Where should power lie?

This century MPs have argued over where power lies under the heading of devolution. The so called progressive parties have favoured devolution of U.K. government power to regional Parliaments and Assemblies for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. They have denied the same to England, seeking to break England up into false regions and enlarged city regions, devolving power to elected mayors.

Instead of making people feel empowered the extra overheads and tedious arguments between devolved governments and national government over who is to blame for anything  have left many electors unimpressed. Electors in England are reluctant to vote in Council and mayoral elections, leaving the task to a minority who do. The more devolved government you have, the higher the overhead costs an£ the more disagreements over powers and responsibilities.

Contrary to Gordon Brown’s view that allowing devolved government would stop Scottish independence the Scottish Parliament gave the SNP a great platform and got them a referendum on leaving the Union. They still use the Parliament as a platform to demand more powers and independence despite losing the referendum. The London and Manchester Mayors used their pulpit to denounce the national government whilst playing down their responsibility for poor transport, housing and planning under their control.

Now public spending and taxes are so high what many people want is true devolution to themselves, not to another layer of government. Government does too much and interferes too much. I will be considering things government should do less of.

57 Comments

  1. Keith young
    December 22, 2024

    Every thing they do is only to avoid an English Parliament

    Reply
    1. Ian wragg
      December 22, 2024

      Correct Keith. England makes up 85% of the electorate and we are forced to subsidise the rest of the UK without representation. Scotland with its free university fees and nhs prescriptions, all paid for but denied the English.
      All the shipbuilding for the Royal Navy sent to Scotland instead of English shipyards
      Devolution had made the English second class citizens in their own land.

      Reply
      1. Lifelogic
        December 22, 2024

        Indeed many taxes like IHT, stamp duty, ULEZ, higher rates of income tax are largely designed to hit the more affluent part of England. I say affluent, but if you have had to borrow ÂŁ500k to buy a small matchbox then 40% tax on most of you ÂŁ100k salary to repay the mortgage you are rarely that affluent.

        Reply
        1. Lifelogic
          December 22, 2024

          Where should power lie obviously with the people in referendums they can initiate, recall petition. Not with the latest set of MPs often fraudsters who were elected on the basis on endless pre-election lies that they have no intention of even trying to deliver. Pre-election lies and on the basis that the others have to go and you are the only way to do that. Not with lawyers and supreme courts who invent whoe new new branches of law using things like ‘the right to a family life”.

          Reply
      2. Old Albion
        December 22, 2024

        Spot-on Ian.

        Reply
      3. JoolsB
        December 22, 2024

        Plus Reeves gave an extra 3.1 billion in the budget for Scotland as a thank you for voting Labour and now whoever gets in at Holyrood next year, Labour or SNP, intend to reintroduce the winter fuel allowance. Meanwhile many pensioners in England will freeze to death whilst our taxes go to keep everyone else’s grannies in the rest of the Uk warm. And when this happens, you can bet there won’t be a peep out of UK MPs squatting in English seats about the unfairness of it all. There never is. This is why we need a dedicated English Parliament where only those elected in England get to make decisions for it and start standing up for it for a change, unlike now.

        Reply
      4. Timaction
        December 22, 2024

        Not just devolution but non Equality Acts, non freedom of speech legislation, positive recruitment action, two tier policing and justice, DEI, ESG laws and policies. All make English men second class citizens but first class tax payers. Time to sweep this away with REFORM. English are as special as the rest!!!

        Reply
    2. Lynn Atkinson
      December 22, 2024

      The last thing we want is an English Parliament because then they could disband the British Parliament and scrap our British Constitution leaving us defenceless.
      Stop calling for your own destruction!

      Reply
      1. Ian wragg
        December 22, 2024

        Perhaps Lynne we would be able to make a better job of defending ourselves we could afford to.
        We certainly don’t have the resources at the moment.

        Reply
  2. agricola
    December 22, 2024

    Power should essentially lie with the electorate via it’s instrument Parliament. Nothing, be it our own judiciary, quango, or international quasi judiciary body, should be allowed power over our own Parliament. Between national elections, when major questions arise, such as Nett Zero or HS2, we should ascertain electorate opinion via referendum.

    To allow the above to function for the benefit of the UK as a whole I see no point in devolution, or mayoralities other than as advisory functions. They dilute and disfunction national direction. Another essential is the quality control of those who are allowed to sit in Parliament. While there may well be many of appropriate talent, there are far too many who are yet to rise beyond the level of student union mouthpiece. Recognisable success in the real world should be the starting point. The third great weakness is the worldly experience of our civil service. They may be suited to running a none existent empire, and be potentially highly intelligent, but I would like them to have achieved success in a real world activity. They might then not be so quick at withdrawing our only ship in the Falklands as they did, or at proposing fantasy solutions to the Chagos Islands injustice. They need contractual discipline with less inbreeding. They need to realise that they are a workforce at the command of Parliament, not the political entity some of them consider themselves to be.

    Within government, I would like to see a ministry of contractual excellence, real world, professionally manned, to oversee the myriad of infrastructure projects badly run at excessive expence by existing ministries and quangos. Not another Treasury or OBR I would add.

    Essentially once you have all the above elements in place, the UK requires a major churchillian figure to drive it and take the electorate on the same journey. As of this moment we only have one, I hope he surrounds himself with lieutenants who might one day succeed him. Quality is of essence.

    Reply
    1. Peter Wood
      December 22, 2024

      Well said. It’s possibly noteworthy that since Mrs Thatcher, apart from Gordon Brown, all PM’s have studied at Oxford University. So, quality….what’s the problem we’re not seeing?

      Reply
      1. Christine
        December 22, 2024

        “what’s the problem we’re not seeing?”

        The WEF/UN Agenda 2030 with its Stakeholder Capitalism.

        Many people are waking up to this but unfortunately not enough.

        Reply
        1. Donna
          December 22, 2024

          Correct. People should check out the WEF’s very detailed website. They’re not hiding their plans.

          Reply
      2. Bloke
        December 22, 2024

        Agreed Peter, fine content and comments from Agricola.
        However, as the University of Oxford is one of the few best, it’s not strange that clusters of those who quality to become PM happen to have studied there.
        The world’s finest 10 watchmakers might be Swiss men, but if that is so, how would replacing them with Welsh or Russian women highly-skilled in different crafts improve the watch-making workshop?

        Reply
        1. Peter Wood
          December 22, 2024

          Your Swiss watchmakers are good at their work, can you say the same of the last 5 or 6 PM’s?

          Reply
    2. Lynn Atkinson
      December 22, 2024

      Only Parliament allows others power over it (and therefore us).

      Reply
    3. Lemming
      December 22, 2024

      Agricola, you argue that “Power should essentially lie with the electorate via it’s instrument Parliament” and that “Nothing, be it our own judiciary, quango, or international quasi judiciary body, should be allowed power over our own Parliament”. This is exactly how things are now. You have just desceibed rule one, and the only rule, of our constitution – Parliament, and only Parliamnet, decides. It never ceases to amaze me how you Brexiters have such little understanding of our country

      Reply
      1. agricola
        December 22, 2024

        Reply to Lemming.
        I seem to remember that the difference in opinion between Parliament and the Electorate on the subject of EU membership caused David Cameron to call a definative referendum on the question. He was as surprised as most elements of the Establishment when the answer was , we want out. To your amazement the electorate told Parliament to take us out. No doubt you enjoyed Parliament trying to renage on the electoral instruction and the deliberate pigs ear that Parliament made of it. The people decide and Parliament serves, until such time as it decides to have its own way. Then you have a constitutional problem in much the same way that the desires of Royalty had to be curbed by Parliament. Democracy is evolving such that electorates are 6demanding a major say on key questions. Parliament must adapt to it.

        Reply
      2. Mike Wilson
        December 22, 2024

        And yet the wishes of the parliamentary majority – the government – are subject to legal challenges in the Supreme Court. The setting of interest rates is the purview of the Bank of England, not Parliament. And then there are bodies like the Privy Council acting behind the scenes. I could go on but I feel you must be very naive if you think Parliament is supreme.

        Reply
    4. Jim+Whitehead
      December 22, 2024

      Agricola,
      Good constructive and sensible comment once more, thank you.
      I wonder, when choosing your mom de plume, were there sneaking thoughts of Cincinnatus in mind?

      Reply
  3. Nick
    December 22, 2024

    Surely power follows the money. When government takes 47% of everything we make, and uses it to employ jobsworths by the million to get in our way and make our lives difficult, there can be little doubt where power really lies.

    Reply
    1. Lifelogic
      December 22, 2024

      Exactly.

      Tax, borrow, waste, over regulate & kill the economy then make us pay 3 times what we should for energy! Sould work well!

      Reply
    2. Mike Wilson
      December 22, 2024

      When government takes 47% of everything we make,

      I’d be interested to know where you got that figure from and the breakdown. I have long argued that ‘government takes half our money’. My reasoning was simply adding income tax, NI, VAT, council tax, duties on fuel, parking charges, taxes on insurance premiums etc. I’d love to see some actual figures.

      Reply
      1. Nick
        December 22, 2024

        Thanks Mike. You give me the opportunity of correcting the figure, which I misremembered. It is given online as 44.5% for 2023/4, not 47%, but taxes have gone up since. I dare say 50% is not far off. Plus borrowing, of course.

        The bigger the state the smaller the citizen: how little we have become!

        Reply
    3. Lynn Atkinson
      December 22, 2024

      Then why give away the power to tax? On what authority was the EU able to tax us via our Parliament?

      Reply
      1. Mike Wilson
        December 22, 2024

        And, let us not forget, the power to decide who can live in this country.

        Reply
    4. Bryan Harris
      December 22, 2024

      @Nick +1

      Reply
    5. Donna
      December 22, 2024

      Quite. And regional devolution in England is intended to ensure that local “power” reports to central Government – not local people.

      Reply
  4. Jazz
    December 22, 2024

    I would rather more direct voting by the electorate – along the lines of the Swiss system. With the results of the votes binding and not cast into the CS swamp.

    I also think – as Sir J wrote recently- the CS needs to be revamped, it is no longer fit for purpose.

    Whoever is in charge does not appear to be carrying out the wishes of the many (although I really hesitate to speak for the many).

    What is being done demonstrates neither brilliance or any particular depth of understanding in dealing with the many complex issues we face.

    If the electorate had more votes – as per the Swiss system- then your blog would have even greater value.

    Reply
    1. Charles Breese
      December 22, 2024

      Increased direct voting would both make membership much more attractive and also create a clear distinction in relation to other parties. Increased membership would a) generate more recurring income for the party, and b) facilitate two way communication between the party and its members.

      Reply
    2. Mike Wilson
      December 22, 2024

      The problem with more direct voting is that half the electorate are idiots.

      Reply
      1. jerry
        December 22, 2024

        @MW; “half the electorate are idiots”

        Indeed, all we need to agree on now is which half are the idiots…!

        Reply
        1. Mike Wilson
          December 22, 2024

          @Jerry Clearly, the ‘other half’!

          Reply
      2. MWB
        December 22, 2024

        Only half ?

        Reply
    3. Lynn Atkinson
      December 22, 2024

      Who counts the votes? Who asks the question? Who decides when to ask the question?
      That ‘who’ has ALL the power.
      See the Biden ‘election’. See the ‘Bridgen’ election.
      Staggering results – unchallengeable.

      Reply
      1. jerry
        December 22, 2024

        @LA; All election results can be challenged, at least here in the UK, but those seeking to challenge the result need have evidence, not just here-say and assertions.

        Reply
    4. Mike Wilson
      December 22, 2024

      I’d love to see a referendum on:
      Immigration
      The monarchy
      The established church
      Government borrowing limits
      The voting system
      MPs pensions

      Reply
      1. Ian B
        December 22, 2024

        @Mike Wilson – you forgot the phoney egotistical being in the House of Lords that all the time they are there we cant become a democracy.
        Surely the monarchy and the church are the same thing, one is the head of the other.

        Reply
  5. Old Albion
    December 22, 2024

    What is being proposed for England is not devolution, it’s division. English devolution means an English parliament just as the Scottish and Welsh were granted. But unlike the Scots and Welsh we’ve never been given a vote on the issue.

    Reply
    1. Donna
      December 22, 2024

      +1

      Reply
  6. Lynn Atkinson
    December 22, 2024

    In the North East we voted decisively AGAINST the proposed Mayor. The notices of the Northern Powerhouse structure are still unravelling, a 140 bedroom hotel bought by them for a couple of million has just failed to sell for ÂŁ700,000 on auction.

    Reply
  7. Bloke
    December 22, 2024

    MPs are local, and each represents a large area, as well as balancing what is best for the UK as a whole. Local government is well-served if County Councils manage important matters for folk living within their similar boundaries, and are held accountable. Parish Councils are even closer.
    Opposition between countries within the UK causes conflict. Tony Blair created the complex mess and nuisance of country Devolution, spoiling the UK.
    Restricting smoking in public places was one of the sensible things Blair introduced, but so much of his other input was dangerous idiocy, which would have been better if stopped at source, or where possible should be reversed.

    Reply
  8. Bryan Harris
    December 22, 2024

    Devolution and regionalisation have come at too huge a cost. Never mind that too much of the economic cost has fallen on England, having so much disparity with national government has made the whole thing a farce. The rules over universities is but one example, but there are constant fights over power.
    Power grabs are common.

    When Blair set up devolution, did he set up any rules to make the whole thing effective? Did he provide a means of taking back devolved power when it was clear that abuses of power were common place? N0, and there have certainly been times when it seemed like things were not right.

    Despite Brexit we still continued ahead with regionalisation because so many in power want to remain close to the EU model.

    Once globalisation comes to an end we badly need to bring the UK together as entity, without regions.

    Reply
  9. Donna
    December 22, 2024

    The Establishment is still delivering the EU’s Agenda in the UK – a Europe of the Regions as set out in the Maastricht Treaty. Planning for Unitary Authorities pre-dates the Treaty and was carried out by Major’s Gov.

    The EU proposed 9 “regions” in the UK: Scotland, Wales and London were individual regions – hence they were allowed their own devolved Parliament (NI was dealt with under the Good Friday Agreement) but not England which was to be split into 6 regions. Prescott proposed the first would be Northumbria until the pesky voters said NO. However, imposition of regional government has since been carried out by the Uni-Party and the final structure being IMPOSED on the English will look very similar to the kingdoms of Alfred the Great’s time.

    They are ensuring that the days of “amateur, local, part-time Councillors” end and “professional” politicians take control of regions ie more jobs for the political guys ‘n’ gals who can be easily “influenced” into doing whatever central government demands.

    It has nothing to do with “devolving power to the people” and everything to do with weakening national cohesion and ensuring that the Establishment has maximum control.

    I will be interested to see what Sir John proposes instead. However, one thing’s certain – unless it mirrors what the Establishment has been planning for decades, it won’t be implemented.

    Reply
  10. DOM
    December 22, 2024

    Devolution is a mirage. What we are seeing is nothing more than the construction of another layer of Socialist bureaucracy. It’s not about democracy but about divide, conquer and control

    Reply
    1. Diane
      December 22, 2024

      Dom: Have to agree on that. Certainly division & against cohesion and integration, thus disintegration.

      Reply
  11. glen cullen
    December 22, 2024

    Before we talk about more/less power to the three devolved countries (less england) of the UK, we should discuss which one of the three types has been successful ….then the debate should be (1) should all the four countries adopt the same devolution and/or (2) should we scrap devolution and adopt full same laws cross the UK

    Reply
  12. Ian B
    December 22, 2024

    “Where should power lie?”
    In a Democracy, with the people.

    Those we lend power too, should be perpetually challenged by the owners of that power. Real democracies are challenged every 2 years – the UK?

    Reply
  13. jerry
    December 22, 2024

    “They have denied the same to England, seeking to break England up into false regions and enlarged city regions, devolving power to elected mayors.”

    What “false regions”? Our host is taking a very recent view of English history, the old Kingdoms of Wessex, Mercia, Essex, Northumbria etc. have existed since Anglo-Saxon times, as have Regiones that evolved into the recognizable Counties that still exist today.

    Strange our host didn’t mention “EVEL”…

    reply I do not identify with Rest of the South East or the South East or The Thames Valley. Exeter does not want to be run from Bristol etc

    Reply
  14. Ian B
    December 22, 2024

    What has been called devolution of power was anything but, it was a delusionary sound-bite under creating the illusion that we are a democracy.
    Centralised Government, leads to one size fits all Diktats. Most of what central government tries to ‘impose’ can easily and more affordably be sorted at a local area. Health, education, water sewerage etc. can and could be better supplied and more affordably at a local level.
    The major flaw with Brown, and now Raynor is that they want to create an extra tier of high paid jobs (Jobs-Worths) when in reality letting local operations already in place do what they are best placed to do just get on with it for the most part without interference.
    We are over Governed and have to many friends of friends running around inventing things to justify their existence.
    The reason why it fails is that the central cabal doesn’t like success elsewhere. The UK would work well with half the MPs, half the Civil Service, just by allowing those already in place get on with looking after their communities

    Reply
    1. Ian B
      December 22, 2024

      I am sure some local setups would fail, but it wouldn’t be as now the whole country failing. By the same token some areas would cope exceptionally, giving the mediocre someone to learn from.

      Reply
  15. Ian B
    December 22, 2024

    “not to another layer of government. Government does too much and interferes too much.

    Exactly! – the real feeling just as with Quangos these are invented entities to keep the unemployable (your mates) happy and with bags of taxpayer money. 50% less of everything MPs, Civil Service and so on, wouldn’t mean 50% less of anything at a stretch maybe 0.05% of some meaningless to the whole might be affected.
    So many things are spun as being well meaning, yet are in reality not thought through and taken in context of the ‘whole’

    Reply
  16. Chris S
    December 22, 2024

    “Now public spending and taxes are so high what many people want is true devolution to themselves”

    While I tend to agree with your assertion, up to a point, unfortunately voters who are younger than most of us posting here, expect government to do more for them and are less likely to take personal responsibility for their actions. This is a consequence of the Blair/Brown government and the failure of the following Conservative administrations to re-instill Thatcherite principles.

    Turning to devolution, I have always been deeply suspicious of the EU and now Labours’ intention to Balkanise England and destroy it as an entity, which has lasted for more than 1,000 years.

    I can see why Labour would never concede an English Parliament : with devolution, the UK Government would only have Defence and foreign affairs to manage, but with 85% of the UK population, in all other areas, the English First Minister would be far more powerful.

    While there is no devolved English Parliament, the UK PM effectively fulfils both roles, but that will cause real problems if England votes for a right-of-centre government, while the UK as a whole votes Labour, which then takes power, particularly if it requires support from the devolved regions of Scotland (ie the SNP) and Wales ( Welsh Labour and Plaid).

    So far, this scenario has not materialised, but it certainly could in future, particularly with Reform on the march, it having come second in so many English seats now held by Labour. You can easily see a situation where the Conservatives and Reform have a clear centre-right majority in England, while Labour/SNP/Plaid/Lib-Dims could form an overtly left wing government when Scotland and Wales are added into the equation.

    Reply
    1. Ian B
      December 22, 2024

      @Chris S – “the UK Government would only have Defence and foreign affairs to manage” that’s all they should be doing. We would only need half the MPs (they are not going to vote for Christmas) The upside is the greater majority of the country would be run by those that need to get things done at a cost that can be afforded.

      We don’t need an English Parliament of a Scots or Welsh one they are just egotistical costly tiers. Although regions may work things need to be closer than that, closer to the need and those doing the work. The example I like is that Yorkshire has a bigger population and economy than Scotland, but are stuffed and stopped from getting on with their own needs just in case they are successful. Bigger than Scotland and their narrative, money permitted is less.

      Reply
  17. Michael Staples
    December 22, 2024

    Power should reside at the lowest possible level. I live in a town of 28,000 people. It used to have an Urban District Council; it now has a Town Council with a District Council based 10 miles away and an even more remote County Council. Three tiers is too many but it seems as though Labour want all the powers at county council level, meaning less “local” government and more paid professional politicians. Given the budget, most services could be carried out at town level. Our namesake town in the USA has a population of 16,500 with its own police force, fire service etc.

    Reply
    1. Ian B
      December 22, 2024

      @Michael Staples – that is what democracy and devolved power is all about. Local, means the services fit the need and get done in an effective and the costs are what is affordable. Try that in the UK run a surplus, and the central Politburo will commandeer the surplus

      Reply
  18. Original Richard
    December 22, 2024

    Parliament is not working.

    Benjamin Franklin said: “If we all think alike, no one is thinking.”

    The fact that the majority of MPs of both political parties are thinking alike on the two major issues of the moment shows that none of them are thinking and this is terrible for not only the running of a well organised, prosperous country but even for the continuance of democracy itself.

    Parliament needs to understand that although it has been given complete authority this authority is only temporary. So major decisions which affect the country for a generation or longer, such as ceding sovereignty or territory or implementing Net Zero or allowing mass immigration should only be taken via a referendum.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.