Ed Miliband has a chapter about this in his book, where he explains devolution and how flawed the current system is, it's unbelievable how relatively little power regional mayors have, they have to ask Westminster for permission for damn near everything, and most of the time they just say no. Devolution wouldn't just be great for representation it would make these regions more governable and easier to live and work in.
Devolution is a disaster - it's designed to entrench traitor leftists in all metropolitan areas which then extend out into the rural areas and these woke-leftist, islamist traitors can never be removed.
@@WhichDoctor1there's some great literature about how the entire British empire was designed to funnel money to London and (and nowadays- from London to the Cayman islands) This is unlike the vast majority of other countries. The wealth distribution of France, for instance, is a lot more geographically equal although Paris is of course at the top.
@@jim-es8qkin what way will it create a giant mess? Giving local and regional areas a say on decisions in that area… it’s not like we’re giving regional authorities the nuclear button or parish councils access to the G7 summit… we’re talking about housing, transport, roads, green spaces, and I think importantly the local economy and taxation (which is still very centralised while at the same time the government refuses to fund anything).
Devolution works when it makes sense to have it from a cultural identity perspective. There should be five devolved Parliaments in the U.K. England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Northern Ireland.
@@gameofender4463 This implies that the English or Welsh have a culture. They by definition do not. Only indigenous peoples can have a cultural identity.
@@gameofender4463 That's the most backwards way to do it. Dividing people along culture is just cementing the unimportant differences between people. You don't see US states being divided along ethnicity or language or culture. So, why should the UK's regional areas be divided as such?
Canadian here. I was about to make the same point. If Canada had a distribution of powers as the UK, it would be as if the province of Ontario were run in Ottawa, as opposed to its current parliament in Toronto. The Canadian constitutional framework makes cities and their powers sole concerns of the provinces. In Canada, a current hot topic is the ability of the federal government to give cash directly to cities without first consulting the provinces. Two provinces have passed legislation that prevent cities from taking federal money directly (as the federal government has formal funding mechanisms that are formulaic that pass to the provinces as equalization payments). Englanders can look forward to more of these metro mayor's complaining about not enough money is passed from London. There will also be a large portion of the electorate that will simply not know which government will take care of what program. Even in a more "cleanly" designed system as Canada, many people fall for federal politicking in areas they have no jurisdiction, provincial politicking blaming the federal government for lack of funds even though the price Vince's have constitutional provided taxing authority, and nonsense arguments of "provincial" money going to the federal government even though the provinces collect their own tax, and there are federal taxes that are owed by you DIRECTLY to the federal government. The downside of evolution is that with all the "throats to choke", many have no clue as to which government needs to be throttled.
Considering the fact that England makes up 80% of the UK's population, I don't think it makes sense for England as a whole to have their own devolved parliament, I think it makes more sense for each of the 8 regions of England to have their own devolved government, their population ranges are closer to that of the other constituent countries, also one of them already has a devolved government, London. I also think Cornwall, which is part of the South West England region, should also have their own devolved government, given their unique cultural identity.
@@aislingclarke4347 is that fair to elevate the English regions to a similar level to countries like Scotland and Wales and NI? I feel like that might be trouble for the union.
@@Harryjw67 yeah, it's a shame Devonwall has become such a toxic idea because the two areas have alot more in common then they do differences (I could not give a single shit about how you put jam and cream on a scone). Let's call it the Dumnonian Regional Authority and move on with it
@@NeilMartin98 that’s not a Manchester thing really. The government got sued and so they have to reduce air pollution, so the five came up with the CAZ, however the local government (not sure what level) gets to figure of the specifics.
@@Jordan_Warrington It's all over the UK but not all of them charge for entering it. Similar to the other zones, it just penalises the average worker and even worse for tradies in white diesel vans. The irony of a government who does this yet is fine to sign off new oil and gas contracts and has no issue with the source of the cobalt.
It shouldn't be so complicated. We should have an english devolved parliament, we should have a welsh devolved parliament, a scottish devolved parliament, a northern irish devolved parliament, and then the overall UK parliament in westminster. All with the Single Transferrable Voting system (Proportional Representation)
England does have an English parliment. Ita called Westminster.. Not one country in the uk can block what England wants.. If England wanted to privatise the nhs and voted in the relevant mps. Scotland and Wales could not outvoted England on that issue.. unless some English mps sided with the scottish and Welsh. By some I mean alot of them.. about 1 third... So England does have a parliment. It doesn't need devolved powers.. because England's parliment holds ALL the power. A devolved English parliment would therefore be moot before inception.
I think it should be down to the devovled parliaments to select their voting systems. I am supportive of an English parliament tho. But even then metro mayors would be good
Well you can easily make an argument against English devolution. Firstly, the vast majority of Parliament & Government are English. Both in nationality & constituency. The reason Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland have devolved governments is that, because they make up such a small portion of Parliament, their issues & concerns aren't properly listened to and addressed by the majority-English parliament. So they have devolved governments to directly address these issues. England, making up most of Parliament & the UK, has their issues directly addressed by Parliament because, commonly, an issue for England is usually an issue for many MPs or the entire nation as a whole. And, finally, people don't really care about devolution in England. Bristol actually voted to get rid of their elected mayor. Local elections as is currently get quite low turnout as is. And, unlike Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, there isn't nearly as much of a distinct 'English' identity in England. Because we're a lot more represented & connected to the union as a whole. The only time you hear someone chanting for English Independence is when the old guy in the corner of the pub has too much to drink.
I believe that the uptake of devolution is mostly a way for those in the Westminster to shift the blame for local authorities not having enough funding to keep services going.
But if it was being done fairly, they'd have more say not only on how to spend the money, but also be given more money to spend So the issue isn't devolution itself, but the people in centralised government who hate the idea (e.g. Boris Johnson)
Scotland started to thrive with their devolved parlament. In fact, Scotland should become independent - and re-join the EU - to fullfill it's full potential.
It is part of UN Agenda 2030. Fact. Read the sustainability document produced by the UN - it's there in black and white - and been the plan for decades.
Devolution, in theory, is good - but the way it has been rolled out is a mess. Leeds City Region was one of the first city regions to ask for devolved powers, but the Government said no. The Government then asked Yorkshire what kind of devolution arrangement it would want, and they came back with one Yorkshire Assembly - again, the Government said no. In the end, we ended up with four devolved bodies based on the existing ineffective administrative boundaries, meaning that Leeds; city region sits within three different devolved authorities now (West Yorks, North Yorks, South Yorks). It's really dumb. In addition, the combined authorities still have to strike funding deals with Westminster - they have no ability to raise their own tax as in other countries.
England should have its own devolved Parliament with the exception that Cornwall gets its own separate one. Given its own language and Celtic ties with Wales & Scotland.
@@aidan-4759 It'd be worse than that, the spooky "Far-Right" would take over England, can't have the ghoulish UKIP or Homeland Parties taking over England now can we? (I am actually in favour of this).
The more intrusive, meddlesome, and bureaucratic your national government is, the more popular devolution becomes, as the national government simply becomes too intransigent to accomplish anything, and of course, accomplishing things without government interference is unthinkable.
Perhaps - but do remember, the UN Agenda 2030 dreamed up by our unelected elite, some years ago, specifically targets local government, the better to execute the plan. I'm not saying devolution is a bad idea in principle, just highlighting the end of democracy as described in the UN's plan for a "sustainable" world government very much includes devolution and localisation to deliver on the plan. Just saying.
I think devolution is a good thing especially in the UK. As more regional elections such as in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scottland use fairer electoral systems, leading to more parties having a share in power and there being more electoral coalitions. Interesting a good argument against devolution can be seen in the German capital of Berlin. It has devolved parts of its administration to even smaller parts of the cities. This has sadly lead to an ineffective and bigger buerocracy.
would be interesting to see a video on the potential downsides of devolution, as a counter balance to this video. not saying there are strong ones, but would be interesting to see the TLDR take on it
1:22 "To understand how this all came about, we've got to go back to the late 90's". I would say we have to go back to the 1980's, when the Thatcher government took control of traditionally local government matters such as health and education, and essentially eliminated others such as local transport. The limited amount of devolution we have seen from New Labour and afterwards has only restored a small degree of control over the infrastructure built up by local councils over the previous decades and centuries.
England has too much power it seems so break it up into kingdoms again. I think the power is comming globally so they will not want any state that is too large and powerful.
That’s not what federalism is. It would still be devolution as central gov could repeal It if they wish. Federalism is like the Us or Germany where you can’t just repeal it either a simple act
Because all the fiscal responsibilities can be put on them while the national government takes all the tax, effectively letting the national government purposefully deprive areas of services while pinning the blame on the local councils who are restricted in their sources of revenue by the national government.
I'm sorry to say but I don't consider England a full-fledged democracy. As long as privilege is codified in the English system to Royalty, it never will be. This move to devolution does bring it more in line with other more democratic countries, but it still has a ways to go.
2:13 Couldn't find any aerial footage of a English town so had to go for one in the US? Not great when you're talking about devolution of power in England...
How would banning the whip system work? Sure you could ban it as a formal system. But surely parties will always have some way to "punish" members who vote against the rest of the party? For example say a Labour MP always votes with the Conservatives. It would be wrong to force Labour to continue to endorse that person who clearly doesn't stand for the same values as the rest of the party. Without a formal whip system you will still get MPs kicked out of parties, deselected, passed over for ministerial positions, etc.
It's just more "ban everything without thinking about it" talk. You ban the whip system, the same thing happens under what becomes known as the Definitely Not Whip system
Surely if you don’t want the whip, you could just stand as an independent? Otherwise it would seem like they just want the benefits of party support without supporting the party in return.
I used to be a big supporter of devolution (or localism as it was once called). But seeing how it has been used since the late 90s has thoroughly changed my mind. I don't see evidence of better policy making at all (see worse health, economic and educational outcomes in Wales and Scotland since devolution - the omission of which shows a significant bias in your video). Likewise, to show that Manchester employment success was due to devolution, you have to compare it to another non-devolved City in England, not the UK in general, which includes all the most deprived areas of the UK (although I actually think Manchester is one of the moderately successful ones in general). Most (but not all) devolved governments have simply become opposition executives to the government (whoever is in the government), seemingly more concerned with opposing whatever the government is doing rather than doing what is best for their voters (covid was especially revealing with the Scottish Government trying to blatantly score cheap political points during a serious event). Likewise, central government (whoever is in power) often uses devolution to step back from problems they should be solving, and to blame the opposition party running the devolved admin. Finally, and another incredible omission on your part, if they are so good, why is voter turnout so low? I don't think these devolved admins have broad support, but there is no way to test it since no major party is proposing to reverse devolution. Gotta say guys, another poor video only showing one side of a complicated argument.
Note that when they were showing the approval/disapproval figures for city mayors, they didn't highlight or read out Khan's figures for London. Gee I wonder why... oh: they were 38% approval vs 40% disapproval.
@@MrHws5mp Good spot. This channel does not explicitly say false things, it just seems to consistently omit half the argument. Not showing the whole truth.
Great counterpoints. I still think devolution is better but should be implemented differently, local leaders will always have a better understanding of what their community needs
@@TheModeler99 that is the argument for it, but I don't see the evidence that we get better local leaders because of Devolution. Theoretically, parliament is 650 local MPs who should know their area well.
@@corpclarke In theory that's true. Though in my example we see far to many Londoners come up for an "easy" seat. And once they get it, they do a great big load of F all. The North has been starved for too long.
I’d like to see Scottish regions get similar. Or council leaders being in Holyrood. Often the Highlands and rural areas are an afterthought, and each area has very different needs. We already have powerful councils but they could operate better.
I have been to the Highlands and they looked pretty developed to me. I am positive that back when there was no devolved parlament in Scotland the Highlands and rural areas in Scotland were far, far worse and underdeveloped thanks to london's perpectual desinterest.
It's not devolution, it's a sham! It's basically just transfering existing transport, and police oversight powers from groups of local councils, to one elected mayor, and then bunging that mayor a few million quid a year to put a few more buses on! Put it this way; devolution in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland needs dozens of politicians to govern and legislate; the "mayoral combined authorities" need one mayor; with no actual powers; who will occasionally be quizzed by a committee on their spending. This powerless committee is usually just the council leaders from the area, or in London's case, and elected but pointless assembly!
As a medievalist, I am all in favour of devolution in England. Let's see the seven ancient Anglo-Saxon kingdoms revived: the heptarchy of Kent, Sussex, Wessex, East Anglia, Essex, Mercia and Northumbria.
I’m sure viewers from the UK know this, but viewers abroad may not: what powers are being devolved? Surely not as many as for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
I feel you glossed over the fact that Andy Street lost his bid for re-election which was a bit of a surprise given how well likes he was trying to make the best of a bad (HS2) job.
for suffolk at 0:20 you missed out Newmarket as part of the area. Newmarket is an effective Annex of West Suffolk Council and suffolk as a whole, its joined onto the rest of suffolk by a very thin piece of land.
The issue with Andy's anti-whip plan is that even if that worked, most MP's believe that once they've been elected they have the right to decide what their constituents need or want, even if the constituents clearly disagree. The only way to fix that is to vote in candidates with a more reasonable position. (Some people want to treat MP's more like delegates at a union conference, where the constituents decide what they want and the MP does it, but others think that's too far in the other direction)
So my understanding of this is devolution is kind of like creating states? Where states have their own government under a greater authority. Correct me if I’m wrong
There needs to be an entirely devolved South West with a regional assembly in Taunton (central location). The South West seems to be forgotten about even more than The North.
@@SuhbanIo nope south west has basically nothing, alot if not most of our shops are closed half the year and we have min wage jobs and have to compete with londoners for housing
Devolution has been one of the best decisions for Manchester. The transport used to be absolutely terrible with private companies like Stagecoach throwing battered old bus on the streets, the trams being independent, no cycle lanes and trains independent too. If the trams stopped working , your ticket wouldn’t be accepted on the buses at all. It was only after Andy put pressure on the tram and stagecoach companies that they allowed tickets to be used in case of malfunction on the service lines. The bee network has been a great implementation and with good success. Live times, on the go tickets and not worrying if you are suddenly having to use different franchisees. I hope it continues to improve and meets its promises.
I think a very good thing could be this leading to a very similar thing to the Bundesrat in Germany where each of the German regions elect representatives to go to this 2nd house. It would be a great way to support devolution and a great replacement to the House of Lords if something similar happens here
I'm from the US, a federation, so I am biased in favor of devolution (I know the two concepts have their differences). If done correctly, it'll allow local authorities to better manage the issues affecting their localities. If not, it just makes things into a bigger mess.
Yeah it will just be a mess of different systems. Parliament decides what things the assemblies can make laws about, granting different powers to different ones. Also devolved authorities can be got rid of with a simple majority in parliament. The HoR can't just delete Texas.
I've always thought allowing the District councils/government to have legislative and administrative devolution is a very good idea. Having said that, on the other hand, Scottish and Welsh devolved assemblies should both be completely removed, because as I've already mentioned it should be the local District councils/City councils that get devolution, as only devolving legislative/administrative powers to the national level in Scotland and Wales inherently and indirectly clearly leads to more calls for internal ethnic seperatism within the UK, however, if local District councils get devolved powers then local people can obtain more local sovereignty over their local area whilst mostly avoiding the ethnic separatist problem in granting devolution to Scotland and Wales. A good example of 'local devolution' of sorts can be found in the UK Dependencies/British Overseas Territories, as those local governments have so much autonomy that they even get their own local bank that produces a localised currency that is tied to to the UK pound (GBP) that can only be legally used within the Dependency/British Overseas Territory, which should assist in giving the locals not only a sense of local identity and sovereignty but also somewhat can additionally incentivise local people to keep buying local by keeping the money flowing within the local area, as that local currency can only be used within the local Dependency/British Overseas Territory and cannot be used as legal tender in any other part of the UK. Also the Dependencies/British Overseas Territorial Parliaments technically don't have to accept the laws passed by the UK parliament, which is why the UK dependentency of Jersey mostly has seperate firearms laws to that of mainland Grear Britain. I think it would be cool if each UK district had similar legislative/administrative powers that the UK dependencies/British Overseas Territories already currently have. Another thing I do thoroughly like about the politics of the UK Dependencies/British Overseas Territories, in particular within the Channel Islands, of Jersey is that there isn't really the concept of a 'national political party' (e.g. Labour, Lib-Dem, Conservative parties etc) as their Parliament is made up mostly grass roots independent candidates which is what the UK parliament *SHOULD* also made up of independent candidates or independent political parties that only serve the district/local area and not these fake, establishment controlled mainstream national parties.
An unfortunate by product of such action, is that some regions can come under the control of ethnic enclaves, creating regional areas outside the law of the land.
Sounds like a good idea to me, the French have been doing this for a long time and its worked out well for them. Their towns and villages are immaculate. The locals know what they need more than anything and they get to have more guidance over that, it'll also help people feel more connected to their living areas as they have more control over spending within it.
Thank you for this. It helped me realise what on earth the Mayoral election in my local area (East Midlands/Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire) were about. I still voted in it, but I assumed it was just a ceremonial role. Your video explained that it was not, and was actually quite important. I'll go and show this video to my family members who didn't vote because they too didn't understand the position, so they can vote as well next time.
Just a pro tip from the U.S. - Having redundant layers of government may appeal to people who think that "government should be close to the people". But it does come a significant cost. For example, in the U.S., municipal/county, state, and federal governments can all levy taxes independently of each other, and even tax "income" that went to pay taxes to a different layer of government. People will tend to blame all tax increases on the federal government, even if they were actually enacted by a different layer of government. This tends to result in local and state governments overspending and/or cutting their revenues because they believe that the federal government should make up the difference. They then complain about taxes.
Being Eastern European, I'm also not a fan of "government close to the people", but for a different reason. The closer it is to the people, the more corrupt it gets, because there's less oversight. It's easier to bribe people and buy 20 votes than 100000 votes. He just needs to bribe/threaten a smaller number of people to stay in power. We had something we called "local barons", i.e. politicians who ruled for years and years specific areas like they were their fiefdoms. Mayors who were elected/re-elected/re-re-re-elected over and over again, because they had a grip on power in their commune/town/city. As a citizen you could expect him to put his entire family/friends in key positions and if you had the bad luck of owning a land he and his friends wanted, you could expect harassment from public authorities who lived to serve him. It's why I trust the EU way more than my national politicians, no EU official ever asked me for a bribe or threatened me. It's the local politicians I don't trust, but I know I can trust German, Spanish or whatever politicians.
@@octavianpopescu4776 - Thanks for that insight! The U.S. also sees this same problem at the state and local levels. Ron DeSantis runs Florida as if were a Medieval duchy, to the extent of trying to control what books people can read. There are long histories of local government working the same. My home town had the same mayor from when I was 2 years old until I was 20, and he only stepped down because he was old and wanted to retire. The mayorship was passed onto a hand-picked successor. Both men were on the board of a local bank that would-be developers looking to get permits for projects were advised to handle their financial transactions through. Local taxes (i.e. property taxes) were (and still are) insanely high (among the highest in the U.S.). But getting people to accept that the problem was local and *not* caused by "the political establishment in D.C." was nearly impossible. It's easier to blame the politicians you rarely, if ever, see in person, than it is the ones who you could see regularly around town.
@@daniels7907 I do follow US news and yes, Rs in the US do seem... Eastern European in their rhetoric (whataboutism is a classic here) and practices. We had our own version of Trump 10 years before Trump, but he never got as far as Trump did (real estate developer, not very educated, loud mouth, loudly Christian, using a populist slogan associated with the far-right: "Make Romania as Holy as the Sun in the Sky" - a former 1930s Legionary/fascist motto, similar to "America First" or MAGA, same mobster mindset, owning a sports team - Trump tried to create a rival to the NFL in the 1980s). He ended up in prison for a few years... maybe, maybe, the ongoing Trump trial where he sharts and sleeps will end the same way. And keep in mind that this guy: George Becali did all these things 10 years before Trump. He ran twice for president, but never got more than 3% of the vote, but he did make it to the European Parliament. I see that your local town also has its own version of local barons, not just because it's the same guy, but the same guy acting in his own business interests. A lot of our corruption was implemented like this: it was all legal on paper. I thought in the US, unlike here, the politicians and the businessmen were different people, tied through lobby groups, but I stand corrected. No need for lobby-ists when they'd just be lobbying themselves. And you're right: accepting the problem is local is very hard, because people assume that seeing politicians shake hands and kiss babies or something makes them "one of the people". They're not. This is why Brexit seemed like such a terrible idea to me looking at the UK: they removed a layer of protection against local politicians. Over here, the EU frequently acted as a check on the local politicians. They'd be shoulder deep in public funds if they could get away with it.
The UK likes to think this is giving people a great say/control over local government but in reality it adds to the council tax giving mayors, like Sadiq Khan, the ability to increase their ‘precept’ by more than the fixed percentage cap. This country is over represented, with four governments; three of them devolved administrations and the fourth, the UK government. Plus local councils, county councils and their ilk. The Mayor of London has, in the past two years, increased the council tax to help fund a tube driver wage settlement of 8.4%, so called ‘free’ school meals and to freeze bus fares. Council tax payers are being fleeced to fund his pet projects. To really gain some control we need proportional representation not more and increasing bureaucracy.
So basically they've gone from tribes to The Heptarchy to the Empire to now rejecting modernity and returning to tradition with a return to The Tribes via The New Heptarchy. That's a bold strategy, Cotton. 🤔
i had imagined england receiving a devolved parliament seated in the north of england, but birmingham looks like a great place for the seat of english parliament central to england as a whole.
At this point, just federalise the UK. Turn it into "the United Kingdoms of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". You can also split the title of King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and give the monarch separate titles for each country (King of England, King of Scotland, King of Wales, King of Northern Ireland). All the countries have their own democratically elected unicameral parliaments and First Minister and the House of Commons and Lords remain as the federal bicameral legislation.
Or it can just be changed to the "King/Queen of the Brits" to show a ruler of the people and as a result he/she can be head of a federal state. An example of this is in Belgium, where Philipe is know as "the king of the Belgians" while S
Very well framed and great initiatives regarding devolution, the whip system and possibly even more so about horrible first-past-the-post voting. We really need local urgency, knowledge, trust and resources to bring timely, appropriate and depoliticised solutions! Every country needs this badly to end constant national bottlenecks and politicisation! And we need elections to be about representing everyone's concerns, not just voting against the constant threat of winner takes all.
Devolution as it is right now is a mistake. The English don't get special representation, but the other countries do? It's a breeding ground for sectarianism and separatism. Moreover they get to have a say in how the English are governed whilst being able to govern themselves (so long as Westminster doesn't step in), yet we don't get a say in how they are (Beyond the same vote they have). It should be devolved down to the individual.
Quick note that although Bristol has a mayor at the moment, there was a referendum in 2022 which voted to remove the mayor at the end of his current term (2024)
I'd have no objection to devolved regional government...but only if the existing county councils are abolished. We don't need an additional layer of bureaucracy.
British people (and most people infact) fail to understand Federalism. They think it means giving local power to those who want it, but it doesn't. Federalism is meant to be a structure that provides 2 tiers of government(regional and federal), where the entire country is split into regional parts each with their own regional government that can make their own laws, but all regions still have to follow the laws of the federal government. Most importantly, however, is that federalism should not be based on already existing divisions! It should not be based on language, or ethnicity, or culture, or politics, or any other differences people love to divide themselves over. Federalism done right should make the people as miserable of their regional government as they do their national government - they should not feel allegiance to regional governments over national governments.
I don't think it can truly be described as "devolution" until these regions have tax raising powers too, for example being able to set local rates of income tax. Regions should be able to manage their own public transport and healthcare systems too
So the road to PR is probably PR for local english elections and more devolution that uses PR? That way most of the public will be familiar with PR if there is ever a national referendum on PR since the govt would be unlikely to pass it themselves.
For the American audience this is something like what happened when we were ratifying the constitution. This is basically federalism and it’s the Jefferson side where more power goes to the states and in this case metro areas.
You just skipped over Sadiq Khan, who was more despised than liked according to your own data sheet. He represented 1/3 of the mayors shown so concluding that Mayors are liked doesn't seem very honest here.
devolution has it's benefits, but within limits. speaking as an american, there are often problems that arise from having 50 different, sometimes conflicting sets of policies and laws
Devolution is a form of Federal Government, in everything but name, and I think it’s about time the UK was a federal state as this will give power back to parts of the country ignored by central government in London.
Manchester City transport system works with the Bee network however it is far from effective in my local area. Many of my colleagues are consistently late due to buses just not turning up at all since the roll out.
I feel like this video didn’t go deep enough. Was wondering what policy areas will be under the remit of these new devolution deals, whether it will be more policy decision making away from Westminster or whether it could to some extent takeover policy areas that are currently managed by councils.
Problem: There are not enough seats for politicians Solution: Let's make more Problem: councils and local authorities cannot make decisions because they disagree with each other Solution: Let's introduce an additional role to help them disagree more
We need proper devolved parliaments in each region, with the same powers as the Welsh Assembly does. That is the only way to solve the divide in this country.
Interesting video, but you might have mentioned Bristol. They had a Mayoral system for a while but then voted to get rid of it. So presumably it doesn't always work?
Just because it was bad for Bristol doesn't mean it shouldn't happen in other places. The North East has got the shit end of the stick consistently and has been ignored by Westminster for as long as it has existed. Having a Mayoral Authority is a massive step in the right direction for us, I would not like to see it scrapped because somewhere in the south it didn't work. That kind of Westminster meddling would be quite literally what our Mayoral Authority is there to prevent
@@gabrielcoventry4586 Aye, exactly this. Mids & North have had bad policymaking forced upon them for so long, that even a bad mayor is no different to a bad central government making the same bad decisions, so there really isn't much to lose.
That was the Mayor of the City Council. That's not the same as a Combined Authority Mayor (which was the topic of this video). Bristol is part of the "West of England Mayoral Combined Authority", with Labour Mayor Dan Norris.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
3.27: The coats of arms for Leeds and Liverpool have been inadvertently switched. Heraldic nerds up north are going ballistic right now....
thought it was odd that leeds had mermen on the crest... was wondering where the sea in leeds was
Surely they're going medieval?
midlands*
& 2:08 is stock footage of Manchester, NEW HAMPSHIRE. I'm sure there is at least one error in every tldr video
@@georgespeighteh9342maybe they were carried to the crest by the liverbirds
Leedsbirds?
Ed Miliband has a chapter about this in his book, where he explains devolution and how flawed the current system is, it's unbelievable how relatively little power regional mayors have, they have to ask Westminster for permission for damn near everything, and most of the time they just say no. Devolution wouldn't just be great for representation it would make these regions more governable and easier to live and work in.
its no mystery why the southeast is the richest part of the country, and also where almost all the governmental power is. Money follows power
Devolution is a disaster - it's designed to entrench traitor leftists in all metropolitan areas which then extend out into the rural areas and these woke-leftist, islamist traitors can never be removed.
...or create a giant mess. Odds are it will create a mess.
@@WhichDoctor1there's some great literature about how the entire British empire was designed to funnel money to London and (and nowadays- from London to the Cayman islands)
This is unlike the vast majority of other countries. The wealth distribution of France, for instance, is a lot more geographically equal although Paris is of course at the top.
@@jim-es8qkin what way will it create a giant mess? Giving local and regional areas a say on decisions in that area… it’s not like we’re giving regional authorities the nuclear button or parish councils access to the G7 summit… we’re talking about housing, transport, roads, green spaces, and I think importantly the local economy and taxation (which is still very centralised while at the same time the government refuses to fund anything).
It’s a good thing; shouldn’t just be centralised to London and the UK government saying what these local areas can and cannot spend their money on.
Devolution works when it makes sense to have it from a cultural identity perspective.
There should be five devolved Parliaments in the U.K. England, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Northern Ireland.
@@gameofender4463 This implies that the English or Welsh have a culture. They by definition do not. Only indigenous peoples can have a cultural identity.
@@hydra7427 Wait, are you genuinely saying that tere's no such thing as English or Welsh culture?
Please define culture for me
@@hydra7427 Yes they do. England and Wales do have cultural differences. And, importantly, their own languages, just like Cornwall and Scotland do.
@@gameofender4463 That's the most backwards way to do it. Dividing people along culture is just cementing the unimportant differences between people. You don't see US states being divided along ethnicity or language or culture. So, why should the UK's regional areas be divided as such?
England needs its own parliament like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Leave Westminster for uk/ international issues.
Canadian here. I was about to make the same point. If Canada had a distribution of powers as the UK, it would be as if the province of Ontario were run in Ottawa, as opposed to its current parliament in Toronto. The Canadian constitutional framework makes cities and their powers sole concerns of the provinces. In Canada, a current hot topic is the ability of the federal government to give cash directly to cities without first consulting the provinces. Two provinces have passed legislation that prevent cities from taking federal money directly (as the federal government has formal funding mechanisms that are formulaic that pass to the provinces as equalization payments). Englanders can look forward to more of these metro mayor's complaining about not enough money is passed from London. There will also be a large portion of the electorate that will simply not know which government will take care of what program. Even in a more "cleanly" designed system as Canada, many people fall for federal politicking in areas they have no jurisdiction, provincial politicking blaming the federal government for lack of funds even though the price Vince's have constitutional provided taxing authority, and nonsense arguments of "provincial" money going to the federal government even though the provinces collect their own tax, and there are federal taxes that are owed by you DIRECTLY to the federal government. The downside of evolution is that with all the "throats to choke", many have no clue as to which government needs to be throttled.
Considering the fact that England makes up 80% of the UK's population, I don't think it makes sense for England as a whole to have their own devolved parliament, I think it makes more sense for each of the 8 regions of England to have their own devolved government, their population ranges are closer to that of the other constituent countries, also one of them already has a devolved government, London. I also think Cornwall, which is part of the South West England region, should also have their own devolved government, given their unique cultural identity.
@@aislingclarke4347 is that fair to elevate the English regions to a similar level to countries like Scotland and Wales and NI? I feel like that might be trouble for the union.
@@aislingclarke4347 Cornwall is no more special than anywhere else .
@@keithyoung810 Wrong. Cornwall is completely different to any other part of England.
As someone who lives in Cornwall, there are 3 things I hate:
-London money
-Airbnb
-Seagulls on bin days
One of this is not like the others
@@juanfranciscovillarroelthu6876cornwall?
@@juanfranciscovillarroelthu6876 They're all invasive species that fly in, make a lot of noise, pick out the juicy bits and disappear leaving a mess.
Same here in Plymouth
@@Harryjw67 yeah, it's a shame Devonwall has become such a toxic idea because the two areas have alot more in common then they do differences (I could not give a single shit about how you put jam and cream on a scone). Let's call it the Dumnonian Regional Authority and move on with it
You used stock footage of Manchester New Hampshire, USA, not Manchester UK
have they jumped on the AI bandwagon 😂
lmaoooo
The better Manchester
@@stev5293Thats not what ai is...
no this is on purpose. devolution is the closest that the uk can get to US federalism
I love the use of aerial footage of the American Manchester in this video x)
Manchester, NH specifically, since there are multiple cities named Manchester in the United States.
@@InfinteIdeas Manchester-By-The-Sea?
😂
im from manchester, we need more devolution and better local representation.
And the Clean Air Greater Manchester zone to be scrapped.
@@NeilMartin98why? What is it?
@@NeilMartin98 that’s not a Manchester thing really. The government got sued and so they have to reduce air pollution, so the five came up with the CAZ, however the local government (not sure what level) gets to figure of the specifics.
@@Jordan_Warrington It's all over the UK but not all of them charge for entering it. Similar to the other zones, it just penalises the average worker and even worse for tradies in white diesel vans.
The irony of a government who does this yet is fine to sign off new oil and gas contracts and has no issue with the source of the cobalt.
Yes… you’ve got someone there who is competent, so he needs more power.
Ours is a moron, I’d gladly scrap the position personally.
You've mixed up the Leeds and Liverpool coats of arms. Liverpool has the more nautically-themed one...
....not to mention the multiple Liver birds on it XD
Perhaps it's run by folks who aren't British, and who have little regard for such things. The Manchester footage is the wrong Manchester, by the way.
It shouldn't be so complicated. We should have an english devolved parliament, we should have a welsh devolved parliament, a scottish devolved parliament, a northern irish devolved parliament, and then the overall UK parliament in westminster. All with the Single Transferrable Voting system (Proportional Representation)
It just sounds like the UK is reinventing federalism.
England does have an English parliment. Ita called Westminster..
Not one country in the uk can block what England wants..
If England wanted to privatise the nhs and voted in the relevant mps. Scotland and Wales could not outvoted England on that issue.. unless some English mps sided with the scottish and Welsh. By some I mean alot of them.. about 1 third...
So England does have a parliment. It doesn't need devolved powers.. because England's parliment holds ALL the power.
A devolved English parliment would therefore be moot before inception.
I think it should be down to the devovled parliaments to select their voting systems. I am supportive of an English parliament tho. But even then metro mayors would be good
Well you can easily make an argument against English devolution.
Firstly, the vast majority of Parliament & Government are English. Both in nationality & constituency.
The reason Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland have devolved governments is that, because they make up such a small portion of Parliament, their issues & concerns aren't properly listened to and addressed by the majority-English parliament. So they have devolved governments to directly address these issues.
England, making up most of Parliament & the UK, has their issues directly addressed by Parliament because, commonly, an issue for England is usually an issue for many MPs or the entire nation as a whole.
And, finally, people don't really care about devolution in England. Bristol actually voted to get rid of their elected mayor. Local elections as is currently get quite low turnout as is. And, unlike Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, there isn't nearly as much of a distinct 'English' identity in England. Because we're a lot more represented & connected to the union as a whole. The only time you hear someone chanting for English Independence is when the old guy in the corner of the pub has too much to drink.
@@K_Ri-mw4hrThe only part of England that needs a devolved administration like Wales and Scotland is Cornwall.
NI has had some sort of devolution since 1921, with a gap during the troubles, Blair just helped to restore & vastly improve it.
Yes, although it was quite a long gap.
I believe that the uptake of devolution is mostly a way for those in the Westminster to shift the blame for local authorities not having enough funding to keep services going.
But if it was being done fairly, they'd have more say not only on how to spend the money, but also be given more money to spend
So the issue isn't devolution itself, but the people in centralised government who hate the idea (e.g. Boris Johnson)
Scotland started to thrive with their devolved parlament. In fact, Scotland should become independent - and re-join the EU - to fullfill it's full potential.
It is part of UN Agenda 2030. Fact. Read the sustainability document produced by the UN - it's there in black and white - and been the plan for decades.
Devolution, in theory, is good - but the way it has been rolled out is a mess. Leeds City Region was one of the first city regions to ask for devolved powers, but the Government said no. The Government then asked Yorkshire what kind of devolution arrangement it would want, and they came back with one Yorkshire Assembly - again, the Government said no. In the end, we ended up with four devolved bodies based on the existing ineffective administrative boundaries, meaning that Leeds; city region sits within three different devolved authorities now (West Yorks, North Yorks, South Yorks). It's really dumb. In addition, the combined authorities still have to strike funding deals with Westminster - they have no ability to raise their own tax as in other countries.
England should have its own devolved Parliament with the exception that Cornwall gets its own separate one. Given its own language and Celtic ties with Wales & Scotland.
This sounds like an argument for proper devolution since this has all been caused by Westminster's classic pissing about act
@@gabrielcoventry4586yes yes
@@gameofender4463God no, do you want England to forever be run by the tories?
@@aidan-4759 It'd be worse than that, the spooky "Far-Right" would take over England, can't have the ghoulish UKIP or Homeland Parties taking over England now can we? (I am actually in favour of this).
The more intrusive, meddlesome, and bureaucratic your national government is, the more popular devolution becomes, as the national government simply becomes too intransigent to accomplish anything, and of course, accomplishing things without government interference is unthinkable.
Perhaps - but do remember, the UN Agenda 2030 dreamed up by our unelected elite, some years ago, specifically targets local government, the better to execute the plan. I'm not saying devolution is a bad idea in principle, just highlighting the end of democracy as described in the UN's plan for a "sustainable" world government very much includes devolution and localisation to deliver on the plan. Just saying.
I think devolution is a good thing especially in the UK. As more regional elections such as in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scottland use fairer electoral systems, leading to more parties having a share in power and there being more electoral coalitions.
Interesting a good argument against devolution can be seen in the German capital of Berlin. It has devolved parts of its administration to even smaller parts of the cities. This has sadly lead to an ineffective and bigger buerocracy.
would be interesting to see a video on the potential downsides of devolution, as a counter balance to this video.
not saying there are strong ones, but would be interesting to see the TLDR take on it
1:22 "To understand how this all came about, we've got to go back to the late 90's". I would say we have to go back to the 1980's, when the Thatcher government took control of traditionally local government matters such as health and education, and essentially eliminated others such as local transport.
The limited amount of devolution we have seen from New Labour and afterwards has only restored a small degree of control over the infrastructure built up by local councils over the previous decades and centuries.
If Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have their own parliament then it only makes sense the English have their own. It’s called federalism.
That may open up a can of worms for areas like Cornwall
England has too much power it seems so break it up into kingdoms again. I think the power is comming globally so they will not want any state that is too large and powerful.
@@joshuafrimpong244 Just let it be. It's better than whatever this current system has become.
@@MustraOrdofair enough
That’s not what federalism is. It would still be devolution as central gov could repeal It if they wish. Federalism is like the Us or Germany where you can’t just repeal it either a simple act
Because all the fiscal responsibilities can be put on them while the national government takes all the tax, effectively letting the national government purposefully deprive areas of services while pinning the blame on the local councils who are restricted in their sources of revenue by the national government.
At least it would loosen up the beurocracy instead of asking westminster for every thing
I'm sorry to say but I don't consider England a full-fledged democracy. As long as privilege is codified in the English system to Royalty, it never will be. This move to devolution does bring it more in line with other more democratic countries, but it still has a ways to go.
This is the first video I've seen of this woman presenting the content. She's exceptional. Great job.
2:13 Couldn't find any aerial footage of a English town so had to go for one in the US? Not great when you're talking about devolution of power in England...
How would banning the whip system work? Sure you could ban it as a formal system. But surely parties will always have some way to "punish" members who vote against the rest of the party?
For example say a Labour MP always votes with the Conservatives. It would be wrong to force Labour to continue to endorse that person who clearly doesn't stand for the same values as the rest of the party. Without a formal whip system you will still get MPs kicked out of parties, deselected, passed over for ministerial positions, etc.
I guess you'd have to allow the MPs to vote secretly. Which of course creates other issues.
It's just more "ban everything without thinking about it" talk. You ban the whip system, the same thing happens under what becomes known as the Definitely Not Whip system
@@samueldorrington8990 Wouldn't letting MPs vote secretly defeat the purpose of having elections lol
@@hamalakarris577 quite possibly, for the record, im not advocating this, it was just an observation.
Surely if you don’t want the whip, you could just stand as an independent? Otherwise it would seem like they just want the benefits of party support without supporting the party in return.
Not seen this presenter before. In keeping with the high standards of the channel. Well done!
I used to be a big supporter of devolution (or localism as it was once called). But seeing how it has been used since the late 90s has thoroughly changed my mind.
I don't see evidence of better policy making at all (see worse health, economic and educational outcomes in Wales and Scotland since devolution - the omission of which shows a significant bias in your video).
Likewise, to show that Manchester employment success was due to devolution, you have to compare it to another non-devolved City in England, not the UK in general, which includes all the most deprived areas of the UK (although I actually think Manchester is one of the moderately successful ones in general).
Most (but not all) devolved governments have simply become opposition executives to the government (whoever is in the government), seemingly more concerned with opposing whatever the government is doing rather than doing what is best for their voters (covid was especially revealing with the Scottish Government trying to blatantly score cheap political points during a serious event).
Likewise, central government (whoever is in power) often uses devolution to step back from problems they should be solving, and to blame the opposition party running the devolved admin.
Finally, and another incredible omission on your part, if they are so good, why is voter turnout so low?
I don't think these devolved admins have broad support, but there is no way to test it since no major party is proposing to reverse devolution.
Gotta say guys, another poor video only showing one side of a complicated argument.
Note that when they were showing the approval/disapproval figures for city mayors, they didn't highlight or read out Khan's figures for London. Gee I wonder why... oh: they were 38% approval vs 40% disapproval.
@@MrHws5mp Good spot. This channel does not explicitly say false things, it just seems to consistently omit half the argument. Not showing the whole truth.
Great counterpoints. I still think devolution is better but should be implemented differently, local leaders will always have a better understanding of what their community needs
@@TheModeler99 that is the argument for it, but I don't see the evidence that we get better local leaders because of Devolution. Theoretically, parliament is 650 local MPs who should know their area well.
@@corpclarke In theory that's true. Though in my example we see far to many Londoners come up for an "easy" seat. And once they get it, they do a great big load of F all.
The North has been starved for too long.
Great summary. Thanks
I’d like to see Scottish regions get similar. Or council leaders being in Holyrood. Often the Highlands and rural areas are an afterthought, and each area has very different needs.
We already have powerful councils but they could operate better.
I have been to the Highlands and they looked pretty developed to me. I am positive that back when there was no devolved parlament in Scotland the Highlands and rural areas in Scotland were far, far worse and underdeveloped thanks to london's perpectual desinterest.
We in Wales have been fighting tooth and nail for our devolved government for a reason
You have your own government, and it’s shit
My brother and me, had been to Edinburgh!
Plaid Cymru, is still a fringe party!
You have a government, it’s just terrible
@@maikotter9945 It great a lot since brexit and boris johnson. I wonder why.
@@Finnbobjimbob Quite the contrary, the Welsh government is pretty good at governing Wales. You just don''t like it because they are Labour.
It's not devolution, it's a sham! It's basically just transfering existing transport, and police oversight powers from groups of local councils, to one elected mayor, and then bunging that mayor a few million quid a year to put a few more buses on!
Put it this way; devolution in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland needs dozens of politicians to govern and legislate; the "mayoral combined authorities" need one mayor; with no actual powers; who will occasionally be quizzed by a committee on their spending. This powerless committee is usually just the council leaders from the area, or in London's case, and elected but pointless assembly!
Devolution is such a negative word to use. It's so simple, call it federalism
As a medievalist, I am all in favour of devolution in England. Let's see the seven ancient Anglo-Saxon kingdoms revived: the heptarchy of Kent, Sussex, Wessex, East Anglia, Essex, Mercia and Northumbria.
I like that. Especially Northumbria. The northerner english sure are fed up having to deal with the home countries' snobbery.
Nah no Wessex, we want Dumnonia!
@@Fractureise ill second that
Very well explained!
I’m sure viewers from the UK know this, but viewers abroad may not: what powers are being devolved? Surely not as many as for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Because "United we stand, divided we fall". The Pax Romana was "Divide and Conquer"! We must remember these sayings and remain one UNITED KINGDOM!
Do another video about Cornish devolution
Freedom from corrupt Westminster!
firstly. she is pretty
secondly she is well spoken
thirdly. great video ladies and gents, done a good job with this one
Presumably, they are the grounds on which you judge fact from fiction? Good luck, buddy. You'll need it.
I feel you glossed over the fact that Andy Street lost his bid for re-election which was a bit of a surprise given how well likes he was trying to make the best of a bad (HS2) job.
Rishi scrapping HS2 again made Andy street lose his position
I thought they were going to cover that, but then had a 2 minute segment on Nebula
@@slimchris113 typical
That's another problem with Metro Mayors, the voting is a glorified opinion poll for Westminster instead of being based on local performance.
for suffolk at 0:20 you missed out Newmarket as part of the area. Newmarket is an effective Annex of West Suffolk Council and suffolk as a whole, its joined onto the rest of suffolk by a very thin piece of land.
The issue with Andy's anti-whip plan is that even if that worked, most MP's believe that once they've been elected they have the right to decide what their constituents need or want, even if the constituents clearly disagree.
The only way to fix that is to vote in candidates with a more reasonable position. (Some people want to treat MP's more like delegates at a union conference, where the constituents decide what they want and the MP does it, but others think that's too far in the other direction)
So my understanding of this is devolution is kind of like creating states? Where states have their own government under a greater authority.
Correct me if I’m wrong
There’s a move for a devolved Dorset as well!
There needs to be an entirely devolved South West with a regional assembly in Taunton (central location). The South West seems to be forgotten about even more than The North.
@@TedJM it's much richer than the North
@@TedJMit’s forgotten about because it’s not a shit hole like a north
@@SuhbanIo nope south west has basically nothing, alot if not most of our shops are closed half the year and we have min wage jobs and have to compete with londoners for housing
Awesome. Federalism in England London yes.
They should allow these places to become new Crown Dependencies, like the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey.
Devolution has been one of the best decisions for Manchester. The transport used to be absolutely terrible with private companies like Stagecoach throwing battered old bus on the streets, the trams being independent, no cycle lanes and trains independent too. If the trams stopped working , your ticket wouldn’t be accepted on the buses at all. It was only after Andy put pressure on the tram and stagecoach companies that they allowed tickets to be used in case of malfunction on the service lines. The bee network has been a great implementation and with good success. Live times, on the go tickets and not worrying if you are suddenly having to use different franchisees. I hope it continues to improve and meets its promises.
A Labour government intend to accelerate this.
I think a very good thing could be this leading to a very similar thing to the Bundesrat in Germany where each of the German regions elect representatives to go to this 2nd house. It would be a great way to support devolution and a great replacement to the House of Lords if something similar happens here
I'm from the US, a federation, so I am biased in favor of devolution (I know the two concepts have their differences). If done correctly, it'll allow local authorities to better manage the issues affecting their localities. If not, it just makes things into a bigger mess.
Yeah it will just be a mess of different systems. Parliament decides what things the assemblies can make laws about, granting different powers to different ones. Also devolved authorities can be got rid of with a simple majority in parliament. The HoR can't just delete Texas.
Devolution: coming to a town near you to save you from the scourge of Conservatism
i could listen to her talk about english devolution deals all day
ooo super clear and informative, thank you!
Regional UK devolution it’s a good start but it’s not there yet
I've always thought allowing the District councils/government to have legislative and administrative devolution is a very good idea.
Having said that, on the other hand, Scottish and Welsh devolved assemblies should both be completely removed, because as I've already mentioned it should be the local District councils/City councils that get devolution, as only devolving legislative/administrative powers to the national level in Scotland and Wales inherently and indirectly clearly leads to more calls for internal ethnic seperatism within the UK, however, if local District councils get devolved powers then local people can obtain more local sovereignty over their local area whilst mostly avoiding the ethnic separatist problem in granting devolution to Scotland and Wales.
A good example of 'local devolution' of sorts can be found in the UK Dependencies/British Overseas Territories, as those local governments have so much autonomy that they even get their own local bank that produces a localised currency that is tied to to the UK pound (GBP) that can only be legally used within the Dependency/British Overseas Territory, which should assist in giving the locals not only a sense of local identity and sovereignty but also somewhat can additionally incentivise local people to keep buying local by keeping the money flowing within the local area, as that local currency can only be used within the local Dependency/British Overseas Territory and cannot be used as legal tender in any other part of the UK.
Also the Dependencies/British Overseas Territorial Parliaments technically don't have to accept the laws passed by the UK parliament, which is why the UK dependentency of Jersey mostly has seperate firearms laws to that of mainland Grear Britain.
I think it would be cool if each UK district had similar legislative/administrative powers that the UK dependencies/British Overseas Territories already currently have.
Another thing I do thoroughly like about the politics of the UK Dependencies/British Overseas Territories, in particular within the Channel Islands, of Jersey is that there isn't really the concept of a 'national political party' (e.g. Labour, Lib-Dem, Conservative parties etc) as their Parliament is made up mostly grass roots independent candidates which is what the UK parliament *SHOULD* also made up of independent candidates or independent political parties that only serve the district/local area and not these fake, establishment controlled mainstream national parties.
I'm surprised this channel hadn't covered this topic already
love this channel
An unfortunate by product of such action, is that some regions can come under the control of ethnic enclaves, creating regional areas outside the law of the land.
Sounds like a good idea to me, the French have been doing this for a long time and its worked out well for them. Their towns and villages are immaculate. The locals know what they need more than anything and they get to have more guidance over that, it'll also help people feel more connected to their living areas as they have more control over spending within it.
Thank you for this. It helped me realise what on earth the Mayoral election in my local area (East Midlands/Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire) were about. I still voted in it, but I assumed it was just a ceremonial role. Your video explained that it was not, and was actually quite important. I'll go and show this video to my family members who didn't vote because they too didn't understand the position, so they can vote as well next time.
Absolutely NUTS!
Just a pro tip from the U.S. - Having redundant layers of government may appeal to people who think that "government should be close to the people". But it does come a significant cost. For example, in the U.S., municipal/county, state, and federal governments can all levy taxes independently of each other, and even tax "income" that went to pay taxes to a different layer of government. People will tend to blame all tax increases on the federal government, even if they were actually enacted by a different layer of government. This tends to result in local and state governments overspending and/or cutting their revenues because they believe that the federal government should make up the difference. They then complain about taxes.
Being Eastern European, I'm also not a fan of "government close to the people", but for a different reason. The closer it is to the people, the more corrupt it gets, because there's less oversight. It's easier to bribe people and buy 20 votes than 100000 votes. He just needs to bribe/threaten a smaller number of people to stay in power. We had something we called "local barons", i.e. politicians who ruled for years and years specific areas like they were their fiefdoms. Mayors who were elected/re-elected/re-re-re-elected over and over again, because they had a grip on power in their commune/town/city. As a citizen you could expect him to put his entire family/friends in key positions and if you had the bad luck of owning a land he and his friends wanted, you could expect harassment from public authorities who lived to serve him. It's why I trust the EU way more than my national politicians, no EU official ever asked me for a bribe or threatened me. It's the local politicians I don't trust, but I know I can trust German, Spanish or whatever politicians.
@@octavianpopescu4776 - Thanks for that insight! The U.S. also sees this same problem at the state and local levels. Ron DeSantis runs Florida as if were a Medieval duchy, to the extent of trying to control what books people can read.
There are long histories of local government working the same. My home town had the same mayor from when I was 2 years old until I was 20, and he only stepped down because he was old and wanted to retire. The mayorship was passed onto a hand-picked successor. Both men were on the board of a local bank that would-be developers looking to get permits for projects were advised to handle their financial transactions through. Local taxes (i.e. property taxes) were (and still are) insanely high (among the highest in the U.S.).
But getting people to accept that the problem was local and *not* caused by "the political establishment in D.C." was nearly impossible. It's easier to blame the politicians you rarely, if ever, see in person, than it is the ones who you could see regularly around town.
@@daniels7907 I do follow US news and yes, Rs in the US do seem... Eastern European in their rhetoric (whataboutism is a classic here) and practices. We had our own version of Trump 10 years before Trump, but he never got as far as Trump did (real estate developer, not very educated, loud mouth, loudly Christian, using a populist slogan associated with the far-right: "Make Romania as Holy as the Sun in the Sky" - a former 1930s Legionary/fascist motto, similar to "America First" or MAGA, same mobster mindset, owning a sports team - Trump tried to create a rival to the NFL in the 1980s). He ended up in prison for a few years... maybe, maybe, the ongoing Trump trial where he sharts and sleeps will end the same way. And keep in mind that this guy: George Becali did all these things 10 years before Trump. He ran twice for president, but never got more than 3% of the vote, but he did make it to the European Parliament.
I see that your local town also has its own version of local barons, not just because it's the same guy, but the same guy acting in his own business interests. A lot of our corruption was implemented like this: it was all legal on paper. I thought in the US, unlike here, the politicians and the businessmen were different people, tied through lobby groups, but I stand corrected. No need for lobby-ists when they'd just be lobbying themselves.
And you're right: accepting the problem is local is very hard, because people assume that seeing politicians shake hands and kiss babies or something makes them "one of the people". They're not. This is why Brexit seemed like such a terrible idea to me looking at the UK: they removed a layer of protection against local politicians. Over here, the EU frequently acted as a check on the local politicians. They'd be shoulder deep in public funds if they could get away with it.
You got the crests of Leeds and Liverpool the wrong way round
Devolution is on the rise thanks to organisations like politicsjoe. London should not be the only city we care about
The UK likes to think this is giving people a great say/control over local government but in reality it adds to the council tax giving mayors, like Sadiq Khan, the ability to increase their ‘precept’ by more than the fixed percentage cap.
This country is over represented, with four governments; three of them devolved administrations and the fourth, the UK government. Plus local councils, county councils and their ilk.
The Mayor of London has, in the past two years, increased the council tax to help fund a tube driver wage settlement of 8.4%, so called ‘free’ school meals and to freeze bus fares.
Council tax payers are being fleeced to fund his pet projects.
To really gain some control we need proportional representation not more and increasing bureaucracy.
do u guys have an app?
As somebody from the north, This is very good
So basically they've gone from tribes to The Heptarchy to the Empire to now rejecting modernity and returning to tradition with a return to The Tribes via The New Heptarchy.
That's a bold strategy, Cotton. 🤔
Thx for this ❤❤❤
❤❤❤❤
i had imagined england receiving a devolved parliament seated in the north of england, but birmingham looks like a great place for the seat of english parliament central to england as a whole.
At this point, just federalise the UK. Turn it into "the United Kingdoms of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". You can also split the title of King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and give the monarch separate titles for each country (King of England, King of Scotland, King of Wales, King of Northern Ireland). All the countries have their own democratically elected unicameral parliaments and First Minister and the House of Commons and Lords remain as the federal bicameral legislation.
Cornwall deserves parity with Wales & Scotland though.
Or it can just be changed to the "King/Queen of the Brits" to show a ruler of the people and as a result he/she can be head of a federal state. An example of this is in Belgium, where Philipe is know as "the king of the Belgians" while S
@gameofender4463 You could just devolve it into England. Yorkshire too.
@@cgt3704 [Monarch] of the British would be most probably used. And yeah, it is a cool idea.
Or just abolish the Monarchy
4:30 this aged well...
i miss andy :(
Very well framed and great initiatives regarding devolution, the whip system and possibly even more so about horrible first-past-the-post voting.
We really need local urgency, knowledge, trust and resources to bring timely, appropriate and depoliticised solutions! Every country needs this badly to end constant national bottlenecks and politicisation! And we need elections to be about representing everyone's concerns, not just voting against the constant threat of winner takes all.
Devolution as it is right now is a mistake. The English don't get special representation, but the other countries do? It's a breeding ground for sectarianism and separatism. Moreover they get to have a say in how the English are governed whilst being able to govern themselves (so long as Westminster doesn't step in), yet we don't get a say in how they are (Beyond the same vote they have). It should be devolved down to the individual.
Quick note that although Bristol has a mayor at the moment, there was a referendum in 2022 which voted to remove the mayor at the end of his current term (2024)
it shouldn't be so complicated, everywhere should have the same level of local government
The King in the North!
Please balance the sound levels between the hosts talking and the intro sequence. 0:34 just deafened me
I'd have no objection to devolved regional government...but only if the existing county councils are abolished. We don't need an additional layer of bureaucracy.
all i’m hearing is that Brits want federalism but without calling it federalism so they’re creating a messy system to cope…
Exactly yes.
I fear you hit the nail in the head.
British people (and most people infact) fail to understand Federalism. They think it means giving local power to those who want it, but it doesn't. Federalism is meant to be a structure that provides 2 tiers of government(regional and federal), where the entire country is split into regional parts each with their own regional government that can make their own laws, but all regions still have to follow the laws of the federal government. Most importantly, however, is that federalism should not be based on already existing divisions! It should not be based on language, or ethnicity, or culture, or politics, or any other differences people love to divide themselves over. Federalism done right should make the people as miserable of their regional government as they do their national government - they should not feel allegiance to regional governments over national governments.
I don't think it can truly be described as "devolution" until these regions have tax raising powers too, for example being able to set local rates of income tax. Regions should be able to manage their own public transport and healthcare systems too
So the road to PR is probably PR for local english elections and more devolution that uses PR? That way most of the public will be familiar with PR if there is ever a national referendum on PR since the govt would be unlikely to pass it themselves.
No mention of Bristol, who had a mayor but was abolished in May 2024 in favour of a new committee system.
For the American audience this is something like what happened when we were ratifying the constitution. This is basically federalism and it’s the Jefferson side where more power goes to the states and in this case metro areas.
We've seen just how unequal London is treated than any other regions in UK. Sooner or later, this is bound to happen.
Devolution does NOT mean taking power away from Districts and giving it to Counties.
England needs a National Assembly if we want to make parliament fairer
You just skipped over Sadiq Khan, who was more despised than liked according to your own data sheet. He represented 1/3 of the mayors shown so concluding that Mayors are liked doesn't seem very honest here.
devolution has it's benefits, but within limits. speaking as an american, there are often problems that arise from having 50 different, sometimes conflicting sets of policies and laws
Devolution is a form of Federal Government, in everything but name, and I think it’s about time the UK was a federal state as this will give power back to parts of the country ignored by central government in London.
Manchester City transport system works with the Bee network however it is far from effective in my local area. Many of my colleagues are consistently late due to buses just not turning up at all since the roll out.
Conclusion: Hire Andy's for Mayor
I feel like this video didn’t go deep enough. Was wondering what policy areas will be under the remit of these new devolution deals, whether it will be more policy decision making away from Westminster or whether it could to some extent takeover policy areas that are currently managed by councils.
I am massively surprised that lancashire was forgotten on the second map, Londoners forgetting Lancashire exists omg this is unheard of
Problem: There are not enough seats for politicians
Solution: Let's make more
Problem: councils and local authorities cannot make decisions because they disagree with each other
Solution: Let's introduce an additional role to help them disagree more
What about the Highlands and Islands?
I thought devolution referred to any drunk British male tourist visting the rest of Europe, thanks for clarifying this up.
We're really taking on a presidential system, I'd much prefer a parliamentary system.
We need proper devolved parliaments in each region, with the same powers as the Welsh Assembly does. That is the only way to solve the divide in this country.
Interesting video, but you might have mentioned Bristol. They had a Mayoral system for a while but then voted to get rid of it. So presumably it doesn't always work?
Federalism, subsidiary powers, and checks and balances are all in great need in the UK system.
Bristol voted to get rid of their mayor.
yeah because he was a wolf in sheep's clothing and destroy the idea that we could have a mayor.
I'm still choked to see how bad he as left the city.
Just because it was bad for Bristol doesn't mean it shouldn't happen in other places. The North East has got the shit end of the stick consistently and has been ignored by Westminster for as long as it has existed. Having a Mayoral Authority is a massive step in the right direction for us, I would not like to see it scrapped because somewhere in the south it didn't work. That kind of Westminster meddling would be quite literally what our Mayoral Authority is there to prevent
But there is a mayor for the West of England combined authority, which Bristol is part of.
@@gabrielcoventry4586 Aye, exactly this. Mids & North have had bad policymaking forced upon them for so long, that even a bad mayor is no different to a bad central government making the same bad decisions, so there really isn't much to lose.
That was the Mayor of the City Council. That's not the same as a Combined Authority Mayor (which was the topic of this video). Bristol is part of the "West of England Mayoral Combined Authority", with Labour Mayor Dan Norris.