Journal Letters

CBI is missing a major opportunity for influence
Sep 27 2004
By The Journal

The decision by the CBI not to endorse plans for a North-East regional assembly is shortsighted (Home rule blow, September 24).

The establishment and development of the new assembly, like a new business, will take time and effort. A truly great North-East assembly will only happen through positive engagement and collaboration between all parts of the community over time.

Walking away from this great opportunity, before things even get started, is not a very constructive way to be involved or to influence how the assembly develops.

The proposed assembly will bring new powers to the region that will make a big difference to economic prosperity and the creation of new jobs, and will be a spring-board for great things in the future.

But first things first, let's get the new North-East assembly going or there'll be no new regional powers, no new regional responsibilities, no democratically-accountable regional decision-making and no business involvement and influence in that decision-making process.
A MANNING,

Voting system will treat independents reasonably
NEIL Herron of the original North-East No-campaign seems to lack understanding of the proposed voting system, claiming it will not be proportional.

It is true that of the 25 seats the first 15 or so will be elected by first-past-the-post in constituencies.

However, the remaining 10 will then be allocated on a regional basis, taking into account seats already won by the various parties in the constituencies.

The aim is to achieve overall proportionality across the region. The system also gives independents a reasonable chance. Mr Herron himself would be elected if he were to repeat his European vote.

I would not pretend that it's a perfect system, but it seems to have worked well enough in Scotland, Wales and London.
So let's get on with it and vote "yes".
PAUL TINNION,

Opponents of assembly have no faith in North-East people
THE people of the North-East are proud, hard working and fiercely independent.
If an account were drawn up of our contributions to Britain through the ages we would be well into the black.

The area has suffered hardships and indignity that it never deserved because governments anchored in the South treated the area with disdain.

Now, by electing a regional assembly, we can take back into our own hands some of the power we need to continue our regeneration, whatever government sits in Westminster.

We will have control of economic development both in the area and from outside, major influence over health problems, control of money for roads and other transport investment, control over land and strategic planning, control of a regional fire service, a policy of sustainability in our new ventures and influence over training and post-16 education.

There is a very special call to the younger people in the area to vote for an assembly.
They are the people who need to see a future of work, stability and progress as they bring up their children and invest their lives into the area. It is fresh thinking for a new century that is needed and they stand to gain most.

It is obvious that the opponents of the assembly have no faith in the North-East nor the people who will elect the assembly.

The No campaign has been, for the most part, a sneering rejection of the ability of our people to rule themselves and to find real answers to the problems of the area. It seems to me that many of our problems are imported to the area or imposed upon us by cynical former politicians.
The North-East is not full of thick docile voters who will elect dunderheads, which is the impression that parts of the No campaign readily gives.
COUN COLIN ANDERSON,

We're talking history, not conspiracies, here
COUN Sir Jeremy Beecham (Letters Sept 23) refers to "conspiracy-theorists who detect a Brussels plot behind a proposal originally made long before the UK joined the then EEC".
This is reminiscent of Prof John Tomaney's description of regionalisation opponents as "a small group of conspiracy-theorists found lurking in the twilight internet world".

Sir Jeremy is presumably suggesting, as did Prof Tomaney, that UK regionalisation began in the 40s, but fails to point out that neither then, nor in the 60s when eight (not 12) economic planning councils were set up, were the regions expected to fulfil anything other than an administrative function for a specific and temporary purpose.

Regionalisation only became essential in 1975 when the European Commission launched its regional development fund.

But there has been no "Brussels conspiracy".

The EU has regularly published maps of its regions and local government areas since 1974.
British governments, on the other hand, have followed the advice of 70s civil servants not to reveal any aspects of Brussels' activities that might be unpopular with voters.
The reason for the secrecy is the same reason why devolution was not presented to voters in the UK as a whole but had to be spearheaded by Scotland and a reluctant Wales steamrollered through the following day, with Labour's loyal North-East lined up to continue the "rolling process" into England.

Regional government was imposed on Germany by the victorious allies to weaken the country; this is a fact of history, not a conspiracy theory.
MARY ROLLS,