General British politics discussion thread

ancapailldorcha

I was going to ask why you shared an old link but it looks like she's raised this again despite spending her career promoting free market, libertarian nonsense imported from the USA. I've no idea why anyone would pay to hear her speak unless it's to gain influence through her contacts in the Tory party and the government.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120606362#Comment_120606362

Well, I would think it is exactly the format that devolved government would be drawn from.

In the event of war, democracy becomes secondary to survival. I would have thought that was self evident. How many general elections were held in the UK during the period of WW II?

In the event of nuclear attack, it becomes irrelevant - even survival becomes questionable - and selecting who is to survive becomes the issue.

So given a blank piece of paper and told to plan a survival strategy following a nuclear strike, the military would follow natural governance priorities. They would, I assume, use natural supply systems, and ease of control and protection methods. They would select centres for control and how they would be organised. Even commanders for each region would be selected - secretly.

Would that naturally lead to an optimum local Gov structure? I would think so.

How big an area can a single commander govern? How many centres would be optimum for civil control would be needed in GB in times of extreme emergency? I would think a dozen would be about the right number.

I would suggest a viewing of the film/TV series 'A Very British Coup' with but watch it to the very very end. Spoiler -https://moviechat.org/tt0094576/A-Very-British-Coup/58c74c246b51e905f674700a/a-REAL-coup-at-the-end

Peregrinus

Sam, structures designed without regard to democratic legitimacy or viability are pretty much by definition not going to be much use as a foundation for democratically accounting devolved governmental institutions. "How big an area can a single commander govern?" is a completely irrelevant question when it comes to devising devolved governmental institutions.

This makes about as much sense as basing devolved institutions on Nazi Germany's plans for governing occupied Britain. Their plans took no account of democratic considerations or local or regional identities either.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120606650#Comment_120606650

But the NUTS map was not designed for anything got to do with whatever Dr. Strangelove shte Sam is on about.

Local and regional identities were factored in which is why some areas are bigger or smaller and NI, Scotland and Wales are left untouched.

They are very much the basis for any devolved government in the UK.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120606710#Comment_120606710

Maybe — and I'm pointing the finger at myself here — the question we should be thinking about is not what the areas for devolved government in England should be, so much as why England doesn't already have devolved government.

I think the answer is twofold, though the two answers are related. First, England doesn't have a nationalist movement like Scotland, Wales and NI that reflects a feeling of difference, even alienation, from the UK institutions. Secondly, England is so dominant in the union that English voters are implicitly confident that Westminster will devote time and attention to English problems and English concerns, and will on the whole not make decisions that are unacceptable to English people.

Thus, there is basically no demand for English devolution. People have raised the idea from time to time, but it has found little popular traction.

If there were to be English devolution, a separate question is whether there should be a single English government, as there is in Scotland, Wales and NI, or a number of separate governments for different parts of England.

One common objection to a single English government is that it would be vastly bigger than the other devolved governments. But so what? The devolved governments operate separately from one another, and e.g. the Welsh government isn't adversely affected by the fact that the Scottish government is so much bigger than it. If the bigness of England is a problem, it's a problem in UK-wide institutions, and it's a problem that is solved equally well by devolution of purely English affairs to a single English government, or to several governments of parts-of-England. If you're talking about rebalancing the union to ensure equity at national level between its constituent countries, a single English government is all you need.

A slightly better-founded objection is that devolution to a single English government misses an opportunity for devolved government to be close to the people and to local communities. On this view, England is too big and too diverse to maximise the advantages; the optimal devolved government would administer a smaller area and population. That has some merit, but the counterpoint is that the connection between government and people would perhaps be weakened by the fact that regional identifications are patchy, and at least some of the regions would be, and would be seen to be, fairly artificial. If the NUTS regions are used, people in Swindon share a government with Cornish people, but not with people in Oxford; people in Medway share a government with the New Forest, but not with Southend. They will find that just weird. Borders make more sense if they reflect social and communal realities and governments are more likely to connect with people if people have a sense of themselves as a people; the NUTS boundaries were drawn with no regard at all to considerations like these.

But I think the bigger problem is not drawing the boundaries. The main challenge to devolved government embedding itself in the hearts of the English is that the English don't see any need for it and, by and large, don't want it. Precisely because of the dominance of England in the union, the present arrangement suits them quite well.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120606491#Comment_120606491

I thought it was old at first too; but nope, it's Truss hitting all the talking points - this time rebadged to appeal to her Taiwanese audience. I doubt many listening thought much of the ludicrous nature of her comments relative to her country's self-sanctioning, but am glad at least some papers back home are reporting her nonsense

Sam Russell

There were plans during WW II to have structures developed to defend the UK in the event of a German invasion. Those plans were further developed for the possibility of nuclear war, which appeared as a real risk in the 1960s.

When central Gov collapses, there has to be a survival plan, based on regional authority. Why would that plan deviate from a regional Gov structure in peacetime?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120607783#Comment_120607783

Because it's prepared for completely different purposes and by reference to completely different criteria?

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120610765#Comment_120610765

If a Gov wants to govern regions in the face of existential attack, they will devise structures that maximise efficiency of control and command, so that the result will be increase chance of survival. That was the case in WW II in the face of immanent invasion, and the active threat of nuclear strike in the 1960s.

If you leave out political bias, where possible, and that likely voting patterns matters to politicians, then effective administration would follow the basic requirement explained above. All regional governments must have equal powers fully devolved from central government.

Now, population and settlement patterns have changed hugely in the intervening time, so a new attempt would give different results, but not necessarily that different. The change of the size of cities and towns, and the improvement of connectivity would affect the boundaries, but not hugely.

However, I would posit that a dozen or so regional structures of about 5 million souls per region would be about right for the UK. Scotland would be about this size, and would be a separate region however the boundaries are drawn. Wales and NI would be significantly below this, but for obvious reasons would qualify for separate regional structure. Anyone familiar with England would spot that there is a difference between the north of England, the midlands, the London region that used to be the GLC, the south west, and the southeast. Even East Anglia is different. So, it is just a question of deciding where one region becomes another.

Essentially, effective regional government requires the same type of delineation as does survival government in an existential emergency.

Water John

The important part of regional areas for devolved local Gov'nt is not equal size, but a commonality in an area, a distinct identity. That could be Geordie, Scouse. People in the UK have no experience of good regional Govn't, so how would they know it would be a good thing? That's where good political leadership comes in.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120611132#Comment_120611132

That would be good for Scotland because there is a definite transition once the border is crossed.

However, that is generally not so. Where does London end? Where does the midlands start and end? Even Wales would be difficult because some parts are Welsh speaking, and some have significant proportions of outsiders moving in. Usually regions transition from one area that might be fine to the next different one.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120611132#Comment_120611132

The map in question would be pretty familiar to most English people.

Most are pretty well defined and used to describe places currently with a few exceptions like Wiltshire who I don't think call themselves West Country and I would say Cumbria would see itself in a northern border area with the North East rather with Manchester/Liverpool. It also splits the Home Counties but that is understandable.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120612579#Comment_120612579

That would work.

I think Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire might be better in the SE region. There is a concept of 'the home counties' that might be worth considering.

But overall, it matters little if that layout is acceptable for those living there. Much more important is the devolved powers that these regions have control over.

rock22

I can think of no political problem the UK is facing, particularly since Brexit, that will be solved by regionalisation.

All the 'errors' of Brexit and the lurch to to the right affect the UK's external relationships, whether with other countries or major international business and these will always remain a matter for the 'national ' government.

There could be support for an 'England' parliament but that would be, to a great extent, a copy of the current Westminster parliament.

In light of the FPTP electoral system, the two largest parties have become essentially internal coalitions, They have diverse views within them but are always susceptible to a takeover from any single faction, such as the ERG without democratic endorsement. The only way to bring some sort of accountability to this is to have a more representative electoral system where the likes of the ERG etc would solicit support directly from the electorate.

However, it is hard to see the two big parties, Labour and Conservatives, accepting that change at the moment. The only hope for such a change is a coalition government. Hopefully this time the LIb-Dems, and perhaps others, will choose the partner they lend support to more carefully

Sam Russell

There is one problem that regionalisation could deliver on - the democratic deficit.

For nearly 100 years, (since 1932) has a single party government got a majority of the popular vote. That is an indictment of the FPTP which favours split voting so the winner of a seat could get a significant minority of votes cast.

So, first, FPTP needs to be consigned to the bin, and a STV system implemented at both national and local level.

Now, for England, there is no regional level. For efficient government, regional Gov lays between National and Local level, and deals with matters like education, health, and policing.

Central Gov would deal with foreign affairs, defence, economics and taxation and legislation, courts and 'national' matters. Because of this, the HoC could be reduced by half.

Democracy is stranger in British politics.

astrofool

I do wonder what Braverman has on Sunak or if it's just the ERG clinging to some last bit of power. She seems hopelessly incompetent and getting involved in self-inflicted scandals continually (speeding tickets seemingly the latest one).

ancapailldorcha

She doesn't need anything. Sunak is much further right than he appears. The images of this is diluted by the extreme nature of the people who have taken over the party. Sunak can't oust Braverman because she represents the party mainstream and that's if he wanted to remove her.

breezy1985

The law is only for the plebs. Tories won't care what's he done.

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120623609#Comment_120623609

As nearly always with this kind of thing the must interesting part is who leaked this and why? The story is a year old. There are suggestions that it was shot across the bows from Sunak's camp after her Nat-C speech last week.

Leroy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120624444#Comment_120624444

Did you see Sunaks awful performance at the press conference at the G7? If this was a plan then they didn't think it through very well and he was completely unprepared. He now, yet again, looks weak and indecisive.

Water John

Was it leaked by No 10 to put some manners on her?

Leroy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120626380#Comment_120626380

To what end? Whatever happens, Sunak is now going to use up more political capital to either stand by her, which weakens him further, or he needs to have her resign, which makes his choice of bringing her back so soon after her last ministerial misstep looks like a bad decision.

If No 10 is being forced to leak stories about ministers to try and control them what does that say about the control it actually has? So I can't see what benefit Sunak, or No 10, will get out of this no matter how it plays out.

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120626404#Comment_120626404

Yeah, but Tory MPs were accusing Suella Braverman of making a bid for party leadership with that speech last week. How does that make Sunak look? She isn't going to stop her very public manoeuvring on her own accord.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120626588#Comment_120626588

True but what's he going to do? He can't take a constitutional gamble like Cameron as there's nothing there he can placate his hard right with. If he dismisses Braverman, who will he replace her with? The party faithful love her xenophobia and performative cruelty. I think the closer the election becomes, the more fractious and ungovernable the party will become.

I knew Sunak would be weak but never that he'd do all of this to himself.

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120626619#Comment_120626619

Keep leaking against her until she is so toxic that she either has to resign, or he appears to have no choice but to sack her? Just speculation of course.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120626835#Comment_120626835

I think he aligns on her with most things though. He's much more right wing than his demeanour would suggest. Why else would he rehire her after she was forced to resign with so many similar candidates available.

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120626960#Comment_120626960

I agree, he is much further to the right than he was perceived to be in the leadership race with Truss.

Timberrrrrrrr

Not going to come as much if a surprise to many but Dominic Raab to stand down as an MP at next election.

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1660753285542715392?t=lnvq9aC9kKwp5-1EytTfJw&s=19

political analyst

On news coverage of the junior doctors' strike in England, I've noticed the Socialist Worker placards. I'm puzzled as to why the British government isn't pointing that out. As for leaders of the strike .....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12000469/Junior-doctor-leader-joked-Twitter-gassing-Jews-suspended-BMA.html

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120632613#Comment_120632613

Story is over a month old