|
|
Post by spinach on Sept 30, 2023 9:56:11 GMT
New and smaller regions of England, which respects historic counties and local identities, should be created if further devolution is proposed. The current regions are too large and have no cultural relevance to most people, while many of the proposed smaller devolved regions are too small and often do not consider local/cultural identities. I'm sceptical to further devolution, but if a more federal England is likely under a Labour government, perhaps new regions will have to be created.
I have proposed 11 new regions. However, I'm unsure whether to post the details on this thread or create a new thread for a Federal England.
|
|
|
|
Post by kvasir on Sept 30, 2023 10:38:20 GMT
This is just empire building. The current regions are fine. Modifications to the current arrangement could be made based on some kind of mechanism created post hoc potentially but ultimately we would likely just go round in circles.
Take Yorkshire and Humber. It's fine. Population wise its a bit bigger than Scotland. It contains a diverse set of areas, big urban areas like Sheffield and Leeds. Small towns, big port at Hull. Best part of two national parks. Several areas of outstanding natural beauty. A good mix of wealthy areas and more deprived areas that need support. A mix of different economic drivers including finance, industry, tourism, farming. It's fine.
Could we modify the current region? Sure. The Southern part of the Humber, aka North Lincolnshire, sits uneasily there. Separated by a big estuary. Not Yorkshire. Meanwhile the region south of the Tees is historically Yorkshire. Parts of the Yorkshire Dales are currently in the North West. Economically Chesterfield is closer to Sheffield than Nottingham and Derby. All these modifications could be justified.
But actually. Let's just stop. The current arrangement is fine. Let's not argue about boundaries anymore. Let's talk about what we want from regionalisation beyond solving the West Lothian question. Do we want to give regions the ability to raise their own revenue and keep the revenue they earn to spend it as we see fit? Do we see this more as a block grant operation with an enhanced Barnet formular? Central government raises the money through the treasury and spends the federal component (e.g. Defence and Foreign affairs) and takes the remainder and apportions it to the regions. Or will Westminster tell the regions exactly what to spend the money on and the regions just deal with implantation of Weatminster dictats? Maybe with a smaller scope for affecting change.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,104
|
Post by ilerda on Sept 30, 2023 11:39:43 GMT
The regional boundaries are fine provided they don’t automatically become the foundation for devolved governance. As statistical units and planning regions for national bodies they’re fine.
In a country as geographically small as the UK, coherent and uniform approaches are without doubt best when it comes to setting the rules. Just look at the ridiculous furore over the Internal Market Act for proof of that.
In my view devolution should exist to give local leaders power to direct and promote investment and regeneration. It should be about creating opportunities, not added layers of complexity and additional rules. That’s the difference between Street, Houchen and Burnham compared to Drakeford, Khan and Sturgeon.
The correct geographies for this kind of devolution are city regions and larger counties/pairs of counties. You can argue about whether it would make sense for Tamworth to come under the West Mids mayoralty or for Coventry and Warwickshire to have their own separate mayor, but it’s pretty clear that one devolved entity stretching from Rugby to Ross on Wye would be ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 30, 2023 12:47:56 GMT
The regional boundaries are fine provided they don’t automatically become the foundation for devolved governance. As statistical units and planning regions for national bodies they’re fine. In a country as geographically small as the UK, coherent and uniform approaches are without doubt best when it comes to setting the rules. Just look at the ridiculous furore over the Internal Market Act for proof of that. In my view devolution should exist to give local leaders power to direct and promote investment and regeneration. It should be about creating opportunities, not added layers of complexity and additional rules. That’s the difference between Street, Houchen and Burnham compared to Drakeford, Khan and Sturgeon. The correct geographies for this kind of devolution are city regions and larger counties/pairs of counties. You can argue about whether it would make sense for Tamworth to come under the West Mids mayoralty or for Coventry and Warwickshire to have their own separate mayor, but it’s pretty clear that one devolved entity stretching from Rugby to Ross on Wye would be ridiculous. England is quite small and fairly homogenous even after the deplorable levels of post-was immigration. You could lose England in a number of individual American states. It is easy to get from one end to the other in a day, and more importantly from all the major centres of population to each other very easily. There are no big rivers, not much in the way of mountains and no vast spaces, tundra, deserts or massive wetlands. We don't need any sort of devolution at all. We don't need regions for any possible purpose. We only 'need' one level of local government and I would use ancestral counties as the model. We have too many levels of thoroughly incompetent government. We need a lot less of it rather than more. The electorate tell us what they think by the abject lack of interest and failure to vote at all. We need UK Government and county councils, and only county councils if they have power to raise as much or as little as they want to, and far less by way of statutory compulsion. Most of local government is a non-democratic agency to deliver Government statutory diktat, that is often inadequately funded and not what the locals wouls actially wish to do. The political classes fear real democracy because they know that it would lead to a radical change in what was done and not done. Much of the largesse of the welfare state would be voted down in many parts of Britain if it was paid for locally and voted for/against locally. It can only be imposed by the arcane system of statutory insistence. The statutory insistence is the enemy of democracy and makes local government unnecessary and redundant. Just use agencies to collect local tax and adinister local services. Or make it really democratic with wide differences in tax and spend in different counties, or acknowledge it is really all centralized and cut out the flim-flam and expense of local government altogether. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,104
|
Post by ilerda on Sept 30, 2023 15:23:38 GMT
The regional boundaries are fine provided they don’t automatically become the foundation for devolved governance. As statistical units and planning regions for national bodies they’re fine. In a country as geographically small as the UK, coherent and uniform approaches are without doubt best when it comes to setting the rules. Just look at the ridiculous furore over the Internal Market Act for proof of that. In my view devolution should exist to give local leaders power to direct and promote investment and regeneration. It should be about creating opportunities, not added layers of complexity and additional rules. That’s the difference between Street, Houchen and Burnham compared to Drakeford, Khan and Sturgeon. The correct geographies for this kind of devolution are city regions and larger counties/pairs of counties. You can argue about whether it would make sense for Tamworth to come under the West Mids mayoralty or for Coventry and Warwickshire to have their own separate mayor, but it’s pretty clear that one devolved entity stretching from Rugby to Ross on Wye would be ridiculous. England is quite small and fairly homogenous even after the deplorable levels of post-was immigration. You could lose England in a number of individual American states. It is easy to get from one end to the other in a day, and more importantly from all the major centres of population to each other very easily. There are no big rivers, not much in the way of mountains and no vast spaces, tundra, deserts or massive wetlands. We don't need any sort of devolution at all. We don't need regions for any possible purpose. We only 'need' one level of local government and I would use ancestral counties as the model. We have too many levels of thoroughly incompetent government. We need a lot less of it rather than more. The electorate tell us what they think by the abject lack of interest and failure to vote at all. We need UK Government and county councils, and only county councils if they have power to raise as much or as little as they want to, and far less by way of statutory compulsion. Most of local government is a non-democratic agency to deliver Government statutory diktat, that is often inadequately funded and not what the locals wouls actially wish to do. The political classes fear real democracy because they know that it would lead to a radical change in what was done and not done. Much of the largesse of the welfare state would be voted down in many parts of Britain if it was paid for locally and voted for/against locally. It can only be imposed by the arcane system of statutory insistence. The statutory insistence is the enemy of democracy and makes local government unnecessary and redundant. Just use agencies to collect local tax and adinister local services. Or make it really democratic with wide differences in tax and spend in different counties, or acknowledge it is really all centralized and cut out the flim-flam and expense of local government altogether. I think two layers of local government is optimum personally. One to deal with the proper local stuff - street lights, playgrounds, cemeteries etc. and then another to focus on the more strategic and spatial aspects - housing and planning, waste management, economic development. The problem with the ancestral/traditional counties is that whilst it’s a nice idea for old romantics, it would be counter-productive when it came to putting into practice. As Derek Senior said in his Memorandum of Dissent to the Redcliffe-Maud report, there’s no reason why a local administrative body should have any claim to decide what constitutes what is essentially a cultural and social entity (ie a traditional county). Warwickshire CCC can still play at Edgbaston without Warwickshire CC being the ones who collect the bins from outside the ground. If we want effective, efficient local administration that focuses on strengthening local economies and attracting private investment then they need to accurately reflect the economic geography of the country, not some outdated, romanticised, Norman era idea of the division of England. Leave the traditional counties to the cricket and the flags. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Sept 30, 2023 15:36:26 GMT
I don't agree that England is homogeneous.
We've lost most regional dialects, cuisine, and clothing (unlike Europe). But we're still a country of regional identities.
|
|
spqr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,909 
|
Post by spqr on Sept 30, 2023 19:06:00 GMT
I don't agree that England is homogeneous. We've lost most regional dialects, cuisine, and clothing (unlike Europe). But we're still a country of regional identities. *Snort* A witless Euro-fanboy speaks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2023 7:02:04 GMT
I think it'll be interesting to see if Yorkshire's boundaries ever change, particularly if the Yorkshire Party starts to take off in a big way.
I also note that the last change to London's boundaries with the rest of the UK was in 1963, and before that, 1889. We're due another!?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 1, 2023 7:23:38 GMT
Nope - the last changes to the Greater London boundary were in 1995
|
|
|
|
Post by gerrardwinstanley on Oct 1, 2023 9:40:25 GMT
I wonder whether the Midlands would be better split north-south, rather than east-west.
I’d be in favour of smaller regions, which are more representative of a shared cultural identity etc. What sense, for instance, does it make to have Banbury and Dover in the same region.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,009
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 1, 2023 9:45:26 GMT
Nope - the last changes to the Greater London boundary were in 1995 OK then, last *major* changes  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2023 10:51:25 GMT
Nope - the last changes to the Greater London boundary were in 1995 Oh. What were they? I know there was some administrative tinkering in 1994 - the City gained the Golden Lane estate, and the City/Camden border moved so that Staple Inn is now in Camden (and I think Portsoken ward in the City of London might have moved local authority then), but wasn't aware of anything in 1995. |
|
|
|
Post by spinach on Oct 1, 2023 11:04:54 GMT
Possible proposals for new regions in Southern England, with simpler regions which respects historic counties and local identities. Economic, cultural, and geographical factors have been considered, as well as growing city conurbations. I also support the historic counties, and most areas (apart from those under Greater London) should be locally administered under their historic counties.
Chiltern
• Population - 5.8 million
• Area - Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, and Bedfordshire.
• Major settlements – Oxford, Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Reading, Luton, Maidenhead, Northampton, Stevenage, and Bedford.
• Other possible names – Thames Valley, South Central
The counties north of London would become ‘Chiltern’. The Thames Valley and all the market towns, new towns, and industrial towns located in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc or along the southern/eastern parts of the M1, A1 or M4 would be in one region. Northamptonshire would join this region due to cultural and economic links to towns/cities in the wider Chiltern region. Benefit of Oxford and Cambridge being in one region.
Weald and Downland
• Population - 4.8 million
• Area - Kent, Surrey, and Sussex
• Major settlements – Brighton, Crawley, Guildford, Canterbury, Eastbourne, and Ashford.
• Other possible names – Wealden, South East, The Downs
The counties south of London would become its own region. The area includes large number of prosperous commuter towns and villages with close economic/cultural links to London, picturesque villages in the Downs, and towns located along the southern coast of England. This region is separate from Chiltern due to travel time distance between the two areas (mainly caused by traffic congestion on the M25 and other motorways, and lack of cross-city trains) and economic/cultural reasons (lots of the population live in smaller historic towns and seaside towns with closer links to London).
Wessex
• Population - 5.8 million
• Area - Hampshire, Somerset, Gloucestershire, Dorset, Wiltshire, Bristol, and Isle of Wright.
• Major settlements – Southampton, Portsmouth, Bournemouth, Bristol, Bath, and Winchester.
New region centred on the historic boundaries of Wessex with Winchester as its capital. Most of this region is further away from London’s cultural and economic influence and centred on its two conurbations. The Solent and Bournemouth conurbations can be placed under one region with Bournemouth returned to Hampshire. Wiltshire, Somerset, and Dorset removed from the Southwest region as less geographically isolated and more urban than Devon and Cornwall. Furthermore, there is less of a West Country identity in these counties.
East Anglia
• Population - 3.4 million
• Area – Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk
• Major settlements – Norwich, Ipswich, Colchester, Chelmsford, and Southend.
• Other possible names – East of England, East Anglia and Essex.
Historic kingdoms of East Anglia and Essex united to create a new region. The southern parts of Essex are closely linked to London. However, North Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk are all fairly socially and culturally similar.
West Country
• Population - 1.7 million
• Area - Devon and Cornwall
England’s smallest region, mainly due to cultural and geographical reasons. Cornwall and Devon, with their strong West Country identity, are united to create the West Country region. There may be rivalry between the two counties, but Cornwall is too small for its own region.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 1, 2023 11:32:59 GMT
Possible proposals for new regions in Southern England, with simpler regions which respects historic counties and local identities. Economic, cultural, and geographical factors have been considered, as well as growing city conurbations. I also support the historic counties, and most areas (apart from those under Greater London) should be locally administered under their historic counties. Chiltern
• Population - 5.8 million • Area - Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, and Bedfordshire. • Major settlements – Oxford, Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Reading, Luton, Maidenhead, Northampton, Stevenage, and Bedford. • Other possible names – Thames Valley, South Central The counties north of London would become ‘Chiltern’. The Thames Valley and all the market towns, new towns, and industrial towns located in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc or along the southern/eastern parts of the M1, A1 or M4 would be in one region. Northamptonshire would join this region due to cultural and economic links to towns/cities in the wider Chiltern region. Benefit of Oxford and Cambridge being in one region. Weald and Downland
• Population - 4.8 million • Area - Kent, Surrey, and Sussex • Major settlements – Brighton, Crawley, Guildford, Canterbury, Eastbourne, and Ashford. • Other possible names – Wealden, South East, The Downs The counties south of London would become its own region. The area includes large number of prosperous commuter towns and villages with close economic/cultural links to London, picturesque villages in the Downs, and towns located along the southern coast of England. This region is separate from Chiltern due to travel time distance between the two areas (mainly caused by traffic congestion on the M25 and other motorways, and lack of cross-city trains) and economic/cultural reasons (lots of the population live in smaller historic towns and seaside towns with closer links to London). Wessex
• Population - 5.8 million • Area - Hampshire, Somerset, Gloucestershire, Dorset, Wiltshire, Bristol, and Isle of Wright. • Major settlements – Southampton, Portsmouth, Bournemouth, Bristol, Bath, and Winchester. New region centred on the historic boundaries of Wessex with Winchester as its capital. Most of this region is further away from London’s cultural and economic influence and centred on its two conurbations. The Solent and Bournemouth conurbations can be placed under one region with Bournemouth returned to Hampshire. Wiltshire, Somerset, and Dorset removed from the Southwest region as less geographically isolated and more urban than Devon and Cornwall. Furthermore, there is less of a West Country identity in these counties. East Anglia
• Population - 3.4 million • Area – Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk • Major settlements – Norwich, Ipswich, Colchester, Chelmsford, and Southend. • Other possible names – East of England, East Anglia and Essex. Historic kingdoms of East Anglia and Essex united to create a new region. The southern parts of Essex are closely linked to London. However, North Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk are all fairly socially and culturally similar. West Country
• Population - 1.7 million • Area - Devon and Cornwall England’s smallest region, mainly due to cultural and geographical reasons. Cornwall and Devon, with their strong West Country identity, are united to create the West Country region. There may be rivalry between the two counties, but Cornwall is too small for its own region. This post clearly demonstrates the pointlessness, vacuity and awkward 'forcing into boxes' of the whole theory of having regions. Regions are both pointless and silly in such a small nation. They are forced and awkward. They try to establish tenuous connections that are not really there at all, and in doing so open out divisions and petty argument over the fine tuning of already miniscule borders that pretend to relate to profound differences in attitudes, when IT and personal transport, TV and cuisine are ubiqitous and levelling. We don't need this further level of bureaucracy, expense and delay imposed on decisions. |
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,425
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Oct 1, 2023 11:51:51 GMT
Possible proposals for new regions in Southern England, with simpler regions which respects historic counties and local identities. Economic, cultural, and geographical factors have been considered, as well as growing city conurbations. I also support the historic counties, and most areas (apart from those under Greater London) should be locally administered under their historic counties. Chiltern
• Population - 5.8 million • Area - Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, and Bedfordshire. • Major settlements – Oxford, Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Reading, Luton, Maidenhead, Northampton, Stevenage, and Bedford. • Other possible names – Thames Valley, South Central The counties north of London would become ‘Chiltern’. The Thames Valley and all the market towns, new towns, and industrial towns located in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc or along the southern/eastern parts of the M1, A1 or M4 would be in one region. Northamptonshire would join this region due to cultural and economic links to towns/cities in the wider Chiltern region. Benefit of Oxford and Cambridge being in one region. Weald and Downland
• Population - 4.8 million • Area - Kent, Surrey, and Sussex • Major settlements – Brighton, Crawley, Guildford, Canterbury, Eastbourne, and Ashford. • Other possible names – Wealden, South East, The Downs The counties south of London would become its own region. The area includes large number of prosperous commuter towns and villages with close economic/cultural links to London, picturesque villages in the Downs, and towns located along the southern coast of England. This region is separate from Chiltern due to travel time distance between the two areas (mainly caused by traffic congestion on the M25 and other motorways, and lack of cross-city trains) and economic/cultural reasons (lots of the population live in smaller historic towns and seaside towns with closer links to London). Wessex
• Population - 5.8 million • Area - Hampshire, Somerset, Gloucestershire, Dorset, Wiltshire, Bristol, and Isle of Wright. • Major settlements – Southampton, Portsmouth, Bournemouth, Bristol, Bath, and Winchester. New region centred on the historic boundaries of Wessex with Winchester as its capital. Most of this region is further away from London’s cultural and economic influence and centred on its two conurbations. The Solent and Bournemouth conurbations can be placed under one region with Bournemouth returned to Hampshire. Wiltshire, Somerset, and Dorset removed from the Southwest region as less geographically isolated and more urban than Devon and Cornwall. Furthermore, there is less of a West Country identity in these counties. East Anglia
• Population - 3.4 million • Area – Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk • Major settlements – Norwich, Ipswich, Colchester, Chelmsford, and Southend. • Other possible names – East of England, East Anglia and Essex. Historic kingdoms of East Anglia and Essex united to create a new region. The southern parts of Essex are closely linked to London. However, North Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk are all fairly socially and culturally similar. West Country
• Population - 1.7 million • Area - Devon and Cornwall England’s smallest region, mainly due to cultural and geographical reasons. Cornwall and Devon, with their strong West Country identity, are united to create the West Country region. There may be rivalry between the two counties, but Cornwall is too small for its own region. This post clearly demonstrates the pontlessness, vacuity and awkward 'forcing into boxes' of the whole theory of having regions. Regions are both pointless and silly in such a small nation. They are forced and awkward. They try to establish tenuous connections that are not really there at all, and in doing so open out divisions and petty argument over the fine tuning of already miniscule borders that pretend to relate to profound differences in attitudes, when IT and personal transport, TV and cuine are ubiqitous and levelling. We don't need this further level of bureaucracy, expense and delay imposed on decisions. If you read spinach ‘s post I’m pretty sure he agrees with you. He says ‘I also support the historic counties, and most areas (apart from those under Greater London) should be locally administered under their historic counties.’ I don’t t support regional government, but it’s an interesting hypothetical to play around with none the less! |
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,425
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Oct 1, 2023 13:00:33 GMT
My Regions of England
London
-City of London
-Greater London
The Home Counties
-Kent
-Surrey
-Sussex x2
-Berks
-Ox
-Bucks
-Herts
-Beds
-Essex
Wessex
-Hampshire
-Gloucestershire
-Wilts
-Bristol
-Somerset
-Dorset
-Devon
-Cornwall
East Anglia
-Norfolk
-Suffolk
-Cambs
The Five Boroughs
-Lincs
-Notts
-Derbyshire
-Leicestershire
-Rutland
-Northamptonshire
Mercia
-Warwickshire
-Worcestershire
-Herefordshire
-West Midlands
-Shropshire
-Staffs
Yorkshire
Yorkshire x4
Lancashire-Cheshire
-Lancashire
-Greater Manchester
-Merseyside
-Cheshire
Northumbria
-Durham
-Tyne & Wear
-Northumberland
-Cumbria
|
|
|
|
Post by spinach on Oct 1, 2023 13:30:50 GMT
This post clearly demonstrates the pontlessness, vacuity and awkward 'forcing into boxes' of the whole theory of having regions. Regions are both pointless and silly in such a small nation. They are forced and awkward. They try to establish tenuous connections that are not really there at all, and in doing so open out divisions and petty argument over the fine tuning of already miniscule borders that pretend to relate to profound differences in attitudes, when IT and personal transport, TV and cuine are ubiqitous and levelling. We don't need this further level of bureaucracy, expense and delay imposed on decisions. If you read spinach ‘s post I’m pretty sure he agrees with you. He says ‘I also support the historic counties, and most areas (apart from those under Greater London) should be locally administered under their historic counties.’ I don’t t support regional government, but it’s an interesting hypothetical to play around with none the less! I’m also fairly sceptical of further devolution and federalism of the U.K. However, if devolution is going to happening I hope it can devolved to historic counties or smaller regions (especially when some cities regions cover two or three counties). Also local government should be simplified. For example, the Yorkshire region should encompass all historic parts of Yorkshire (including Sedburgh, Saddleworth, Middlesbrough etc) and then subdivided into the historic ridings. We could have an elected mayor and some devolved powers for each riding. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Oct 1, 2023 13:50:48 GMT
There is very little need for combining counties. Kent, for instance, would be a more viable region on its own than Northern Ireland.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Oct 1, 2023 13:56:31 GMT
I've posted this before, but these are the regions I'd advocate:  |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 1, 2023 15:30:04 GMT
I wonder whether the Midlands would be better split north-south, rather than east-west. I’d be in favour of smaller regions, which are more representative of a shared cultural identity etc. What sense, for instance, does it make to have Banbury and Dover in the same region. The West Midlands is generally a coherent area, although Herefordshire and Shropshire have more in common with Wales and the West Country than the West Midlands; West Mercia (including Worcestershire, where the east is better connected with the proper West Midlands but where the west looks to Herefordshire)) should be a separate region in its own right. Lincolnshire would fit in better with East Anglia, and Northamptonshire with the Chiltern area, leaving Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire to form a North Midlands region. |
|
