I read 22 Day in May by David Laws this week. It's a curious book. He's not a great writer but he's an engaging one nonetheless because you feel there's a real honesty in it. And there's something admirable about just not trying to justify or defend why he had to go. You can talk about your personal experiences in public life without having to talk about your actual private life.
I'm actually going to use the coalition agreements as the basis for my policy discussions. But I just wanted to make some basic observations:
The only options were confidence and supply or coalition between Lib Dems and Conservatives. Labour did not really want power. And in a sense this was always inevitable. For a coalition to be formed, it would always have to be a new broom rather than a propping up. Lib Dems who wanted to ally with Labour should have been hoping for a small conservative majority which could be toppled next time.
I'd forgotten that the election was fought over a £6billion phony war. The £6 billion itself was such a drop in the ocean that, whatever your views on timing for fiscal retrenchment, it was always worth doing it to please the markets. But the symbol also made the following budgets and spending reviews more likely.
The Treasury and the Bank of England came close to overstepping their constitutional role. I think their role in a hung parliament will need to be discussed more fully before 2015.
Laws talks about the importance of negotiating without knowing what role you might be given but I do think it's crucial that coalition plans include opinions on what roles you would want your party to have, if not the people.
Sunday 5 February 2012
Saturday 4 February 2012
Bright Lights in More Cities
The last post made it clear I support devolution for England in some form separate from making MPs from the other nations have less voting power. This is because a) the English votes for English laws is a total mess to deliver and b) I believe very strongly in devolving more things away from Whitehall.
Instinctively I would have liked some kind of federal structure with equal powers for the assemblies of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well regional assemblies for parts of England. However the truth is that there are not natural regions in England and any attempt to try and impose them would just kill attempts to devolve.
I also think that an English parliament is too big to be an effective form of distribution.
Which has led me to accept that we're going to need a hotchpotch system. This makes sense in terms of the nation (Northern Ireland is obviously a special case in certain areas, Wales's judicial system has always been the same as England's while Scotland's never has). So the question is where to devolve?
I'm increasingly coming round to Simon Jenkins's counties and cities argument.
I think the 'Marbella' argument is a good one. I think Jenkins's instinct is to focus on the counties bit, mine is to focus on the cities and to make them proper 'city regions'. Greater Manchester, West Midlands, Merseyside, Leeds City Region and Bosnia.
In terms of what I would devolve: everything the mayor of london has for starters including the police commissioner powers. I also like the Progress suggestion of being able to appoint a school commissioner. I wonder if there might also be a role for a health commissioner but that's an idle thought.
And this post explains much better than I can why it should be a mayor rather than an assembly (although there should be an assembly with a few more teeth than the current GLA). I would like to expand slightly on the point of accountability. It's not just that more people might know who the mayor is compared to an assembly leader. It's that it become more natural to think about the election in a local way. Council elections not only have terrible turnout but are also often used as polls on central government (I can't find any evidence on this through a lazy google but I have read it in a local government textbook. I bought it to impress the girls). But a mayor will make you assess them and their record and vote according to that, for both the mayor and the assembly.
I'm also pro the same devolution being given to counties, particularly those who are not in a major city region. What they call the directly elected leaders can be decided localyy (governors or if your Jenkins, high sheriffs, I quite like them being Earls and Dukes but then I suspect that will cause all kinds of havoc).
This will mean it's a bit scrappy (Leicestershire or Leicester or both?) but I think it's the most effective solution. And if some mayors have more statutory powers than others, well this is the UK, things are messy.
Instinctively I would have liked some kind of federal structure with equal powers for the assemblies of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well regional assemblies for parts of England. However the truth is that there are not natural regions in England and any attempt to try and impose them would just kill attempts to devolve.
I also think that an English parliament is too big to be an effective form of distribution.
Which has led me to accept that we're going to need a hotchpotch system. This makes sense in terms of the nation (Northern Ireland is obviously a special case in certain areas, Wales's judicial system has always been the same as England's while Scotland's never has). So the question is where to devolve?
I'm increasingly coming round to Simon Jenkins's counties and cities argument.
I think the 'Marbella' argument is a good one. I think Jenkins's instinct is to focus on the counties bit, mine is to focus on the cities and to make them proper 'city regions'. Greater Manchester, West Midlands, Merseyside, Leeds City Region and Bosnia.
In terms of what I would devolve: everything the mayor of london has for starters including the police commissioner powers. I also like the Progress suggestion of being able to appoint a school commissioner. I wonder if there might also be a role for a health commissioner but that's an idle thought.
And this post explains much better than I can why it should be a mayor rather than an assembly (although there should be an assembly with a few more teeth than the current GLA). I would like to expand slightly on the point of accountability. It's not just that more people might know who the mayor is compared to an assembly leader. It's that it become more natural to think about the election in a local way. Council elections not only have terrible turnout but are also often used as polls on central government (I can't find any evidence on this through a lazy google but I have read it in a local government textbook. I bought it to impress the girls). But a mayor will make you assess them and their record and vote according to that, for both the mayor and the assembly.
I'm also pro the same devolution being given to counties, particularly those who are not in a major city region. What they call the directly elected leaders can be decided localyy (governors or if your Jenkins, high sheriffs, I quite like them being Earls and Dukes but then I suspect that will cause all kinds of havoc).
This will mean it's a bit scrappy (Leicestershire or Leicester or both?) but I think it's the most effective solution. And if some mayors have more statutory powers than others, well this is the UK, things are messy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)