Off Topic Political Debate

Having lived in a big city all my life until three years ago when I moved to a small country village I'm intrigued by some of the current arguments both for and against regionalism. On a micro-scale we have a parish council here. Its responsibilities are very limited, its finances even more so and its powers in terms of its relationship with Winchester City Council non-existent. It's no surprise that it struggles to recruit members. Location does seem to play a role at this level too. If your parish is on the fringes of a city, borough or county council it's easy to feel priorities at the centre are far removed from those on the outer edges. If the central decisions are often taken by an executive body and not the full council and that executive is dominated by a single political party it's easy to feel that community wishes are secondary to the will of a city-based club of often self-important folk. It's local democracy at work but it's hard to see equality for all being achievable in the way it operates at present.

 

I agree that countries like Germany and Switzerland were always 'regionalized' which lent itself naturally to later federal structures. England is a special case because it has been one country with the same boundaries and the same capital for 1,000 years - there would be little support now for a resurrection of Mercia, Wessex or Northumbria. With the possible exception of the South West, regions would, as you suggest,be difficult to define. However, the landscape of England was redefined by the industrial revolution - no other country in Europe was so geographically specialized as England was. Whole areas had only the one heavy industry - whether textiles as in Lancashire or the West Riding, coal as in South Yorkshire or the North East, steel, as in the area from Sheffield to Scunthorpe, the Potteries etc. only Birmingham had really mixed industries. Even in the Ruhr area of Germany there is not a parallel to this specialization. These industries effected the culture and the landscape of whole areas. What Spurf constantly emphasized, in his blunt and often abusive way, was the term neo liberalism and how the ''loadsamoney'' values of the home counties have become the moral orthodoxy of the UK: valueing only egoism and calculated self interest. Since the 1980s the UK. economy has reconfigurated itself to serve the needs of London, finance and banking. We talk of independence here - yet London and the home counties are nearly independent now in as much as, since the devastation of Britain's industrial base, they have not needed the rest of the country. In order to redistribute wealth evenly throughout Britain you would have to do one of three things. The first would be use of taxes on all financial transactions (Tobin Tax) and the redistribution of this money to the regions. The second would be trying to rebalance the British economy - which is probably the single biggest task for Britain. Or thirdly a kind of special status for London , and it's surroundings (like Hong Kong within China), and let the rest of Britain concentrate on redeveloping some of its manufacturing base - maybe moving the government away from London in the process.

 

We have our election on 15th October - one of the current members in the States has on his banner by the roundabout nearest where I work the slogan "time for change". Does that mean that he wants to lose his seat?

 

Barry - Didn't you guys have a referendum or something recently and then ignore it?

Cologne - I still think you mixing up two issues. The first is that for the last 16 years Wales and Scotland have had a form of government for themselves. The Scottish referendum has created an environment where the powers of the Scottish Parliament will increase and probably include some taxing powers. The Welsh are asking whether they to should have a stronger Assembly. The West Lothian question has been around since it was asked by Tam Dalyell in 1978 - and in fact dates back almost a further century to around 1886 when the same question was asked regarding Irish Home Rule. It is no longer possible to have Scots, Irish and Welsh MPs voting on purely English matters when English MPs are denied those rights regarding the other nations. It is simply unfair and even if it were not for some Tories pushing the agenda the populist vote supporting Nigel Farage will ensure it gets answered. Of course it suits the Tories well but Labour is likely to face a very hostile 2015 General election campaign if they are positioned as being "anti-English" - especially as it can be seen that they only want to preserve the status quo for their own ends. Some form of English Parliament is around the corner.

I view that very positively. It makes devolving more powers to the other 3 nations more palatable and helps people in those countries - largely more left wing than England as a whole - build a better social society. However ti will also highlight the iniequalities within England which sometimes now get blurred doue to Wales , Scotland and N Ireland.

England is just as you described it above. It has lost the ability to generate balanced wealth and is fairly lucky that it does actually have London and its financial sector to prevent a much more serious decline into greater poverty. We need to feed and foster further success regards the banking sector and the City as we are exceptional at it. The decline of the north was inevitable - Thatcher is blamed for it but in fact all she did was speed up the inevitable. We moved from a agriculture to manufacturing naturally as we are a small island with not great land area, from there we moved to the "tertiary" or service based economy as other countries caught up on manufacturing and used greater and cheaper to extract resources and cheaper labour. We were being out-competed and it was only going to get worse. Throwing money at industries that would inevitably die was like trying to preserve the horse and cart in the face of the automobile.

The total failure has been not to let dead and dying industries die but to fail to plan to replace the wealth they once created. What we need to do is to spread new wealth around. Start up capital needs to be directed towards the regions which have lost their old base. England needs a full scale regional policy - but the wealth for that has to come form the centre - from London and the South East. We need more HS2 projects - not less. We need to stop the ever increasing overcrowdedness of the South East by making far far better communications across England as a whole - so that people can prosper in the north and yet still be in touch with the south east and it sgeographical and commercial advantages. A powerful English focussed Parliament is needed for that.

 

I can see a very very difficult election for Labour, they have no credibility regarding economic policy, are admitting that cuts are necessary and will be losing some of their traditional vote, if they take a self serving line regarding powers for an English parliament it may be the final nail in the coffin of the dying swan that really should be put out of its misery. With a leftist Scotland and still a United Kingdom people are free to migrate cross border without limit. If the utopia is so good here in Scotland then let the people come and fill all these socialist jobs, enjoy the 365 days a year of sunshine and sweet scented air....
Spot on we need to plan for succession of current industries and that is what government must do. It must stimulate the seeding of new industry not support dying industry. The death of the heavy industries in the UK was a result of unions and the constant clamour for higher renumeration with lower productivity. Like it or not this is a world economy with free trade and ideally relatively free labour migration, as such to be successful and get a high standard of living for the population we need 1) Education 2) Political stimulation of productive and progressive industries 3) Environment to attract the best businesses to invest in UK. The government now needs to get going quickly in preparing our economy for the next generation of needs, thats not supporting dying industry but closing it as quickly as possible and using that same funding to seed new businesses that grow. Look at Watford for example, where would we be if we were still relying on Sun, Odhams and John Dickenson rather than all the high tech (and heaven help us) lottery businesses, life goes on life changes, he who anticipates change succeeds, he who objects to change ultimately fails. Its a fact of life that cannot be countered by any alternative ideology.

 

We can discuss politics and politicians until the cows come home, but until the Treasury and the Senior Civil Service is purged of the Establishment/Public School brigade and thoroughly reformed, there will be nothing concrete achieved in the process of bringing our government and governance into the 21st Century.

 

Very well put

I am not sure why you want to purge the Treasury and Senior Civil Service of the Establishment / Public school brigade. Whether or not you like Harrow, Eton and Oxford and Cambridge - they do produce the finest minds and best educated people. Why would we want to fill senior posts with graduates from Ex- techCollege University. We have to get past this inverted snobbery of the working class. Only if you put the best people in the most important jobs will you have the best run society.

I can accept an argument that say 10% of places in Eton , Harrow and the like should be available for the best kids from ordinary working class backgrounds - funded with scholarships to enable them to attend - but these kids need to be able to meet the toughest selection criteria. As I have said before I come from solid working class stock and have never had a penny given to me by anyone. Two of my children who went to Ricky school went on to Oxford University - it is not only for the elite. Equally at her interview at Oxford my daughter met Ewan Blair - and he failed to get in - and settled for Bristol. Keep the top universities for the most able children irrespective of background. However you will never be able to prevent the rich and wealthy buying an excellent private education - even if it means them having personal tutors. Do you think the children of our top footballers all go to their local secondary school?

 

I wish I could believe that. No matter how much money you have you cannot get a turd polished with it.

What they do produce (and I will agree that they are not only for the elite - only mostly) are those elite that will perpetuate the vested interests of Britain - the wealthy and the privileged.

I heartily agree - but the top universities are not kept in this way. Given the choice between candidates to Oxbridge with equal qualifications coming from a state school or a Public School, the latter will invariably win. It is the same with the Treasury and the Civil Service. It is a self-perpetuating system. Your daughters presumably are not going into a political career; they may be disappointed.....

 

I come from the state school system (Ricky as well) and got very close at one point to obtaining a senior position (ambassador) in the civil service. When I've been ex pat I've met a lot of these senior civil servants and they are eminently capable and very well educated, qualified and trained. My cousin was the first of our family to get into Oxbridge, I was the first to get to University. I do believe that its wrong that the top schools are full to an extent of hooray henries who do not necessarily have the same academic ability as some who may not get the opportunity from poorer backgrounds but generally the cream will rise to the top anyway and the t*rds will sink. I can look at my own circumstance, honestly I was the best maths student, brilliant at art, brilliant at history (and modest!!) in my class but... I did not get external support and there are those that have advanced more academically than I did because they received external tutoring to "keep up", is that a problem? I don't think so, the biggest thing holding anybody back is themselves, if a person wants and is willing they can achieve anything whatever the background at least in this society, conversely in cuba, china, north korea and venezuela unless you are in the socialist elite you are doomed to a life of misery and servitude. I know which system I prefer and have witnessed first hand the results of attempts to equilbriate to the lowest common denominator in society (it falls apart when you appoint a bus driver as president!!!) We need to protect society against democracy in the form where it has the capability of an ignorant majority directing a complete society down a negative path just because they are more numerous. The ultimate result of the way we are embracing democracy is that the lower classes, certain religious sects and indeed any section of society without birth control will become dominant. This is counter to Darwinism and survival of the fittest, modern medicine and infant survival rates without education and birth control endanger our ability to sustain the human race.

 

I wondered why phones4u had gone under...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thin...h-middle-classes-staging-a-revolution.html?fb
This should be illegal and banks need to be more responsible in lending. Is there no regulator? If not there needs to be, unless you build a business with intent of bettering society, making employment as a consequence of profit you should not be allowed to make acquisitions. A bit reminiscent of the "pretty woman" syndrome...

 

Whoooooo Aberdeen - I think you have moved a long way in some of that and I am not convinced all in the right direction.

When I left University I joined the Civil Service as an Administration Trainee and was appointed to the Inland revenue - six of us were admitted and I was the only non-Oxbridge one. I have to say the others were not shabby - anyone who scoffs at people who come out of Oxbridge as hooray henrys simply does not know them. You cannot polish a turd is true - but few people who have had the proper education from infancy and get into a very competetive Oxbridge in today's world are turds. My son in law whom my eldest daughter met at Oxford is simply the most brilliant mind I have ever known. I have a pretty high IQ myself but stand in awe of him - both he and my daughter work for the NHS. What would people rather have running the country - a load of anti academics like Pol Pot or people who are clever and highly educated - even if some of them do come from a privileged background.

and Vic - as my example of Ewan Blair shows - Oxbridge nowadays take the best - you do not reject the son of an incumbent Prime Minister lightly.

 

I don't believe the elite that get into Oxbridge or Durham or any other traditional University for that matter are hooray henrys, it's a tough entry for anybody. The Hooray set are what make up the majority of private schools, we had the opportunity to send our kids to Cheltenham (the girls) and rugby (the boy) but chose not to. THere is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they would have excelled academically even the weaker, these places are full of a lot of over priviliged kids as well as a sub set that is elite both genetically and by nurture. Its important that these folk are allowed to take up their logical leadership roles. My cousin got into Cambridge as a featured academic pupil from underpriviliged class, there#s a mix at the proper universities its just still a wee bit to imbalanced in favour of the hereditory classes. Must separate the outputy from the schools from the output from the universities......

 

And yes I have some opinions that very few will agree with but they are mine even if they are extreme I believe them to be correct. Hopefully the world will sort out its overpopulation issues by natural selection some time soon without too much pain and certainly without another holocaust though I fear we may be heading that way with the division between Islamic extremism and western values polarising the earths population into two groups that cannot live in harmony.

 

I think Eton and Harrow, Roedean and the like are as you say full of the rich elite - and due to the excellence of their teaching many will rise far above the academic levels they would have achieved if they were not part of the elite. Once you get to University these days money does not buy you a place. That is bought by the better education that gains you the examination results.

Your views are certainly extreme but none the less interesting for that - and in these days of political correctness are rarely expressed. I need to gather my thoughts more if I am to try to respond to what you say. Darwinism untrammelled - some concept - I think when Cologne and many others see this they will have a response

 

The day i got my degree they might as well have shut down all the Univeristies, colleges and adult education centres in England!

By the way, is there anyone on here who has never worked in the civil or public service? All looking good for when we get an independent Hertfordshire

 

Can I say firstly that the decline of the north was not inevitable. Germany was faced with the same problem of the death of its heavy industries - but was able to transform those into a concentration upon high tech precision products, which was often done in the very same towns. There is also the question of so called 'green' technology, where Britain could be establishing a lead for itself.

I do not know if England not having its own parliament can be described as 'unfair' - technically maybe - but England already has 85% of the MPs in Westminster and so can function as an English parliament anyway. There are 4 ideas on offer. The first being that Scottish MPs would no longer be allowed to vote on English issues - this turns Westminster into a two tier parliament with first and second class MPs. The second idea of an English parliament outside of Westminster is difficult. There is no evidence that this alone would solve the north south divide - in fact it may even strengthen London's dominance. We need a constitution in the UK which involves the creation of regional powerhouses (either through regional assemblies or through special status for London) but it is clear that any new assemblies etc. would have to be based on PR.

You seem to assume that if we allow London to go on doing what it does best that this will drag the rest of the UK with it - this can only happen through some kind of financial transactions tax (Tobin Tax) which your government has always been bitterly opposed to. It will not happen by itself - like a kind of trickle down theory.

I'm sorry but I can't really comment on HS2 projects other than to say that the drawing of Birmingham into London's commuter belt does not do anything other than make it more dependent than before.

In contrast to some people on here I do not think that Labour will suffer at the next election. Why should they when it was Cameron's incompetence which so nearly lost the UK. What Labour is doing is trying to avoid a kneejerk reaction by not directly appealing to English nationalism - if we are looking for a constitutional settlement which will be in place for the next 100 hundred years or so then all ideas must be considered as possible.

 

I will put this here as I don't want the Scottish Independence thread to rise up the pages again.

As is their want Prime Ministers tend to nominate their predecessors for a seat in the House of Lords on their retirement from the House of Commons. Will the current incumbent David Cameron or Edd Milliband if elected feel the urge to nominate the Scottish bully? For services to British politics, for sedition or services to Scotland, as he has done none of these to a satisfactory level. They are sufficiently soft in the head to do it.

 

Your comment that banning Scottish MP's voting on English only matters creates a first and second class of MP's is labour party nonsense. The status quo which has been created by giving the Scottish parliament exclusive powers has already created an unfair two classes of MP. The simple idea of English Only MP's sitting on certain days is fair and workable.
If the Labour Party block this they will be punished in both Scotland and England at the next election.

 

I think it's time to leave the old man in peace (Darwin I mean). He was, after all, only a biologist - yet he is accredited with the ideology that competition is the driving force which propels history forwards. Used by Laissez Faire economists to justify a dog eat dog economic jungle, by Facists to justify the will to power as being mans' basic motivation for everything, for Nazism substitute racial competition and for Marxism substitute class competition. Darwinian ideas of the survival of the fittest are used by all of these ideologies in some way. But who are/ or were the fittest ? There is enough evidence from the natural World to assume that cooperation (both within and between species) is the far more dominant trait in ensuring survival. Those species which have adapted well have been those which developed societal behaviour involving give and take. The type of 'social Darwinism' which you advocate - which involves allowing the weakest to go to the wall - is symptomatic of precisely those species/or cultures which have not survived.

It must be very disturbing for you that the chav population of Britain is multiplying at such an alarming rate - would you maybe prefer some sort of compulsory sterilization ? This Chav phenomena is a very 'British' thing which manifests itself in Britain having 3 times more teenage pregnancies than any other country in Europe - unfortunate, but may have more to do with sex education (ie. we don't talk about it - we're English - we just fumble about) than a fundamental rejection of Darwin.

 

The idea that policies effecting England would be decided only by the 85% of English MPs in Westminster with the others barred from voting is hardly fair. Those 85% were elected by direct mandate and not by PR - thus making English politics less democratic than that of Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland, which have assemblies based on PR. A separate English parliament (extra to Westminster) could become a Westminster mark 2 - equally dominated by the money markets and needs of London and the South east, unless accompanied by some very radical thinking along regional lines. As a parting note - I have lived in Germany for the last 25 years so the chances of my ideas being dominated by Labour doctrine are remote.