needs a parliament and a government, not just to give her parity  with the other home countries, but to prevent the Balkanisation of England.  This could be done simply and without great expense by  returning   the Westminster Parliament to what it was originally, the English Parliament.   It could also function as the federal Parliament when that was required  to convene .  Hence, no new  parliament building would be required. Members of the Federal Parliament would be the elected representatives of the devolved assemblies of the four Home Countries and what is now the RoI.

The Republic of Ireland

Should the RoI decide to remain as a member of the EU she risks a hard border this  would  potentially mean an end to the free movement between the UK and the RoI and   the RoI having to deal with EU imposed tariffs on imports from the UK and UK reciprocal tariffs on goods exported by the RoI to the UK. It is important to understand that a “hard” border would  not just be that between the RoI and Northern Ireland,  but between the RoI and the whole of the UK.

The land border between the RoI and Northern Ireland   creates  two potential  dangers for the UK.   It could operate as a back door for illegal  immigrants to enter  the UK  and promote  the smuggling of goods.   At present the  UK government is attempting to foist onto the British public a nonsense which says that there  will be no need of a  “hard” border between  the RoI and Northern Ireland to prevent illegal immigration. Two lines of argument are employed to justify this.  First, that   it can be controlled by greater technological surveillance and   stricter  checks on employers, foreign benefit claimants  and landlords. Second, it is claimed that  the  fact that the UK is no longer an EU member   will mean  that the UK will be much less attractive to  people in the EU as a place to migrate to because they will not be able to get jobs or benefits.

This shows either a shocking  naivety or cynicism of a high order. The idea that people would not be able to gain employment simply because they are EU citizens ignores the fact that many illegal migrants from outside the European Economic Area  (EEA)  already do this.   Moreover, even  immigrants here legally have an incentive to work in the black market  because they  can avoid tax.

As for not paying benefits, how  would the authorities distinguish between the millions from the EU already in the UK who are almost certain to have the right to remain, and any new EU migrants?  It would be nigh on impossible.  It is remarkably easy to get a National Insurance number issued  in the UK and even if employers had stricter duties placed upon them not to employ EU citizens without a work permit or visa, there are plenty of employers who would be willing to employ those they knew were illegal because they are cheaper and more easily controlled and sacked  than British workers or theillegal  employer (this is a common thing with gangmasters)  is an immigrant  and makes a point of only employing  other immigrants from his or her  own country.  Once employed and with a National Insurance number they could claim in work benefits readily enough and probably out of work benefits too  because there is not the massive resources of manpower which would be  required to do the necessary checks on whether they  were eligible.

Whatever is said now there could not  in practice  be an open border  with the UK.   Even if  in the immediate  post-Brexit  period there  continued the present agreement between the UK and the RoI of free movement,  and this is what Theresa May is proposing, huge numbers of immigrants to the UK coming via the the RoI would create uproar amongst a British public who felt cheated that a hard border between the RoI and Northern Ireland would have to be created.

But even without the migrant question the idea that no “hard” border will be necessary  could be sunk if the EU or the UK imposes tariffs or quotas  on goods.  The ex-EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland has  pointed this out forcefully:

“We have been told by a number of Conservative Party spokespeople that Britain will leave the common customs area of the EU.

“If this is true, the customs union, which relates to sharing a common external tariff of the EU, will have to be maintained by all other EU countries with the UK following its withdrawal. Goods will have to be checked at borders.”

While the RoI Foreign Secretary Charlie Flanagan has said a hard Brexit would be unworkable for Ireland.

The RoI would  have the worry that if they remained in the EU they could find themselves suddenly saddled with tariffs. If a genuine Brexit is achieved by the UK then it is possible that either the EU will place tariffs or quotas on UK goods  and the UK responds in kind or that this will happen because no agreement can be reached and the UK leaves the EU and trades under WTO rules.  This would be more than an inconvenience for the RoI because she has  very substantial economic ties to the  UK.

All these difficulties with devolution and the RoI border  would dissolve  with the creation of  a truly federal state comprised of  England,  Scotland, Wales Northern Ireland and what is now  the RoI. Such a federation would need to have  full home rule. The issues which would be left to the federal level would be important but few:  defence, foreign affairs,  control of coastal waters, customs, management of the currency  and  immigration.  This would not mean  that the policy areas reserved to the constituent countries’ parliaments  would not be brought to the federal level  without   the agreement of  the constituent countries. Large infrastructure projects such as roads and railways  covering two or more devolved jurisdictions would be a good example of the type of issue  which might be dealt with at the federal level.

Such a federation would have a good start for  England, Scotland,  Wales are all undisputed territories with no border disputes or awkward enclaves stuck in the middle of another  nation’s  territory.  The Irish  situation is more complicated,  but if the entirety of Ireland was in the new federation that would probably take much of the sting  which is left out of  the sectarian divide .  Moreover, the RoI  and Northern Ireland would still each have a separate identity and a devolved  political  class and institutions directly responsible to their respective populations.  One of the reasons for the great stability  of Great Britain (that is, England, Scotland and Wales) over the  centuries is the fact that each nation had its own territory.  That would continue under the federation I propose.

Why would the RoI join such a federation?

Why would the RoI wish to give up her independence?   They reality is that while she is part of the EU the RoI is not independent. To begin withshe  has no control of her currency  because the RoI  is part of the Eurozone. To that can be added the huge amount of control through EU regulations and directives., interferences  with national sovereignty  which a small state such as the RoI has little influence over because of the EU’s  qualified majority voting. Moreover,    the way the EU is going member states are likely to have less and less national autonomy as the federalist project proceeds.   (An alternative plausible and damaging scenario is that the EU collapses  within the next ten years , most probably through the other states wanting to follow the UK’s example and leave the EU or simply because the Euro crashes.  This would leave the RoI on her own.  )

For a long time the RoI benefitted greatly from being a net beneficiary  with more money coming to the RoI than the RoI sent to Brussels.  That is changing rapidly.  The  net payment the ROI receives from the EU no  longer huge in relation to the size of her economy  (GDP  €214.623 billion in 2015). The ROI’s  financial delings  with the EU in 2015 were:

Total EU spending in Ireland: € 2.009 billion

Total EU spending as % of Irish gross national income (GNI): 1.10 %

Total Irish contribution to the EU budget: € 1.558 billion

Irish contribution to the EU budget as % of its GNI: 0.86 %

It is probable that within the next few years the RoI will become a regular net contributor to the EU budget.

As for RoI  exports , those to  the EU have   declined by over the past year while  RoI exports to countries outside the EU grew.

Set against a  background of declining monetary benefit, weakening exports to the EU  and  increasing uncertainty  as to where the EU is going the  considerable advantages  the RoI would gain in addition to  removing the problems  a  border  between the RoI and Northern Ireland  create  begin to look decidedly attractive.

The RoI would be part of a political unit which was a significant military power,  was a permanent member of the UN Security Council and held high positions in powerful international bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank.

The fact that the RoI is part of the Eurozone  need not be a great  problem,   because  the RoI  could immediately switch to the Pound Sterling as their currency.  This would  entail  far less upheaval than the RoI would experience if they remained in the EU and had to either leave the Euro of their own accord because it was too damaging or simply  find themselves without a currency because the Euro had collapsed.

Nonetheless I can see what an emotional wrench such a course would be  for any country which thinks of itself as a sovereign state.  That this is largely a sham whilst the RoI is within the EU  (the same applies to the UK until Brexit is achieved) is neither here nor there  if people think of a country as sovereign. Moreover, Ireland as a whole has a long and fraught history with the British mainland. Nonetheless , the RoI would have full control of her domestic matters and would actually have more control in many areas because there is so much that the EU now controls which would be left to each part of the federation.

There is also the greater question of what  the world will  be like in ten or twenty years.  Western Europe including the British Isles has enjoyed a remarkably long period of peace. That may  well not last. The threat may not come from European powers but new superpowers such as China and India.   This is not fanciful. There are approximately 7 billion people in the world at present  of whom at a most generous estimate only one billion live in the West.  It is overly sanguine to imagine that  such huge blocks of humanity  living outside the West will remain  forever without expansionist tendencies, tendencies  which could extend to Europe or even North America.  China in particular is engaged in quasi-empire building throughout the developing world.  In addition, there are strong signs that the world is casting globalisation aside with protectionist sympathies growing.   That makes the RoI’s substantial trade with the UK potentially even more important than it is now for we are likely to enter a world in which countries look to their own advantage. . Finally, there is the still largely ignored by politicians threat  of catastrophic unemployment which is almost certain to come in the next decade or two  from  the huge advances in robotics and Artificial Intelligence which will allow most existing jobs and,  most importantly,  most  new jobs which arise, to be done without human involvement .

In such an uncertain  world being part of a serious military, diplomatic and economic power could be much to the RoI’s  4.5 million population’s  advantage

 SNP XMAS NOVELTIES 2015

FORTH ROAD  BRIDGE  CONSTRUCTION SET

Have hours of fun building  the bridge then  watch it collapse just when you think it’s finished.

REFERENDUM SNAP!

The game is played with a pack of 52 cards. 51 of the cards are marked  NO REFRENDUM, one marked REFERENDUM.

WARNING  SNP supporters may find the game unbearably frustrating.

NICOLA STURGEON DOLL

Astonishingly lifelike.  Is equipped with the  latest digital technology which allows it to make any number of improbable statements such as “It’s ouir oil and it will make us rich”;  “Scotland pays more in tax to Westminster than we get back”; “An independent Scotland would be welcomed by the EU”.  Hours of hilarity guaranteed.

Can be linked with the Alec Salmond Jock-in-a-Box (see below)   which attempts to  controls the Sturgeon  doll often with  hilarious unintended results.

SNP MONOPOLY

The board is similar to an ordinary monopoly board but has squares marked with political and  public service positions such as First Minister and   Head of Police,   and buildings such as Holyrood .

All players represent   the SNP.  Players have to compete  to take as many squares as they.   The winner   is the player who controls most of the political and public service positions  and the infrastructure of Scotland by the time the game ends.

Every time a player passes GO they collect £200 of English taxpayers’ money.

SNP BBC SCOTLAND SET

Design your own SNP approved independent Scotland channel.

Put together a schedule full of classic Scots  favourites such as The White Heather Club and The Stanley Baxter show  and even more classic recordings  of Harry Lauder and Will Fyfe performing, together with  educational programmes such as Why you should vote SNP forever, The Labour Party is fascist and Tories are the new Nazis.

See what the future for broadcasting in an independent Scotland could be.

JUNIOR CYBERNAT SET

Consists of a giant Saltire duvet cover and an instruction manual  with phrases for every   occasion when anti-SNP statements are made.   Players can have unlimited fun shouting or posting “Tory scum”, “Nazis”, “Traitors”  at anyone who  does not uncritically support SNP policies.

MAGIC MONEY TREE

There is no end of money which can be got from a magic money tree. The money is monopoly cash,  but you can build everything from Castles in the Air to an Independent Scotland with it.   A tremendous fantasy toy which will be irresistible to SNP supporters.

Gas and Oil Sweepstake

Players write down their estimate of the tax derived from the Oil and Gas on the 1st of January and the person closest to the actual figure on the 31st December wins.

Tip to players: the lower you bet the more likely you are to win

 

Clearance stock  from  2014

Jock-in-a- Box

Alec Salmond figure  pops up just as reliably as it did in previous years  with an uncannily lifelike whine.

HURRY! HURRY! HURRY! WHILE STOCKS LAST

MY SUBMISSIONS TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION – Better Devolution for the Whole UK Inquiry

MY SUBMISSIONS TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION

APPG for Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution in the UK Better Devolution for the Whole UK Inquiry


The Local Government Association, which is a strongly Regionalist association of British Political Establishment apparatchiks, has recently launched an enquiry entitled:- “APP for Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution in the UK Better Devolution for the Whole UK Inquiry.” I thought I ought to respond to this on behalf of, not only the English Democrats, but also of the English Movement generally. I set out the response that I have sent in below, but first here are the terms of the Inquiry.

A panel, appointed by the qualifying officers of the Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution APPG, will consider written evidence and oversee the oral evidence sessions. The panel will be cross-party and drawn from both Houses and the four nations of the UK. The panel may appoint external expert advisers where it deems this necessary. As part of this inquiry, the Group would like to hear from businesses and voluntary organisations and their representative bodies, academics, and local government. The panel will seek evidence on the following areas:

1. Devolved nations: –

Devolution of legislative and fiscal competence to and within England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, including in the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill. 
Federalism in the UK.
English Votes for English Laws.

2. Local government: –

Devolution of legislative and fiscal competence to local authorities within the United Kingdom, including in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill.

Governance arrangements for decentralisation.

Sustainable funding system for local government.

3. Central powers in the UK and intra-UK relations: –

Implications for the role of Whitehall

Implications for the role of the Houses of Parliament

4. Wider constitutional reform: –

The reform of the electoral system

The reform of the House of Lords

Procedures to govern the consideration and implementation of any future constitutional reforms.

Written and oral evidence will inform the final report. The final report and its recommendations will be submitted to the Minister for Constitutional Affairs and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Here are my submissions to the Local Government Association Inquiry:-

As Chairman of the English Democrats I am writing to submit evidence to your enquiry. Here are some key facts about the English Democrats:-

The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8th largest contingent of candidates in England.

We would be happy to give oral evidence to the enquiry.

OUR EVIDENCE

In your Terms of Reference you have stated you want evidence on various defined areas:- 1) Devolved Nations; 2) Local Government; 3) Central Powers; and 4) Wider Constitutional Reform. The English Democrats on behalf of the Party itself and on behalf of the wider English nationalist movement would respond as follows:-

1. Devolved Nations


‘Devolution within England’[ cannot properly be described as “Devolution” at all by comparison to Scottish and Welsh national devolution. The only devolution that would be properly so called for England would be of an English Parliament, First Minister and Government with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones within a Federal UK.

It is the English Democrats opinion that the time for a Federal UK has already passed. For that to happen what should have happened in the first place when devolution occurred was that a coherent and fair national devolution for each of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should have been set up with each assembly or parliament having the same powers and a defined relationship with central government, as per every proper Federal State in the world. The fact that this was not done and that England’s just and fair interests have been consistently ignored and derided has led to mounting resentment in England.

It also would have been possible for the UK to have been turned into a Federal Regionalist State in conformity with the EU regionalist objectives but that would have required Scotland and Wales to have been regionalised and not for them to have national devolution. That window of opportunity has now firmly passed.

EVEL or English Votes for English Laws is a bogus, populist positioning policy which does not even properly answer the representational element of the wider English question.

The Conservative Government’s proposals are in any case the weakest of all the proposals for English Votes for English Laws. They will certainly disappoint all those people in England who think that the political system should allow a proper and fair voice for English interests to be expressed. The EVEL proposals do not of course even touch the executive side of the question as there is no proposal to have either a First Minister or Government for England, nor does it touch the administrative side of the question as there is no proposal to have an English Civil Service and not even to have a Secretary of State for England and therefore there is no parity with these proposals with what has been created for Scotland and Wales.

2. Local Government


It is not part of England’s tradition for legislative competence to be devolved from the National Government. However it is part of England’s tradition for our local government structures to be as independent of central government as possible. It is partly the United Kingdom’s increasing obsession with centralisation which has created the demand for Decentralisation. The English Democrats would like to see traditional local government structures re-empowered and there to be a substantial decentralisation of powers.

As the power to raise their own funds is an important part of the effectiveness and independence of governmental structures we would also support decentralisation of tax raising powers to enable local government to fund itself. Those aspects of so-called local government which are little more than local structures being deputised to do exactly what central government wants done should be dealt with by separate agencies rather than continuing with the pretence that they are genuinely part of local government.

The governance of Local government should also be made more democratically accountable with the universal implementation of Directly Elected Executive Mayors for all principal local authorities.

3. Central Powers


The role of Whitehall should be reduced and the role of the Houses of Parliament should be confined much more to those areas which under the current and evolving situation have not been devolved to Scotland.

4. Wider Constitutional Reform


Electoral System


Scotland’s electoral system has shown that despite the whiff of gerrymandering that accompanied the way it was set up, it has enabled a diversity of political opinion to be expressed in the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore to be preferred to an electoral system, such as the current first past the post system for the House of Commons which gives a bogus cloak of democratic majority to a party voted for by only 26% of the electorate in the last election and, with one sole exception, almost wholly denied representation for the votes of nearly 4 million voters. Such an electoral system is not only unfair but it is undemocratic.

House of Lords


The current composition of the House of Lords is completely unsatisfactory and too often appears to rest on cronyism, patronage and donations. Having moved from the original composition of mainly hereditary peers, there are only three options:- 1) Abolition of the House of Lords; 2) Reform to be a democratic UK Senate, as suggested by Lord Salisbury; or 3) A wholly elected Upper Chamber.

Those are the basic submissions of the English Democrats which we would be happy to expand upon in oral evidence if called.

What do you think?

WHY DO WE NEED AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT?


WHY DO WE NEED AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT?
 
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now have their own Parliaments or Assemblies and their own national Governments and First Ministers. It is only England of all the Nations of the “United” Kingdom that is subject to direct rule from the British Establishment authorities in Whitehall and Westminster.

So when British national politicians talk about the NHS, the only NHS that they have control over is the English NHS. When they talk about building more houses and creating developments in our towns and countryside, again the British Establishment authorities only have powers to do so over England. These are the areas compared to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland over which the English have no equivalent say:-


Scotland
Wales
N. Ireland
LAW AND ORDER
Justice
Exclusive
Exclusive
Civil Law
Exclusive
Exclusive
Criminal Law
Shared
Exclusive
Vehicle licensing
Exclusive
Exclusive
Local Administration Organisation & Finance
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Elections
Exclusive
Under consideration
Exclusive
Civil register
Exclusive
Exclusive
Police
Exclusive
Under consideration
Exclusive
Prisons
Exclusive
Under consideration
Exclusive
Fire services
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
SOCIAL & HEALTH POLICY
Public Pensions (devolved administration)
Shared
Shared
Pensions & Child Support
Parity[52]
Health Service
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Social Services ( Housing & Student Support)
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Social welfare
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
food safety and standards
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT
Taxation
Shared
Subject to referendum
Shared
Urban Planning
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Environment
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Housing
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Transport
Shared
Shared
Shared
Economic Development
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Agricult., Forestary & Fisheries
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
CULTURE & EDUCATION
Culture/language
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Primary & Secondary Education
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
University & Professional Education
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
Sport & recreation
Exclusive
Exclusive
Exclusive
RESOURCES & SPENDING
Own Tax resources
Yes
Subject to referendum
No
Allocation by UK Government
Barnett Formula
Barnett Formula
Barnett Formula
Other resources
Co-payments (Health & education)
Co-payments (Health & education)
Co-payments (Health & education)
Resources
0% own resources
0% own resources
0% own resources
Devolved Spending as % of total public spending
63%
60%
50%


So housing policy for England is decided by the British Government. The other Nations decide how many houses to build for themselves. Pensions are ‘shared’ which means 90% of Scottish pensions are paid from English tax. Also the British Government can only sell English assets they cannot sell property of the other countries. So if they want to raise money to spend anywhere in the UK they can only sell English assets for that purpose. Every aspect of national policy in England is decided by the British Government.

In the British Parliament itself it is no surprise that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Members of Parliament have as much constitutional right to get involved in discussions about what happens in England as any MP for an English seat would have. In addition, of course, the political parties that are represented in the British Parliament for England are all British parties rather than specifically English and many of the MPs who represent English seats are Scottish or Welsh whereas no English people are elected to office in Scotland or Wales. So the absence of an English Parliament does mean the English interests are not properly represented.

The wider problem is of course that there is not only an English Parliament but there is also no English First Minister or any English Government, so there is no-one ensuring that England is governed in England’s national interests.

One problem that is becoming increasingly pressing is that British politicians fear that England’s size and population will imbalance the Union. Also that the English will make it difficult to continue to appease Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with English money as we become more assertive about our Nation. The British Establishment’s answer to these problems is to try to break England up into “Regions”.

The English Democrats are wholly against England being broken up into “Regions”. Regionalisation is not equivalent to national devolution to the Scottish and Welsh. That is not to say of course that the administration of England isn’t too centralised. There should be a programme of decentralisation to help re-establish our counties and our towns and cities and to make sure that we are less subject to Whitehall red tape and that our local authorities are able to be more democratically run and more accountable.

The point is that, as we move to a situation where the United Kingdom either becomes a Federal system, or more likely dissolves, England needs its own democratic Government in its own Parliament to ensure that England and the English Nation has a proper democratic voice which is heard loudly and assertively over whatever happens in the corridors of power!

The Tories give a whole new meaning to democracy

If you won’t vote for an elected mayor have an unelected one

Robert Henderson

The Tories are currently bleating their heads off about how they  are all for bringing  politics and the exercise of  political  power to the people. Local democracy is, they shout ever louder, the order of the Tory day.  In the  vanguard  is Manchester, where a mayor and a “cabinet”  is to have the responsibility  for the spending and administration of  billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money  on  public transport, social care and housing as well as police budgets and, most dramatically, ultimately  the devolving of all NHS spending for the region.   When the process is completed local politicians will control more than a quarter of the total government money spent in Greater Manchester.

The political structure to support the mayor will be this:

“The mayor will lead Greater Manchester Combined Authority [GMCA], chair its meetings and allocate responsibilities to its cabinet, which is made up of the leaders of each of the area’s 10 local authorities.”

This is to be known as a city region. The mayor will not be an absolute  autocrat and can have  both his strategic decisions and spending proposals voted down by two thirds of the GMCA members – go to para 8.  On public service issues, each  GMCA member and the Mayor will  have one vote, with a  policy agreed by a majority vote. However, the mayor will have considerable powers and the requirement for over-ruling him  on strategic decisions and spending – two thirds of the GMCA members – is onerous to say the least.  That will be especially the case because the  councils of the  Manchester city region are largely Labour and the mayor, at least to begin with, will also be a  Labour man.

The casual observer might think this is a democratisation of  English politics. But wait, was not Manchester one of the nine English cities which firmly  said no to an elected mayor in a referendum in as recently as  2012? Indeed it was. Manchester voted NO by  53.2% to 46.8%  (48,593 votes to  42,677).  Admittedly, it was only on a 24% turnout,  but that  in itself shows that the local population generally  were not greatly interested in the idea. Nonetheless, 91,000 did bother to vote, a rather large number of voters to ignore.   Moreover,  low as  24% may be,  many a councillor and  crime and police commissioner has been   voted in on  a lower percentage turnout.

After the 2012 referendum the Manchester City Council leader Sir Richard Leese said  the vote was  “a very clear rejection”  of an elected mayor  by  the people of Greater Manchester while the  then housing minister Grant Shapps said  ‘no-one was “forcing” mayors on cities’.   Three years later that is precisely what is happening to Manchester, well not precisely because  Manchester is to have an interim mayor (see para 11)   foisted on them without an election,   who will serve for a minimum of two years and a maximum of four years before an election for a mayor is held.( The period before an elected mayor arrives  will depend on how long it takes to pass the necessary legislation,  create the necessary powers for the mayor and create the institutions on the ground to run the new administration ). When the time comes for the elected mayor the interim mayor, if he wishes to run for mayor, will have the considerable electoral advantage that incumbency  normally brings.

Sir Richard Leese, now promoted to be  vice chairman of Greater Manchester Combined Authority, has had a Damascene conversion to the idea of a mayor : “It was clear that an over-centralised national system was not delivering the best results for our people or our economy.

“We are extremely pleased that we can now demonstrate what a city region with greater freedoms can achieve and contribute further to the growth of the UK.”

The  interim mayor will be appointed  on 29 May by  councillors meeting in private.  There are two candidates, Tony Lloyd and Lord Smith of Leigh. Both are Labour Party men.  This is  unsurprising because the body organising the appointment is the  Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, (AGMA) which  is comprised of the  leaders of the 10 councils making up the region. Eight of them are Labour.   The job description for the interim mayor included the provision that he must be a politician from Greater Manchester ‘ with a “proven track record” of “achievement at a senior level in local government”’ . These requirements  made it virtually certain that both candidates would be Labour politicians.

The exclusion of the public from the appointment of interim mayor  is absolute. Here is Andrew Gilligan writing in the Sunday Telegraph:

“ The two candidates for mayor  have published no manifestos, done no campaigning, made no appearances in public and answered no questions from voters or journalists. Last week, The Sunday Telegraph asked to speak to both candidates. “He’d love to,” said Mr Lloyd’s spokesman. “But he’s been told he’s not allowed to talk to the media.”’

A spokesman for Lord Smith said: “He can’t speak about it until it’s over.”

Perhaps as a result, the “contest” has been barely mentioned in the local press and has gone completely unreported nationally.

His precise salary, predictably, is also not a matter for public discussion. It is being decided by an “independent remuneration committee” which meets in private and whose members’ names have not been published.

Judged by the mainstream media coverage there has been precious little public dissent about this gross breach of democracy  from influential Westminster politicians. Graham Brady, Tory MP for Altrincham and chairman of the    1922 Committee,  has ‘questioned whether the process was “within the bounds of propriety”, saying that any arrangement which gave the interim mayor “two or even up to four years to establish a profile and a platform for election would clearly be improper and unfair”.’  But that is about it  and  the appointment of the interim mayor carries  on regardless.

There are many serious  practical objections to devolving power to  English city regions , but the naked disregard for the wishes of the voters  makes the practical objections irrelevant  if democracy is to mean anything.  Nor is the fact that eventually there will be an elected mayor of any relevance  because the voters have already rejected the idea. Even if  there was to be an election  for the mayor now instead of an interim mayor,  it would still be wrong because the voters of Manchester have already said no to an elected mayor.

This affair smacks of the worst practices of the EU whereby  a referendum  which produces  a result that  the Euro-elites do not want is rapidly overturned by a second referendum on the same subject after the Euro-elites have engaged in a  huge propaganda onslaught , bribed the offending country  by promising  more EU money if the result is the one the elites  want and threatened the offending country with dire consequences if the second vote produces the same result as the first referendum. In fact, this piece of chicanery is even worse than that practised by the EU because here the electorate do not even get another  vote before the elite’s wishes are carried out.

But there is an even  more fundamental objection to the planned transfer of powers than the lack of democracy.  Let us suppose that the proposal for an elected mayor for Manchester  had been accepted in the 2012 referendum, would that have made its creation legitimate?  Is it democratic to  have a referendum in   part of  a country on a policy which has serious implications for the  rest of the country  if  the rest of the country cannot vote in the referendum?  Patently it is not.

The effect of the proposed devolution to Manchester would be to set public provision in the  Manchester city region  at odds with  at the  least  much of Lancashire, parts  of Cheshire and  Derbyshire plus  the West Riding of Yorkshire.  For example,  Manchester could make a mess of their NHS administration with  their medical provision reduced in consequence and   patients from    Manchester seeking better  NHS  treatment elsewhere.  This would take money from the Manchester NHS  and place pressure on NHS services outside of Manchester  as they catered for people from Manchester.  Alternatively, Greater Manchester might be able to improve their health services and begin to draw in patients from outside the city region, reducing the public money  other  NHS authorities  receive and driving down the quality and scope  of their services.

A single city region having the powers that Manchester are going to have will  be disruptive to the area close to it, but  If other city regions  follow suit – and it is clear that the new Tory government intends  this to happen –  the Balkanisation of England  will  proceed apace, with city region being set against city region and the city regions being  pitted against the remnants of England outside the city regions.

Nor is it clear that  the first candidate city regions would be evenly spread around the country.  The cities which like Manchester rejected an elected mayor in 2012 were Birmingham,  Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield, Wakefield, Coventry, Leeds and Bradford.  Having been chosen to vote for an elected mayor It is reasonable to presume that these would be the cities which would be at the front of the queue for city region status.  They are all either in the  North  or  Central Midlands of England. Even in those areas there would be massive gaps, for example,  all  four  Yorkshire cities (Sheffield, Wakefield, Leeds and Bradford) are  in the West Riding.  The most southerly one  (Birmingham) is 170 odd miles from the South Coast.

There may of course be other city region candidates , but  it is difficult to see how such a policy could be rolled out across the country simply because there are substantial areas of England without  very large cities or towns. In fact, south of Birmingham there are precious few large towns and cities (London being  a law to itself)  which could form a city region in the manner of that proposed for Manchester.  The only  Englsh cities south of Birmingham which have a population of more than 250,000 are Bristol and Plymouth.   Hence, it is inevitable that England would be reduced to a patchwork of competing authorities with different policies on vitally important issues such as healthcare and housing.

The idea of giving powers to city regions  stems from the imbalance in the devolution settlement which leaves England, alone of the four home countries, out in the cold without a national political voice. It is a cynical and shabby  political fix for a problem which will not go away but may be submerged for the length of a Parliament  through a pretence of increasing local democracy in England.  Anyone who doubts this should ask themselves  this question,  if devolving power to the local level is so desirable why do Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland show no appetite for it?  The answer is that their politicians recognise that to do so would weaken both the  political clout of their countries and deprive their electors of a focus of national pride and loyalty.

There is also an EU dimension to this. The EU welcome anything which weakens national unity, and there is no better way of doing that than the time honoured practice of divide and rule. That is precisely what Balkanising England through creating regional centres of political power will do. The EU will seek  to use city regions (or any other local authority with serious powers)  to emasculate the Westminster government by  attempting to deal directly with the city regions rather than Westminster and using the fact of the increased local powers  to justify bypassing Westminster.

Once political structures such as the city regions are established it will become very difficult to  get rid of them because the national political class is weakened by the removal of powers from central government and the new local political power bases develop their own powerful  political classes.  If the Tories or any other government – both Labour and the LibDems have bought into the localism agenda – succeed in establishing city regions or any other form of devolution in England it will be the devil’s own job to  reverse the process of  Balkanising England. That is why it is vitally important to either stop the establishment of  serious powers being given to local authorities or  to put a barrier in the shape of an English Parliament between  Brussels and the English devolved localities.