4 ms·

> suggests a lack of representation That's a big can of worms for HN. Suffice to say we have one of the least representative democracies and it's steadily gett

> suggests a lack of representation That's a big can of worms for HN. Suffice to say we have one of the least representative democracies and it's steadily getting worse. First past the post is no longer fit for an electorate that wants to vote increasingly for minor parties. It works where there are just two choices. Individual constituencies, especially safe seats, are often hugely unrepresentative. Finally add demographics that skew the ageing electorate ever more tory, until the baby boom finishes playing out. So that's less North-South more safe seats vs everywhere else. Yet it does often play out North-South most when seeing election results maps. Still Scotland votes overwhelmingly against Conservative, who barely exist in Scotland, yet gets English Tory government. Admittedly they won a couple back in 2017, but I can see why they inch toward independence. It's different this side of the border, but NW and NE England issues are equivalent in scale. CGP Grey summarises it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I I'm trying hard to avoid a political argument. :) > spending does localise in high population areas, no? Well it does, but thanks to the ever increasing centralisation of funding - started in 1974 I think, but especially since replacement of rates with council tax, even high population areas can't compete. The funding Leeds or Manchester gets for infrastructure, services is declining compared to the SE. Even though both are booming, they are permitted to do less per capita. We've ended up with one of the most centrally funded, and controlled, countries on the planet. The rules limit what can be done, whether on services, transport or housing. The days when Manchester or Edinburgh could provide what was most needed locally are long past. Only London still gets that. At the same time the rural bits of Scotland, Yorkshire, Cumbria etc used to be able to be cross-subsidised to provide mobile libraries, rail and bus routes etc. The market approach means those areas are increasingly forgotten and services and routes closed. Simply put, we went too far - both centralised funding and market solutions favour the City most. The pressure to move away is ever increasing, while it's never been easier to telecommute or locate your business anywhere there's a net link. > there are a number of northern areas Sure there are comfortable well off areas. Harrogate, Ribble Valley, Cheshire, York - are well off and attractive retirement locations. Yet it's also true that the worst areas for mental health, life expectancy and so on are clustered mainly in the north too - there's one just 50 odd miles down the road in Blackpool that's in the worst 5 in the country for lots of measures. I think there's a few bits around Barrow, Burnley and Preston that are little better and crop up in deprivation news stories. Talking of Blackpool, their county council votes against fracking, the minister simply overrules them and changes the rules. That probably adds to feeling unrepresented by their MPs. :) > It's one of the things that I've liked about being in the EU, spending is distributed better to poor areas than it would normally be under Tory spending control. Totally agree. It was disappointing that the EU didn't trumpet their benefits a little more, as the areas benefiting most were often heavily voting for Brexit - because they were deprived, not because they seemed anti-EU as such. Without the EU many of those spots wouldn't have got the development funding. Despite its many flaws I also felt the EU was a natural limiting factor on the increasingly extremist stance of the Tory party. Edit: That was longer than intended. Sorry!

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Thank you for laying your thoughts out clearly. As you seem cogent and level-headed, if I can just prod one more time... Fracking isn't the greatest example, as I'm against it, but there are localised things that we all perhaps wouldn't want -- power plants, maybe -- but do want the benefit of. Even if there weren't a N-S divide, and large wealth gap, and poor democratic representation -- we'd still need to do things that people want just not near them (NIMBY!). How do we go about that IYO?
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I think we could do much worse than look to our history. We used to balance this far, far better. As is, the TL;DR is it's the lack of real power and budget in the regions that's the problem. Whitehall, or a minister can simply overrule, and most of the big ideas originate there now, anyway. I really should write less. :) In the olden days, if Manchester or Cumbria wanted to build some infrastructure project, including huge ones like commission a new power station, reservoir or tram route, they first needed a local mandate. At least some of these projects were promoted locally, with exhibitions, models and leaflets, though I don't know if this was a required step. For some things, like most of our older power stations etc, the city would set up a corporation for it. Then they sponsored a private member's bill in parliament, usually via the local MP, and it required a majority vote of MPs, not just a yes from some mandarins at the department and a minister's OK like today. No vote in parliament, no enabling act: no reservoir. I'm hazy on the details of it, I'm certainly no expert in this area, but Westminster was sanity check rather than originator of ideas. I think this process died in the 1974 local government reorganisation[1]. Where an idea did originate in Westminster - say a naval base or nuclear plant, I'm even more hazy, but I think that this then required local assent as well. So for something unpalatable government needed to find a way to sweeten the deal locally. If we include some of the modern requirements for environmental impact, and proper public consultation I think we would have a chance of a system that works for most. If Leeds and Edinburgh decide amongst themselves a high-speed rail link between them would work, then once the councils get a local mandate they can try for parliamentary assent. Not wait for whatever scraps HS3 or other never-to-be-built pipe dreams are offered them. This is roughly the process that gave the great city trams and railways, power stations and beautiful council estates or garden cities with parks and plenty of play space. Also road and rail links with large borders as they bought enough land for an expansion or two, rather than the sink estates and duct tape of the cheapest bid. I trust the county or city to decide where they want their treatment plant or power station far more than Whitehall. I trust the city to sometimes spend a little more to get something that's not an eyesore. Most of these things used to be local decisions! Different places had very different ideas. Of course it wasn't perfect - this is the process that gave Manchester Hulme Crescents, probably the most nationally notorious tower block hell-hole ever built. Enough public consultation should ensure it's not "take this worthy offering, you insignificant little person" ever again. Still, we're not nearly so deferential as in the 50s. :) We might then find that a few places start pushing to emulate Orkney and get off fossil, or start implementing combined heat and power and such like, maybe pushing to develop some local skills etc. We'd certainly have a little local flavour once again, even if a few ideas turn out to be mistakes. I may as well wish for rainbows and unicorns as this would need an undoing of a lot of the centralisation of power and funding, and an unwinding of some of the neo-liberal market as solution for everything. I think we've become far too centralised for the health of the country, and it's badly hurting everyone everywhere. Yes, even London. If Edinburgh or Truro want to build more public housing, what the hell is it to do with Westminster if local taxes support it? (This gets to the core of why we became so centralised) I wish it could become a hot political issue, but seems vanishingly unlikely. [1] Enacted 72, took effect 74: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Act_1972 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Act_1972

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

Thank you for laying your thoughts out clearly. As you seem cogent and level-headed, if I can just prod one more time... Fracking isn't the greatest example, as I'm against it, but there are localised things that we all perhaps wouldn't want -- power plants, maybe -- but do want the benefit of. Even if there weren't a N-S divide, and large wealth gap, and poor democratic representation -- we'd still need to do things that people want just not near them (NIMBY!). How do we go about that IYO?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I think we could do much worse than look to our history. We used to balance this far, far better. As is, the TL;DR is it's the lack of real power and budget in the regions that's the problem. Whitehall, or a minister can simply overrule, and most of the big ideas originate there now, anyway. I really should write less. :) In the olden days, if Manchester or Cumbria wanted to build some infrastructure project, including huge ones like commission a new power station, reservoir or tram route, they first needed a local mandate. At least some of these projects were promoted locally, with exhibitions, models and leaflets, though I don't know if this was a required step. For some things, like most of our older power stations etc, the city would set up a corporation for it. Then they sponsored a private member's bill in parliament, usually via the local MP, and it required a majority vote of MPs, not just a yes from some mandarins at the department and a minister's OK like today. No vote in parliament, no enabling act: no reservoir. I'm hazy on the details of it, I'm certainly no expert in this area, but Westminster was sanity check rather than originator of ideas. I think this process died in the 1974 local government reorganisation[1]. Where an idea did originate in Westminster - say a naval base or nuclear plant, I'm even more hazy, but I think that this then required local assent as well. So for something unpalatable government needed to find a way to sweeten the deal locally. If we include some of the modern requirements for environmental impact, and proper public consultation I think we would have a chance of a system that works for most. If Leeds and Edinburgh decide amongst themselves a high-speed rail link between them would work, then once the councils get a local mandate they can try for parliamentary assent. Not wait for whatever scraps HS3 or other never-to-be-built pipe dreams are offered them. This is roughly the process that gave the great city trams and railways, power stations and beautiful council estates or garden cities with parks and plenty of play space. Also road and rail links with large borders as they bought enough land for an expansion or two, rather than the sink estates and duct tape of the cheapest bid. I trust the county or city to decide where they want their treatment plant or power station far more than Whitehall. I trust the city to sometimes spend a little more to get something that's not an eyesore. Most of these things used to be local decisions! Different places had very different ideas. Of course it wasn't perfect - this is the process that gave Manchester Hulme Crescents, probably the most nationally notorious tower block hell-hole ever built. Enough public consultation should ensure it's not "take this worthy offering, you insignificant little person" ever again. Still, we're not nearly so deferential as in the 50s. :) We might then find that a few places start pushing to emulate Orkney and get off fossil, or start implementing combined heat and power and such like, maybe pushing to develop some local skills etc. We'd certainly have a little local flavour once again, even if a few ideas turn out to be mistakes. I may as well wish for rainbows and unicorns as this would need an undoing of a lot of the centralisation of power and funding, and an unwinding of some of the neo-liberal market as solution for everything. I think we've become far too centralised for the health of the country, and it's badly hurting everyone everywhere. Yes, even London. If Edinburgh or Truro want to build more public housing, what the hell is it to do with Westminster if local taxes support it? (This gets to the core of why we became so centralised) I wish it could become a hot political issue, but seems vanishingly unlikely. [1] Enacted 72, took effect 74: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Act_1972 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Act_1972