Stephen Barber
Director
North East Assembly
Guildhall
Quayside
Newcastle Upon Tyne
10th November 2004
Dear Stephen,
I hope you don't mind us turning our attentions now on the unelected North East Assembly so quickly even before theembers of Prescott's bonfire have cooled, but you know how impatient we are.
May I start by saying, and I know that you know that I mean this, that this is not personal, and it is unfortunate that it is you and the unelected North East Assembly that is about to come under intense scrutiny.
We will not rest until the Assembly is disbanded and we have been contacted by thousands of people across the region who are incensed to say the least, at being deceived. They realise that they have been conned and that they are still paying for an Assembly that they never asked for, and thought they had rejected. To argue that they rejected an elected version to be content with an unelected form will unfortunately fan the flames of their anger even higher.
So, we can begin the process of assisting with transparency I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions:
1. Can you please forward details (either electronically or hard copy) of the latest accounts for the North East Assembly, and the most recent subscriptions paid by the local authorities?
2. Can you please confirm that the Assembly is still pursuing incorporation? If so, under what Limited Company title?
3. Can you please provide a full list of all employees, their job description and salary and the nature of their contract (whether temporary or permanent) and the who is responsible for potential redundancy and pension arrangements?
4. Some authorities still seem to think that they are only supporting ANEC and not funding the NEA. Can you please clarify the situation and detail the relationship, administrative and financial, between ANEC and NEA for the record?
5. Can you please provide full contact details of all assembly members and the expenses remuneration package they receive for attendance?
Obviously there will be more as this whole affair comes under close scrutiny, but I am sure this will suffice for the time being.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Tel. 0191 565 7143
cc. Hilary Knox, Assistant Director
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Our Wonderful North East Assembly
Just for all of you out there who thought we had defeated the North East Assembly...we only won a referendum battle. The war continues...
The North East Assembly click here
Start contacting the appointed members of this organisation and ask them to justify their position. You can find them all listed on the Assembly site.
Anyone wishing to contact the Director, Stephen Barber, for information such as how much each of the North East Local Authorities pay in 'voluntary' subscriptions, can do so here stephen@rane.gov.uk
Should there be any problems please refer to Freedom of Information Act 2000 here
The North East Assembly click here
Start contacting the appointed members of this organisation and ask them to justify their position. You can find them all listed on the Assembly site.
Anyone wishing to contact the Director, Stephen Barber, for information such as how much each of the North East Local Authorities pay in 'voluntary' subscriptions, can do so here stephen@rane.gov.uk
Should there be any problems please refer to Freedom of Information Act 2000 here
Spotlight will keep shining on North East MP's
Now that the elected assembly has been kicked in to touch and the future of the unelected one most certainly in doubt, the spotlight will continue to shine on the 30 North East MP's in order for them to actually qualify what they do for the region.
We will be encouraging the North East electorate to write to and visit their MP's and put them on the spot.
The poltical landscape in the NorthEast changed forever on 5th November. The people are waking up to the power that they have in their hands.
MPs want more power to tackle regional affairs
Nov 10 2004
By The Journal
Read here
North-East MPs should be given the right to hold their own special parliamentary investigations into regional affairs following last week's rejection of elected regional assemblies, it was claimed yesterday.
As the result of the referendum begins to sink in, two Labour former ministers called on the Government to back plans for regional committees where MPs would have the power to hold public bodies and civil servants to account - as well as grill North businesses over their role in the area.
Frank Field and Kate Hoey put forward the idea of an England-only Parliament yesterday, saying MPs should be allowed to hold specialist committees "thereby making government offices, quangos and other bodies to which the government has devolved power accountable to the Commons".
Select committees already exist to oversee the work of Government departments, such as transport, environment and foreign affairs, many producing critical reports on the spending of taxpayers' money.
Although there are political party groups representing the North-East, there are few channels for regional MPs to stand up and be counted as one voice. With Mr Prescott's decision to focus primarily on his unelected regional bodies such as the existing North-East regional assembly and regional development agency, One North-East, critics fear there is a growing democratic deficit in the area.
There are now seeds of a growing campaign to correct the matter - with Mr Field and Ms Hoey's Commons motion urging action.
The pair, former social security minister and sports minister respectively, said in their motion it was essential to make organisations more accountable to the public - but it's an idea not shared by all regional MPs with Durham's Kevan Jones saying the call "fundamentally misses the point voters were making in the referendum. The North-East doesn't want more committees, more sub-committees or structures - what people want is action."
Hexham's Peter Atkinson also warned there were more pressing matters to deal with, such as the reorganisation of local government.
Zoe Hughes
We will be encouraging the North East electorate to write to and visit their MP's and put them on the spot.
The poltical landscape in the NorthEast changed forever on 5th November. The people are waking up to the power that they have in their hands.
MPs want more power to tackle regional affairs
Nov 10 2004
By The Journal
Read here
North-East MPs should be given the right to hold their own special parliamentary investigations into regional affairs following last week's rejection of elected regional assemblies, it was claimed yesterday.
As the result of the referendum begins to sink in, two Labour former ministers called on the Government to back plans for regional committees where MPs would have the power to hold public bodies and civil servants to account - as well as grill North businesses over their role in the area.
Frank Field and Kate Hoey put forward the idea of an England-only Parliament yesterday, saying MPs should be allowed to hold specialist committees "thereby making government offices, quangos and other bodies to which the government has devolved power accountable to the Commons".
Select committees already exist to oversee the work of Government departments, such as transport, environment and foreign affairs, many producing critical reports on the spending of taxpayers' money.
Although there are political party groups representing the North-East, there are few channels for regional MPs to stand up and be counted as one voice. With Mr Prescott's decision to focus primarily on his unelected regional bodies such as the existing North-East regional assembly and regional development agency, One North-East, critics fear there is a growing democratic deficit in the area.
There are now seeds of a growing campaign to correct the matter - with Mr Field and Ms Hoey's Commons motion urging action.
The pair, former social security minister and sports minister respectively, said in their motion it was essential to make organisations more accountable to the public - but it's an idea not shared by all regional MPs with Durham's Kevan Jones saying the call "fundamentally misses the point voters were making in the referendum. The North-East doesn't want more committees, more sub-committees or structures - what people want is action."
Hexham's Peter Atkinson also warned there were more pressing matters to deal with, such as the reorganisation of local government.
Zoe Hughes
Net closing. Assembly staff should start scanning the Guardian jobs section
Isolated by huge 'No' vote
Nov 10 2004
By Ross Smith,
The Journal
After last week's referendum gave a resounding 'no' to an elected regional assembly, Ross Smith asks if the man heading the unelected body for the North-East can still justify his job.
Stephen Barber is putting a brave face on it, but right now he is a man under fire.
Just minutes after plans for an elected assembly were dealt a crushing defeat by North-East voters last week, his own job was being called into question.
As director of the existing unelected assembly, opponents of regional government were instantly questioning whether his role retains any legitimacy in the wake of the referendum.
North East No Campaign director Neil Herron dug deep into his knowledge of opera to come up with the painful pun "Barber of s'Evil" for one press release.
It raised a smile from Mr Barber - but he knows that there is a serious message behind it.
A more friendly reaction came from the beleaguered Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, who amid attacks from a reinvigorated Tory regions team, insisted the unelected bodies will continue. However, it may not, ultimately, be up to him.
North-East councils pay a five-figure subscription fee to sign up to the assembly on a voluntary basis, and, on Monday, some were already discussing pulling out.
But Mr Barber is defiant in his view that a regional body must remain in place.
He said: "We have to be clear what was the question they were being asked. We were being asked for a view on an assembly of a certain size, with a certain backing, with a certain set of powers.
"The clear message, I think, was people did not want something with more bureaucracy, more levels of government, perhaps did not want change in local government, something that was going to cost, with a new building, a new lot of politicians - the present assembly is none of those things.
"People have not been asked for a view on the present assembly, and to draw a link between the two is a bit tenuous and a bit mischievous on the part of some people."
But he admits very few people would be able to give a view on the unelected assembly, with many barely aware of its existence. Based at the Guildhall, the assembly, along with the linked Association of North East Councils, has for the past five years been a forum for building strategies which cut across local authority boundaries in the region.
It employs 28 staff, has 72 members drawn from local government, business trade unions, voluntary organisations and various public sector bodies, and runs at an annual cost of £2.2m.
Of that, £860,000 comes from subscriptions from councils, with the rest coming from central government. Mr Barber said: "If you say which buildings has the assembly put up, which roads has it built, you can't because you have to look at the finances the assembly has.
"But if you were to say in what ways has the assembly helped to shape government policy, I think in a whole number of ways. In the area of crime and community safety, in areas of health, there's now a level of debate in these two areas for example that was just literally not taking place before." Mr Barber is confident North-East council tax payers get value for money for the 50p-a-year they contribute to the assembly's running costs.
He expects some councils to question whether their subscription is one expenditure they can do without laying on tax payers next year.
He said: "Last year, 25 local authorities decided that they were going to continue to contribute. Some might well drop out. They might drop out for a whole range of reasons, we just need to wait and see.
"If an authority decides to leave the association and assembly, is the organisation weakened? Perhaps - it depends on the authority.
"But the agenda would still continue. We would have to fight. You can't suddenly stop reminding ministers about the North-South divide just because authority A or authority B isn't in membership."
Perhaps Mr Barber and Mr Prescott could share a bunker as the flak from the anti-regionalists keeps flying.
Tory Euro MP Martin Callanan said: "I respect Stephen, but he's talking nonsense. The voter shows people do not want regionally-based political structures. It flies in the face of that to continue with the regional agenda."
Mr Herron added: "Mr Barber's in an uncomfortable position. I don't think this organisation has got a very long lifespan."
Nov 10 2004
By Ross Smith,
The Journal
After last week's referendum gave a resounding 'no' to an elected regional assembly, Ross Smith asks if the man heading the unelected body for the North-East can still justify his job.
Stephen Barber is putting a brave face on it, but right now he is a man under fire.
Just minutes after plans for an elected assembly were dealt a crushing defeat by North-East voters last week, his own job was being called into question.
As director of the existing unelected assembly, opponents of regional government were instantly questioning whether his role retains any legitimacy in the wake of the referendum.
North East No Campaign director Neil Herron dug deep into his knowledge of opera to come up with the painful pun "Barber of s'Evil" for one press release.
It raised a smile from Mr Barber - but he knows that there is a serious message behind it.
A more friendly reaction came from the beleaguered Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, who amid attacks from a reinvigorated Tory regions team, insisted the unelected bodies will continue. However, it may not, ultimately, be up to him.
North-East councils pay a five-figure subscription fee to sign up to the assembly on a voluntary basis, and, on Monday, some were already discussing pulling out.
But Mr Barber is defiant in his view that a regional body must remain in place.
He said: "We have to be clear what was the question they were being asked. We were being asked for a view on an assembly of a certain size, with a certain backing, with a certain set of powers.
"The clear message, I think, was people did not want something with more bureaucracy, more levels of government, perhaps did not want change in local government, something that was going to cost, with a new building, a new lot of politicians - the present assembly is none of those things.
"People have not been asked for a view on the present assembly, and to draw a link between the two is a bit tenuous and a bit mischievous on the part of some people."
But he admits very few people would be able to give a view on the unelected assembly, with many barely aware of its existence. Based at the Guildhall, the assembly, along with the linked Association of North East Councils, has for the past five years been a forum for building strategies which cut across local authority boundaries in the region.
It employs 28 staff, has 72 members drawn from local government, business trade unions, voluntary organisations and various public sector bodies, and runs at an annual cost of £2.2m.
Of that, £860,000 comes from subscriptions from councils, with the rest coming from central government. Mr Barber said: "If you say which buildings has the assembly put up, which roads has it built, you can't because you have to look at the finances the assembly has.
"But if you were to say in what ways has the assembly helped to shape government policy, I think in a whole number of ways. In the area of crime and community safety, in areas of health, there's now a level of debate in these two areas for example that was just literally not taking place before." Mr Barber is confident North-East council tax payers get value for money for the 50p-a-year they contribute to the assembly's running costs.
He expects some councils to question whether their subscription is one expenditure they can do without laying on tax payers next year.
He said: "Last year, 25 local authorities decided that they were going to continue to contribute. Some might well drop out. They might drop out for a whole range of reasons, we just need to wait and see.
"If an authority decides to leave the association and assembly, is the organisation weakened? Perhaps - it depends on the authority.
"But the agenda would still continue. We would have to fight. You can't suddenly stop reminding ministers about the North-South divide just because authority A or authority B isn't in membership."
Perhaps Mr Barber and Mr Prescott could share a bunker as the flak from the anti-regionalists keeps flying.
Tory Euro MP Martin Callanan said: "I respect Stephen, but he's talking nonsense. The voter shows people do not want regionally-based political structures. It flies in the face of that to continue with the regional agenda."
Mr Herron added: "Mr Barber's in an uncomfortable position. I don't think this organisation has got a very long lifespan."
Less talk and more action...we are waiting.
As the dust settles we can look at the Conservative Party position on the subject of unelected regional assemblies.
Caroline Spelman has written a letter calling for the abolition of the unelected 'chambers' or assemblies. This seems to us like talk. We want action from this party and we want the withdrawal of all Conservative Party support for these bodies, including the withdrawal of 'voluntary' subscriptions from Conservative Council run local authorites, and the resignation from thees bodies of Conservative councillors.
We expect nothing less.
Neil H
Conservative Party
"Less Talk, more Action"
Prescott's regional agenda is now dead
Read online here
Conservatives have called on Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott to abandon his ill-fated English regional assemblies agenda after voters overwhelmingly rejected a "fake devolution" scheme for the north-east.In a referendum, 696,519 people registered a 'No' vote, while only 197,310 signalled approval for an assembly in the region. The clear 78% to 22% verdict left the Government's policy in ruins, and Mr Prescott's political credibility in tatters.
However, ministers still refused to rule out further referendums in other regions earmarked for assembly schemes.But Shadow Regions Secretary Bernard Jenkin seized on the voters verdict to urge the Government to dump its policy. He said: "This is a decisive vote against regional government, against more politicians and more talk. A whole coalition of individuals led the campaign against the assembly - an assembly which would have been the 'white elephant' of the North East. In helping to secure a no vote, they have done the whole country a favour."He told conservatives.com: "The fake devolution which Mr Prescott proposed has been rejected, and the regional agenda is now dead. The Government must abandon their plans for any further regional referendums. People in the North East, as in so many parts of the country, have been let down by Labour, and the Government must now act to move the agenda away from one being set by Whitehall and Westminster. We must have now a real debate about how real power is returned to councils so that local people have a real say over local issues."
And Caroline Spelman, Shadow Secretary for Local and Devolved Government Affairs backed up the message when she said: "This is a clear message from the people of the north east. They clearly don't want another tier of government in their region. The Government should now give up their plans for regional devolution."Dismissing the proposed assembly as a "talking shop" which would be unable to deliver improved public services, Mrs Spelman added: "If we are going to address apathy we need to give powers back to councils over housing, not to unelected regional housing boards."
Later, Mrs Spelman fired off a letter to the embattled Deputy Premier, calling for the abolition of the unelected bodies - so-called "regional chambers" - which have already been set up by Labour, at a cost of £30 million, with powers to interfere in the provision of housing, transport and planning.She said: "The transfer of powers to regional government by the Labour administration was predicated on the ultimate establishment of elected regional assemblies. Yet without such assemblies, there is a clear democratic deficit. The existing regional chambers have no accountability, no mandate and no legitimacy."The English people identify with their nation, and their cities, counties, boroughs and neighbourhoods, not with the government office regions. Power should reside at the same level at which people self-identify. I am therefore calling on you to abolish these regional chambers and give back to local councils the powers which have been seized."
Caroline Spelman has written a letter calling for the abolition of the unelected 'chambers' or assemblies. This seems to us like talk. We want action from this party and we want the withdrawal of all Conservative Party support for these bodies, including the withdrawal of 'voluntary' subscriptions from Conservative Council run local authorites, and the resignation from thees bodies of Conservative councillors.
We expect nothing less.
Neil H
Conservative Party
"Less Talk, more Action"
Prescott's regional agenda is now dead
Read online here
Conservatives have called on Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott to abandon his ill-fated English regional assemblies agenda after voters overwhelmingly rejected a "fake devolution" scheme for the north-east.In a referendum, 696,519 people registered a 'No' vote, while only 197,310 signalled approval for an assembly in the region. The clear 78% to 22% verdict left the Government's policy in ruins, and Mr Prescott's political credibility in tatters.
However, ministers still refused to rule out further referendums in other regions earmarked for assembly schemes.But Shadow Regions Secretary Bernard Jenkin seized on the voters verdict to urge the Government to dump its policy. He said: "This is a decisive vote against regional government, against more politicians and more talk. A whole coalition of individuals led the campaign against the assembly - an assembly which would have been the 'white elephant' of the North East. In helping to secure a no vote, they have done the whole country a favour."He told conservatives.com: "The fake devolution which Mr Prescott proposed has been rejected, and the regional agenda is now dead. The Government must abandon their plans for any further regional referendums. People in the North East, as in so many parts of the country, have been let down by Labour, and the Government must now act to move the agenda away from one being set by Whitehall and Westminster. We must have now a real debate about how real power is returned to councils so that local people have a real say over local issues."
And Caroline Spelman, Shadow Secretary for Local and Devolved Government Affairs backed up the message when she said: "This is a clear message from the people of the north east. They clearly don't want another tier of government in their region. The Government should now give up their plans for regional devolution."Dismissing the proposed assembly as a "talking shop" which would be unable to deliver improved public services, Mrs Spelman added: "If we are going to address apathy we need to give powers back to councils over housing, not to unelected regional housing boards."
Later, Mrs Spelman fired off a letter to the embattled Deputy Premier, calling for the abolition of the unelected bodies - so-called "regional chambers" - which have already been set up by Labour, at a cost of £30 million, with powers to interfere in the provision of housing, transport and planning.She said: "The transfer of powers to regional government by the Labour administration was predicated on the ultimate establishment of elected regional assemblies. Yet without such assemblies, there is a clear democratic deficit. The existing regional chambers have no accountability, no mandate and no legitimacy."The English people identify with their nation, and their cities, counties, boroughs and neighbourhoods, not with the government office regions. Power should reside at the same level at which people self-identify. I am therefore calling on you to abolish these regional chambers and give back to local councils the powers which have been seized."
A Bonfire? We have just the Guy.
Seems like a nice Guy...click here
November 10, 2004
The Times
Power to the people!
Make a bonfire of GONE, VONNE, CURDS and BECON
Simon Jenkins
LAST MONTH Vladimir Putin said that in future he and not Russia’s electors would choose their regional government. The news was deplored worldwide as a step towards autocracy.
This week John Prescott said he would do the same in England.
The news was greeted with a yawn. It was just boring British centralism. The autocracy is identical.
Labour’s stunning five-to-one defeat in the North East regional referendum last week ranks as the most misreported event of the year. Mr Prescott had promised he would not go ahead with his plan for regional government in England if he lost. He broke that promise. He is going ahead with it. The only difference is that he will punish Northumbria’s peasantry for giving him a bloody nose by leaving them no say in the matter. He will rule them from his Newcastle citadel but with no local control over his satrap, Jonathan Blackie. He will appoint his own regional board. It is pure Putin.To do Mr Prescott justice he did not want it this way. He did once believe in giving England something like the modest self-government allowed to the Scots. In the event he offered nothing of the sort, a mere consultative poodle. The saboteur was Gordon Brown. By ensuring that the regional assembly would have no power, no taxing authority and remain under the cosh of Whitehall targets, Mr Brown left Mr Prescott no answer to the question, “What is the point?” He also told local people that a “yes” vote would eliminate the counties of Northumberland and Durham or, if not, all their borough councils. He was offering less democracy not more, and at higher cost.
The North East, indeed the rest of England, will now see Mr Prescott’s revenge. The Government’s Office for the North East website (ironically acronymed GONE) shows that housing, planning, education, transport, health, economic development, all one-time local government functions, are now the job of regional officials. Mr Prescott’s board, substitute for the assembly, is called One North-East, another jeer at the localists.This is all such a Blairite parody that I thought the website might be satirical. It is a miasma of Strategy Cascades, Policy Implementation Frameworks and Regional Image Initiatives. North Easterners may think they voted against another tier of bureaucracy but they were fooled. They are silent subjects not just of GONE and ONE but of the impenetrable CURDS, ENCAMS, SHINE, BECON, VONNE and dreaded NorthSTAR. It is as if the Vikings were back.
Some regional agencies have even opened “embassies” in Brussels, Tokyo, Paris and Chicago.
These are children playing with expensive toys. So much for Mr Prescott’s pledge.The rejection of the North East assembly is a gift to Whitehall. If the people of the North East reject even a paltry voice in their local government, say ministers, why bother with local democracy at all? Tony Blair’s Sedgefield voted against his plan by 23,583 to 9,040. His response is not perhaps to offer more proper democracy for the putative referendums in Yorkshire and the North West, but less. He gives the Bourbon reply, “l’état c’est moi”.
I have a proposal for Mr Prescott (set out in a pamphlet published by Policy Exchange this week*). It would rescue his enthusiasm for devolution. It would turn the tables on his nemesis, Mr Brown, and it would be the democratic thing to do. Rather than offer the people of England a rubber stamp on regional officialdom, offer them true localism. Offer them the same participatory democracy now enjoyed by citizens in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia and, for that matter, America. Offer them local government as practised throughout the free world, not the garbage served up to the Geordies last week.
Mr Prescott should plan a democratic “big bang” similar to that which revolutionised the City of London in October 1986. Then the City went from an introverted, cabalistic club, not unlike many English councils, to emphatically the premier financial centre in Europe. Markets were deregulated. Competition was freed. Frankfurt and Brussels were stopped in their tracks. The revolution merely took courage from Margaret Thatcher.
Almost all Europe’s governments realised back in the 1970s that they were overcentralised.
Formal devolution was introduced in France in 1982, Sweden in 1984, Spain in 1992 and Italy in 1993. Reforms handed most public services to provincial, municipal and communal councils, including housing, schools, public buildings and hospitals. Denmark, which decentralised in 1970, now runs one of the best hospital services in Europe, under the aegis of counties the same size as in England. The hospitals are the least costly, most efficient and most “popular” in Europe. When I told an NHS official this, he simply refused to believe counties could do such a thing.This is not about kicking a few bureaucrats out to regional offices. It involves forcefully restoring discretion and decision to communities, warts and all.
A recent Whitehall study of Swedish devolution showed that some variation in service quality (Britain’s “postcode lottery”) is not an issue provided local politicians are clearly responsible. Accountability must be decentralised with power.
Almost all Europeans now vote for local mayors and for two or three tiers of local government. The quality of most continental town centres shows the resultant civic pride. In France there is an elected official for every 116 electors, in Germany one for every 250. Britain’s “accountability gap” offers one for 2,600. Most Europeans can name who is in charge of their municipal services. Few Britons can. Small wonder Europe’s election turnouts are twice the size of Britain’s, while Britain declares the lowest satisfaction with public services in Europe. The British way does not work.
Mr Prescott should not reorganise local government yet again. He should leave local government to the cities, counties and parishes that reflect local loyalty and thus political identity. A Cornishman is a Cornishman, not a South Westerner; a Mancunian a Mancunian, not a North Westerner. Nor is size an issue. If Latvia and Luxembourg are big enough to govern themselves, why not the bigger Manchester and Kent? France’s mairies and Scandinavia’s “free communes” show that even the smallest political entity can deliver services if contracts and lines of responsibility are clear.All Mr Prescott needs to do is withdraw Whitehall interference.
Gradualism will never work. Localism needs a “big bang”. Mr Prescott should announce a bonfire of bumf in every community, a conflagration of targets and circulars like the Tory bonfire of controls in 1951. Teachers, doctors, farmers, small businesses should bring their red tape by the barrowload and burn the lot. Rural parishes and municipalities should be told to maintain their own primary schools, plan their environs, staff their clinics and raise at least some of the taxes to pay for them. Counties and cities should be given back the hospitals, secondary schools and police they ran before Whitehall seized and bureaucratised them.No, it would not all be popular. There would be losers as well as winners, corruption and some waste, as in every reform. But I repeat, local government works better when locally accountable. The London media may ridicule local politicians and “monkey mayors”. But there is no reason for Britain to be uniquely undemocratic. Only when responsibility is given to local citizens will citizens take it seriously. The Government’s best, if half-hearted, reform of elected mayors has been a surprising success.
If Mr Prescott can force regional government on England, why not force civic democracy by insisting on elected mayors? Mr Blair must now be reeling from his Northumbrian rebellion. He and Mr Brown are dyed-in-the-wool centralists. But Mr Prescott? I cannot believe he has much time for Whitehall’s “men in suits”. Behind that gruff exterior a democrat must be lurking somewhere? He has suffered a rebuff, but it was a rebuff not for him but for his control-freak colleagues. It was a vote not for apathy but against cynicism.So seize the moment, Mr Prescott. Go for a localist big bang. Liberate the little platoons. Why ape Mr Putin when you could be the hero of democracy and bring to Britain the true devolution that has worked across Europe?
*Big Bang Localism: A Rescue Plan for British Democracy, Policy Exchange, 10, Storey’s Gate, SW1P3AY
November 10, 2004
The Times
Power to the people!
Make a bonfire of GONE, VONNE, CURDS and BECON
Simon Jenkins
LAST MONTH Vladimir Putin said that in future he and not Russia’s electors would choose their regional government. The news was deplored worldwide as a step towards autocracy.
This week John Prescott said he would do the same in England.
The news was greeted with a yawn. It was just boring British centralism. The autocracy is identical.
Labour’s stunning five-to-one defeat in the North East regional referendum last week ranks as the most misreported event of the year. Mr Prescott had promised he would not go ahead with his plan for regional government in England if he lost. He broke that promise. He is going ahead with it. The only difference is that he will punish Northumbria’s peasantry for giving him a bloody nose by leaving them no say in the matter. He will rule them from his Newcastle citadel but with no local control over his satrap, Jonathan Blackie. He will appoint his own regional board. It is pure Putin.To do Mr Prescott justice he did not want it this way. He did once believe in giving England something like the modest self-government allowed to the Scots. In the event he offered nothing of the sort, a mere consultative poodle. The saboteur was Gordon Brown. By ensuring that the regional assembly would have no power, no taxing authority and remain under the cosh of Whitehall targets, Mr Brown left Mr Prescott no answer to the question, “What is the point?” He also told local people that a “yes” vote would eliminate the counties of Northumberland and Durham or, if not, all their borough councils. He was offering less democracy not more, and at higher cost.
The North East, indeed the rest of England, will now see Mr Prescott’s revenge. The Government’s Office for the North East website (ironically acronymed GONE) shows that housing, planning, education, transport, health, economic development, all one-time local government functions, are now the job of regional officials. Mr Prescott’s board, substitute for the assembly, is called One North-East, another jeer at the localists.This is all such a Blairite parody that I thought the website might be satirical. It is a miasma of Strategy Cascades, Policy Implementation Frameworks and Regional Image Initiatives. North Easterners may think they voted against another tier of bureaucracy but they were fooled. They are silent subjects not just of GONE and ONE but of the impenetrable CURDS, ENCAMS, SHINE, BECON, VONNE and dreaded NorthSTAR. It is as if the Vikings were back.
Some regional agencies have even opened “embassies” in Brussels, Tokyo, Paris and Chicago.
These are children playing with expensive toys. So much for Mr Prescott’s pledge.The rejection of the North East assembly is a gift to Whitehall. If the people of the North East reject even a paltry voice in their local government, say ministers, why bother with local democracy at all? Tony Blair’s Sedgefield voted against his plan by 23,583 to 9,040. His response is not perhaps to offer more proper democracy for the putative referendums in Yorkshire and the North West, but less. He gives the Bourbon reply, “l’état c’est moi”.
I have a proposal for Mr Prescott (set out in a pamphlet published by Policy Exchange this week*). It would rescue his enthusiasm for devolution. It would turn the tables on his nemesis, Mr Brown, and it would be the democratic thing to do. Rather than offer the people of England a rubber stamp on regional officialdom, offer them true localism. Offer them the same participatory democracy now enjoyed by citizens in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Scandinavia and, for that matter, America. Offer them local government as practised throughout the free world, not the garbage served up to the Geordies last week.
Mr Prescott should plan a democratic “big bang” similar to that which revolutionised the City of London in October 1986. Then the City went from an introverted, cabalistic club, not unlike many English councils, to emphatically the premier financial centre in Europe. Markets were deregulated. Competition was freed. Frankfurt and Brussels were stopped in their tracks. The revolution merely took courage from Margaret Thatcher.
Almost all Europe’s governments realised back in the 1970s that they were overcentralised.
Formal devolution was introduced in France in 1982, Sweden in 1984, Spain in 1992 and Italy in 1993. Reforms handed most public services to provincial, municipal and communal councils, including housing, schools, public buildings and hospitals. Denmark, which decentralised in 1970, now runs one of the best hospital services in Europe, under the aegis of counties the same size as in England. The hospitals are the least costly, most efficient and most “popular” in Europe. When I told an NHS official this, he simply refused to believe counties could do such a thing.This is not about kicking a few bureaucrats out to regional offices. It involves forcefully restoring discretion and decision to communities, warts and all.
A recent Whitehall study of Swedish devolution showed that some variation in service quality (Britain’s “postcode lottery”) is not an issue provided local politicians are clearly responsible. Accountability must be decentralised with power.
Almost all Europeans now vote for local mayors and for two or three tiers of local government. The quality of most continental town centres shows the resultant civic pride. In France there is an elected official for every 116 electors, in Germany one for every 250. Britain’s “accountability gap” offers one for 2,600. Most Europeans can name who is in charge of their municipal services. Few Britons can. Small wonder Europe’s election turnouts are twice the size of Britain’s, while Britain declares the lowest satisfaction with public services in Europe. The British way does not work.
Mr Prescott should not reorganise local government yet again. He should leave local government to the cities, counties and parishes that reflect local loyalty and thus political identity. A Cornishman is a Cornishman, not a South Westerner; a Mancunian a Mancunian, not a North Westerner. Nor is size an issue. If Latvia and Luxembourg are big enough to govern themselves, why not the bigger Manchester and Kent? France’s mairies and Scandinavia’s “free communes” show that even the smallest political entity can deliver services if contracts and lines of responsibility are clear.All Mr Prescott needs to do is withdraw Whitehall interference.
Gradualism will never work. Localism needs a “big bang”. Mr Prescott should announce a bonfire of bumf in every community, a conflagration of targets and circulars like the Tory bonfire of controls in 1951. Teachers, doctors, farmers, small businesses should bring their red tape by the barrowload and burn the lot. Rural parishes and municipalities should be told to maintain their own primary schools, plan their environs, staff their clinics and raise at least some of the taxes to pay for them. Counties and cities should be given back the hospitals, secondary schools and police they ran before Whitehall seized and bureaucratised them.No, it would not all be popular. There would be losers as well as winners, corruption and some waste, as in every reform. But I repeat, local government works better when locally accountable. The London media may ridicule local politicians and “monkey mayors”. But there is no reason for Britain to be uniquely undemocratic. Only when responsibility is given to local citizens will citizens take it seriously. The Government’s best, if half-hearted, reform of elected mayors has been a surprising success.
If Mr Prescott can force regional government on England, why not force civic democracy by insisting on elected mayors? Mr Blair must now be reeling from his Northumbrian rebellion. He and Mr Brown are dyed-in-the-wool centralists. But Mr Prescott? I cannot believe he has much time for Whitehall’s “men in suits”. Behind that gruff exterior a democrat must be lurking somewhere? He has suffered a rebuff, but it was a rebuff not for him but for his control-freak colleagues. It was a vote not for apathy but against cynicism.So seize the moment, Mr Prescott. Go for a localist big bang. Liberate the little platoons. Why ape Mr Putin when you could be the hero of democracy and bring to Britain the true devolution that has worked across Europe?
*Big Bang Localism: A Rescue Plan for British Democracy, Policy Exchange, 10, Storey’s Gate, SW1P3AY
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Prescott still doesn't get it!
BBC Online
8th November 2004
Prescott rules out regional polls
Read it here
Mr Prescott says he is not changing his beliefs of 30 yearsReferendums on regional assemblies have been ruled out in the near future by the deputy prime minister.
John Prescott told MPs last week's "no" vote in the North East meant plans to allow the assemblies would not go before Parliament this session.
The government would now not order new polls in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber, he said.
His Tory shadow, Caroline Spelman, said the North East vote was a "humiliating defeat" for the government.
She argued the plans had been rejected because: "The people understood loud and clear that the assembly would not put one more doctor, teacher or policeman into service."
QUICK GUIDE
UK devolution
Liberal Democrat regions spokesman Ed Davey suggested the result might have been different if the government had promised the assembly more powers.
There was still a need for power to be devolved from Whitehall, he said, and more thinking was needed about the best way to do it.
But Mr Prescott insisted a lot had been achieved on devolution, pointing to the Welsh assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the London Assembly and regional development agencies.
But he insisted he was not giving up his beliefs of 30 years and said the devolution project would continue.
It's worth remembering the proposal for Welsh and Scottish devolution failed to win support in the first referendum in 1979
Mr Prescott
"We will devolve power down," he said.
"It's worth remembering the proposal for the Wales and Scottish devolution failed to win support in the first referendum in 1979 only for the situation to be reversed 20 years later in a new referendum."
With regard to the proposed referendums on assemblies in the North West, Yorkshire and Humber, Mr Prescott said the government had "reflected on" the North East result.
'Uncertainty'
The Electoral Commission watchdog has been asked to draw up a new model for postal ballots because of concerns about fraud in the postal vote in June's European and local elections.
The government has promised there will be no referendums in the other regions until the watchdog reports on all-postal ballots and draws up a new voting model.
Mr Prescott said that report would not be ready until September 2005, which was after the laws permitting such "sounding exercises" ran out in July 2005.
To avoid a "a long period of uncertainty" for the regions involved no orders for the polls would be laid, he added to jeers.
"No" campaigner John Elliott was delighted with the result
Earlier, former Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson suggested devolution plans would be presented in a different form if they returned.
"The people of the North East have had their say. It is an idea, in their view, whose time has gone, if it ever arrived.
"I happen to see an argument for it but the public don't embrace it and I don't think it is going to come back in that form."
The plan for a new assembly was voted down by 696,519 (78%) to 197,310 (22%) in the referendum on Thursday night.
Official figures showed 47.8% of the North East's 1.9 million voters took part in the all-postal assembly referendum.
The government believes elected assemblies would give a voice to regions distant from Westminster and return power to local people from the non-elected bodies that oversee many services.
But anti-regional assembly campaigners argued the new tier of government would be an expensive talking shop with very little real power.
8th November 2004
Prescott rules out regional polls
Read it here
Mr Prescott says he is not changing his beliefs of 30 yearsReferendums on regional assemblies have been ruled out in the near future by the deputy prime minister.
John Prescott told MPs last week's "no" vote in the North East meant plans to allow the assemblies would not go before Parliament this session.
The government would now not order new polls in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber, he said.
His Tory shadow, Caroline Spelman, said the North East vote was a "humiliating defeat" for the government.
She argued the plans had been rejected because: "The people understood loud and clear that the assembly would not put one more doctor, teacher or policeman into service."
QUICK GUIDE
UK devolution
Liberal Democrat regions spokesman Ed Davey suggested the result might have been different if the government had promised the assembly more powers.
There was still a need for power to be devolved from Whitehall, he said, and more thinking was needed about the best way to do it.
But Mr Prescott insisted a lot had been achieved on devolution, pointing to the Welsh assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the London Assembly and regional development agencies.
But he insisted he was not giving up his beliefs of 30 years and said the devolution project would continue.
It's worth remembering the proposal for Welsh and Scottish devolution failed to win support in the first referendum in 1979
Mr Prescott
"We will devolve power down," he said.
"It's worth remembering the proposal for the Wales and Scottish devolution failed to win support in the first referendum in 1979 only for the situation to be reversed 20 years later in a new referendum."
With regard to the proposed referendums on assemblies in the North West, Yorkshire and Humber, Mr Prescott said the government had "reflected on" the North East result.
'Uncertainty'
The Electoral Commission watchdog has been asked to draw up a new model for postal ballots because of concerns about fraud in the postal vote in June's European and local elections.
The government has promised there will be no referendums in the other regions until the watchdog reports on all-postal ballots and draws up a new voting model.
Mr Prescott said that report would not be ready until September 2005, which was after the laws permitting such "sounding exercises" ran out in July 2005.
To avoid a "a long period of uncertainty" for the regions involved no orders for the polls would be laid, he added to jeers.
"No" campaigner John Elliott was delighted with the result
Earlier, former Cabinet minister Peter Mandelson suggested devolution plans would be presented in a different form if they returned.
"The people of the North East have had their say. It is an idea, in their view, whose time has gone, if it ever arrived.
"I happen to see an argument for it but the public don't embrace it and I don't think it is going to come back in that form."
The plan for a new assembly was voted down by 696,519 (78%) to 197,310 (22%) in the referendum on Thursday night.
Official figures showed 47.8% of the North East's 1.9 million voters took part in the all-postal assembly referendum.
The government believes elected assemblies would give a voice to regions distant from Westminster and return power to local people from the non-elected bodies that oversee many services.
But anti-regional assembly campaigners argued the new tier of government would be an expensive talking shop with very little real power.
Monday, November 08, 2004
Observations from abroad
MUSINGS BY MADDOCK
"DIVIDE ET IMPERA"
Read here
Like most EU legislation, this UK regionalisation project is little understood by those who are likely to be most affected. It may be recalled that in a moment of unusual, and probably misguided, candour, Luxembourg's prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, once described the European Union "system" as follows: "We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no-one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." A very accurate, though cynical, way to explain how European political integration and regionalisation proceeds by stealth.
Corroboration of the above candid assessment can be found in the announcement by John Prescott (Deputy Prime Minister) reported by the BBC on Sunday 19 May. Mr Prescott, who is sometimes known as "Two Jag Prescott," announced achievement of his so-called "dream" of eight Elected Assemblies in England. As with so many deluded politicians, it is not his dream at all but that of the creators of the European Superstate. The full title of the European Union is in fact "The European Union of the Regions," of which there are at the present time 111 separate regions.
The plan to devolve regions in England which Mr Prescott described so enthusiastically as "the conclusion of a political dream that I have held for decades" is exactly in keeping with Article 198A of the Maastricht Treaty. EU Document 501 PC0083 which sets up "the nomenclature of statistical units" which just happen to be identical to the regions announced by Prescott. The North East Region of the UK has been officially classified by the EU as region UKC. In fact Prescott's dream for 8 devolved Regional Assemblies is exactly the same in every detail as the Regionalisation plan of the European Commission – the EU Parliament having first produced a map showing the geographical divisions of the regions in 1996. No doubt a coincidence that Mr Prescott's dream coincides exactly with that of the builders of the European Superstate in Brussels.
Waking up in a house on fire
When the people of the North East wake up from their sleep in 2006 they may find that their Region will be governed by an assembly, watched over by Brussels, which is of course further removed from the North East than is London. Just as a tormentor crushes his victim's personality by removing all sign of individualism, so dictators wipe the familiar from subject communities. For Much Binding in the Marsh the dictator substitutes Unit 2345 of Western Sub-Region Four.
Nobody in the UK has ever been asked if they want this to happen, but then nobody asked Quebecers about the MRCs either. A referendum has been promised seeking the approval of the electorate to establish each region. However, given the lack of understanding and general apathy among the population the likely result will be the adoption of the regional concept by a relatively small group of europhiles voting within the small, usually around 40%, turnout of the electorate.
« When the people of the North East wake up from their sleep in 2006 they may find that their Region will be governed by an assembly, watched over by Brussels, which is of course further removed from the North East than is London. »
The Committee of the Regions established by Article 198 a (or Article 263 as it is now known) has advisory status with some 24 of its members representing the regions of the UK. France has 24 as does Germany and Italy, Spain has 21 and the smaller countries have 6 (Luxembourg), 9 (Ireland and Finland) or 12 (Austria, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, Netherlands and Sweden). This means that each committee member representing the UK has 2.4 millions of "constituents" and the fortunate Luxembourg member represents just 65,000 "constituents." The members of the Committee and an equal number of alternate members are appointed for four years by the Council acting unanimously on proposals from the respective Member States and their terms are renewable. In total there are 444 representatives whose pay and expenses will be supported by the taxpayers of the various countries. Plus, of course, all their staff and all their expenses – but no more democracy and no more control over the unelected dictator committee – the European Commissioners.
The language used in the articles setting out the duties and responsibilities of the committee members is, as usual, difficult to understand in places. Committee members may not be bound by any mandatory instructions (presumably by their home governments) and are supposed to be completely independent in their duties. The committee may issue opinions either independently or when requested by the Commission. Nowhere does it say that members represent a region [viz. Wales], in fact it expressly states that they shall not have a mandate or be bound by instruction. This could mean that all the members and alternates could come theoretically from the same town or village. Could they come from the same political party? There seems to be no attempt at providing diversity of political opinion. Yet the European Union's own site shows that the "Committee of the Regions (expresses the opinions of regional and local authorities on regional policy, environment, and education)."
These committee Members though are not elected, they are proposed by, in the case of the UK, Westminster and then appointed by the Council, and their loyalty must be to Europe. The stipulation "...performance of their duties, in the general interest of the Community" makes the point clear. The committee also "...shall adopt its own Rules of Procedure" which is newspeak for "It shall become a law unto itself."
The entirety of Article 263 says nothing other than that the Committee shall have freedom of speech. Is the implication that citizens of the new State of Europe do not have freedom of speech? There is no undertaking that the Committee has to be consulted, nor that anything it says has to be listened to. Therefore since it has no authority, no area of jurisdiction and no responsibility, it has no reason to exist. Yet another costly talking shop!
The State, the Church and the Queen
Another interesting facet of all this has been the involvement of the Church of England in many meetings such as the "East of England Constitutional Convention" to be held next month in October. This event is to be chaired by the Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of St. Albans. The role of the official church – in the UK there is no separation of church and state – was said to be the result of an approach by high-ranking officials of the East of England Regional Assembly and the government. The request was to help them to develop a democratic debate about the need for regional government in the East of England. The church agreed, apparently because they wished to align their activities with them "...as part of a policy of tracking social developments against a background of church involvement in the local community in the context of their own faith commitment."
It seems to me that they are really involved in the undemocratic process of removing control from the hands of the UK people and handing it to an unelected group of commissioners in Brussels. Where this group, accompanied by a Parliament with little or no power, will continue to waste the taxpayers money on various idiotic and unnecessary schemes. The involvement of the C of E would be understandable if it had also become involved, for example, in measures to stop democratic control passing away from Westminster in the first place. If they had helped to stop decision-making powers being transferred from local Councils to regional bodies, the government, and the EU It is very strange that as guardians of the religious sphere, they are not campaigning against the EU's proposed draconian laws on "racism and xenophobia." These latter proposals will almost certainly mean very significant restrictions on those who believe in the Bible and try and practice their faith, apart from being a dangerous erosion of free speech in this once-free country.
The clerics who are promoting these Conventions vigorously seem to have forgotten their sworn oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, which they all take upon becoming Clerks in Holy Orders. Indeed, the Queen also swore at her Coronation "...to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to their laws and customs." She did not swear an oath of allegiance to the EU and it's laws and customs. A succession of deceitful politicians in the UK have in effect forced her to break her oath. These so-called conventions have been established more or less throughout England with most of them being chaired by C of E bishops. It is contended that because of this they will be seen to be impartial. However, this is unlikely to be the case. The Church of England's own organisation "Christianity and the Future of Europe" receives grants directly from the EU, and from the EU's "Soul for Europe" programme, in order to promote the EU's case to the British people. The man who pays the piper usually calls the tune.
A recent MORI Poll, commissioned by that very same body, the East of England Regional Assembly, found that only 11% of the people in the six counties comprising the "East of England" thought of themselves as living in a region called "East of England." This must be especially true in the county of Hertfordshire, where the good Bishop of St Albans presides, and whose affinity and connections are primarily with London, not East Anglia. Still fewer than11% of the people in that "region" support moves to set up a remote regional assembly which will remove many powers from more accountable and accessible local district and county councils. I think that it was Roy Hattersley, a well known Labour Party MP, who remarked that he believed that power must be transferred continually away from the nation-state both up to a supranational body (e.g. the EU) and down to the regional level (e.g. the Regional Assemblies). Obviously this will leave the nation-state with no power at all, which is presumably the point of all this dividing in order to rule.
"DIVIDE ET IMPERA"
Read here
Like most EU legislation, this UK regionalisation project is little understood by those who are likely to be most affected. It may be recalled that in a moment of unusual, and probably misguided, candour, Luxembourg's prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, once described the European Union "system" as follows: "We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no-one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." A very accurate, though cynical, way to explain how European political integration and regionalisation proceeds by stealth.
Corroboration of the above candid assessment can be found in the announcement by John Prescott (Deputy Prime Minister) reported by the BBC on Sunday 19 May. Mr Prescott, who is sometimes known as "Two Jag Prescott," announced achievement of his so-called "dream" of eight Elected Assemblies in England. As with so many deluded politicians, it is not his dream at all but that of the creators of the European Superstate. The full title of the European Union is in fact "The European Union of the Regions," of which there are at the present time 111 separate regions.
The plan to devolve regions in England which Mr Prescott described so enthusiastically as "the conclusion of a political dream that I have held for decades" is exactly in keeping with Article 198A of the Maastricht Treaty. EU Document 501 PC0083 which sets up "the nomenclature of statistical units" which just happen to be identical to the regions announced by Prescott. The North East Region of the UK has been officially classified by the EU as region UKC. In fact Prescott's dream for 8 devolved Regional Assemblies is exactly the same in every detail as the Regionalisation plan of the European Commission – the EU Parliament having first produced a map showing the geographical divisions of the regions in 1996. No doubt a coincidence that Mr Prescott's dream coincides exactly with that of the builders of the European Superstate in Brussels.
Waking up in a house on fire
When the people of the North East wake up from their sleep in 2006 they may find that their Region will be governed by an assembly, watched over by Brussels, which is of course further removed from the North East than is London. Just as a tormentor crushes his victim's personality by removing all sign of individualism, so dictators wipe the familiar from subject communities. For Much Binding in the Marsh the dictator substitutes Unit 2345 of Western Sub-Region Four.
Nobody in the UK has ever been asked if they want this to happen, but then nobody asked Quebecers about the MRCs either. A referendum has been promised seeking the approval of the electorate to establish each region. However, given the lack of understanding and general apathy among the population the likely result will be the adoption of the regional concept by a relatively small group of europhiles voting within the small, usually around 40%, turnout of the electorate.
« When the people of the North East wake up from their sleep in 2006 they may find that their Region will be governed by an assembly, watched over by Brussels, which is of course further removed from the North East than is London. »
The Committee of the Regions established by Article 198 a (or Article 263 as it is now known) has advisory status with some 24 of its members representing the regions of the UK. France has 24 as does Germany and Italy, Spain has 21 and the smaller countries have 6 (Luxembourg), 9 (Ireland and Finland) or 12 (Austria, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, Netherlands and Sweden). This means that each committee member representing the UK has 2.4 millions of "constituents" and the fortunate Luxembourg member represents just 65,000 "constituents." The members of the Committee and an equal number of alternate members are appointed for four years by the Council acting unanimously on proposals from the respective Member States and their terms are renewable. In total there are 444 representatives whose pay and expenses will be supported by the taxpayers of the various countries. Plus, of course, all their staff and all their expenses – but no more democracy and no more control over the unelected dictator committee – the European Commissioners.
The language used in the articles setting out the duties and responsibilities of the committee members is, as usual, difficult to understand in places. Committee members may not be bound by any mandatory instructions (presumably by their home governments) and are supposed to be completely independent in their duties. The committee may issue opinions either independently or when requested by the Commission. Nowhere does it say that members represent a region [viz. Wales], in fact it expressly states that they shall not have a mandate or be bound by instruction. This could mean that all the members and alternates could come theoretically from the same town or village. Could they come from the same political party? There seems to be no attempt at providing diversity of political opinion. Yet the European Union's own site shows that the "Committee of the Regions (expresses the opinions of regional and local authorities on regional policy, environment, and education)."
These committee Members though are not elected, they are proposed by, in the case of the UK, Westminster and then appointed by the Council, and their loyalty must be to Europe. The stipulation "...performance of their duties, in the general interest of the Community" makes the point clear. The committee also "...shall adopt its own Rules of Procedure" which is newspeak for "It shall become a law unto itself."
The entirety of Article 263 says nothing other than that the Committee shall have freedom of speech. Is the implication that citizens of the new State of Europe do not have freedom of speech? There is no undertaking that the Committee has to be consulted, nor that anything it says has to be listened to. Therefore since it has no authority, no area of jurisdiction and no responsibility, it has no reason to exist. Yet another costly talking shop!
The State, the Church and the Queen
Another interesting facet of all this has been the involvement of the Church of England in many meetings such as the "East of England Constitutional Convention" to be held next month in October. This event is to be chaired by the Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of St. Albans. The role of the official church – in the UK there is no separation of church and state – was said to be the result of an approach by high-ranking officials of the East of England Regional Assembly and the government. The request was to help them to develop a democratic debate about the need for regional government in the East of England. The church agreed, apparently because they wished to align their activities with them "...as part of a policy of tracking social developments against a background of church involvement in the local community in the context of their own faith commitment."
It seems to me that they are really involved in the undemocratic process of removing control from the hands of the UK people and handing it to an unelected group of commissioners in Brussels. Where this group, accompanied by a Parliament with little or no power, will continue to waste the taxpayers money on various idiotic and unnecessary schemes. The involvement of the C of E would be understandable if it had also become involved, for example, in measures to stop democratic control passing away from Westminster in the first place. If they had helped to stop decision-making powers being transferred from local Councils to regional bodies, the government, and the EU It is very strange that as guardians of the religious sphere, they are not campaigning against the EU's proposed draconian laws on "racism and xenophobia." These latter proposals will almost certainly mean very significant restrictions on those who believe in the Bible and try and practice their faith, apart from being a dangerous erosion of free speech in this once-free country.
The clerics who are promoting these Conventions vigorously seem to have forgotten their sworn oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, which they all take upon becoming Clerks in Holy Orders. Indeed, the Queen also swore at her Coronation "...to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to their laws and customs." She did not swear an oath of allegiance to the EU and it's laws and customs. A succession of deceitful politicians in the UK have in effect forced her to break her oath. These so-called conventions have been established more or less throughout England with most of them being chaired by C of E bishops. It is contended that because of this they will be seen to be impartial. However, this is unlikely to be the case. The Church of England's own organisation "Christianity and the Future of Europe" receives grants directly from the EU, and from the EU's "Soul for Europe" programme, in order to promote the EU's case to the British people. The man who pays the piper usually calls the tune.
A recent MORI Poll, commissioned by that very same body, the East of England Regional Assembly, found that only 11% of the people in the six counties comprising the "East of England" thought of themselves as living in a region called "East of England." This must be especially true in the county of Hertfordshire, where the good Bishop of St Albans presides, and whose affinity and connections are primarily with London, not East Anglia. Still fewer than11% of the people in that "region" support moves to set up a remote regional assembly which will remove many powers from more accountable and accessible local district and county councils. I think that it was Roy Hattersley, a well known Labour Party MP, who remarked that he believed that power must be transferred continually away from the nation-state both up to a supranational body (e.g. the EU) and down to the regional level (e.g. the Regional Assemblies). Obviously this will leave the nation-state with no power at all, which is presumably the point of all this dividing in order to rule.
Kick Ass and Kill Bill...Haskins admits idea is finished
Hull Daily Mail
'YES' LEADER SAYS IDEA IS FINISHED
14:30 - 06 November 2004
Read online here
The man who led the campaign for a regional assembly in Yorkshire has admitted the idea is finished. Skidby-based farmer Lord Haskins, who was leader of the "Yes" campaign in the aborted referendum for Yorkshire, said the Government's defeat in a referendum in the North East had helped kill off the idea of assemblies.
On Thursday nearly 80 per cent of people in the North East voted against the idea of an assembly being set up in the region.Deputy Prime Minister and Hull East MP John Prescott said the result was an "emphatic defeat" for his regional government plans.Yesterday Lord Haskins, the Government's rural adviser, said electors had failed to identify with regions that were "artificial contrivances", felt the bodies had not been given enough powers and wanted to "give the Government a bloody nose".But he said the issue of improving the performance of the regions would not go away and suggested the accountability of existing quangos should be improved instead.
He told BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "The idea of a democratically-elected regional assembly has probably gone away."People have great difficulty in identifying with these regions because of the way they are defined - they are slightly artificial contrivances."
East Riding Council leader Councillor Stephen Parnaby said he hoped the idea of a Yorkshire assembly was now "dead and buried"."The Government could not have got it more wrong on this issue if it had tried," he said. "It just shows how out of touch it really is."I hope any notion of a directly-elected regional assembly is dead and buried and remains off the political agenda for a long, long time."
City council leader Councillor Colin Inglis claimed John Prescott had been undermined by a lack of support from cabinet colleagues over the issue."I admire John for sticking to his guns without ever having the full backing of other senior members of the Government," he said."Perhaps we should now start looking at devolving real powers to the regions instead of what had been put forward for the North-East."Projects such as Castle Street would be done by now if it was dealt with by the Yorkshire region instead of the Department of Transport."
The Mail opposed an assembly on the grounds it would be an extra level of bureaucracy that would result in decisions being taken elsewhere.
'YES' LEADER SAYS IDEA IS FINISHED
14:30 - 06 November 2004
Read online here
The man who led the campaign for a regional assembly in Yorkshire has admitted the idea is finished. Skidby-based farmer Lord Haskins, who was leader of the "Yes" campaign in the aborted referendum for Yorkshire, said the Government's defeat in a referendum in the North East had helped kill off the idea of assemblies.
On Thursday nearly 80 per cent of people in the North East voted against the idea of an assembly being set up in the region.Deputy Prime Minister and Hull East MP John Prescott said the result was an "emphatic defeat" for his regional government plans.Yesterday Lord Haskins, the Government's rural adviser, said electors had failed to identify with regions that were "artificial contrivances", felt the bodies had not been given enough powers and wanted to "give the Government a bloody nose".But he said the issue of improving the performance of the regions would not go away and suggested the accountability of existing quangos should be improved instead.
He told BBC Radio 4's The World at One: "The idea of a democratically-elected regional assembly has probably gone away."People have great difficulty in identifying with these regions because of the way they are defined - they are slightly artificial contrivances."
East Riding Council leader Councillor Stephen Parnaby said he hoped the idea of a Yorkshire assembly was now "dead and buried"."The Government could not have got it more wrong on this issue if it had tried," he said. "It just shows how out of touch it really is."I hope any notion of a directly-elected regional assembly is dead and buried and remains off the political agenda for a long, long time."
City council leader Councillor Colin Inglis claimed John Prescott had been undermined by a lack of support from cabinet colleagues over the issue."I admire John for sticking to his guns without ever having the full backing of other senior members of the Government," he said."Perhaps we should now start looking at devolving real powers to the regions instead of what had been put forward for the North-East."Projects such as Castle Street would be done by now if it was dealt with by the Yorkshire region instead of the Department of Transport."
The Mail opposed an assembly on the grounds it would be an extra level of bureaucracy that would result in decisions being taken elsewhere.
The beginning of the end for regions?
Home Front
By Philip Johnston(Filed: 08/11/2004)
Daily Telegraph
England is a country of shires, not regions
Read online here
The resounding raspberry given to John Prescott's planned regional assembly in the North-East signified an emphatic rejection of big government. The argument that a regional tier of administration would somehow devolve power to people was always pretty thin. If the assembly had gone ahead, district or county councils, which have the merit of being smaller and more accessible, would have been abolished. Elected regional assemblies were not being proposed as a means of making local government more accountable but to enable the Government to complete its programme of devolution for the UK by balkanising England.
The fact is that the English regions are totally artificial constructs. England is a nation made up of shire counties, villages, towns and cities. Indeed, if there is one part of the country that could be considered to have a strong regional identity, it is the North-East; the mistake was to believe that this meant the people wanted their lives to be governed at a regional, rather than local, level.
The danger now is that a bruised and humiliated Government will slink away and wreak its revenge by failing to address the problems inherent in the centralisation of so many functions that should be run locally. There is an opportunity now for a complete rethink of local politics. By definition a parochial subject, it is not one that always grabs the imagination of ministers, who prefer to embrace ``big picture'' politics that allow for grandstanding but do precious little to change people's lives.
Whitehall may find local government tiresome, but it affects our daily lives far more than its national counterpart. In one form or another it spends most of our taxes, raised both nationally and locally.
So, where do we go from here? Given the animus towards remote government expressed in the referendum (and imagine what that means for Tony Blair's chances of securing national endorsement for a European constitution) the way forward is clearly towards smaller and more locally accountable governance. Much of central government policy is still going in the other direction. There is, as many will know, a network of unelected regional assemblies in England. John Prescott's idea was to give these bodies – which comprise local businessmen, councillors and officials – some democratic legitimacy by making them directly elected. But what last Thursday's referendum showed is that people do not want regional government, whether directly or indirectly elected. Yet the Government has only recently passed strategic planning powers from the counties to these regional bodies, which have no grasp of what might be wanted in various parts of their bailiwick. The South East England Regional Assembly (Seera), for instance, covers an area from Kent to the northern borders of Oxfordshire, whose interests are rarely going to coincide.
Last Friday, the unelected Eastern area "assembly" meeting in Southend approved plans for 478,000 new homes in the region over the next 17 years. Representatives from local authorities in Hertfordshire and Essex tried to reduce the number of homes earmarked for their areas, but these were rejected. Later today, the Draft South East Plan goes before Seera's regional planning committee with a proposal for up to 720,000 new houses in the South-East over the next 20 years. Shire leaders say the papers submitted by Seera are ``incoherent, riddled with errors and inconsistencies, and lack any environmental audit''.
These unelected regional assemblies, established in 1999, grew out of the old Government Offices for the Regions, which were established to co-ordinate those local strategic matters for which Whitehall was responsible. But what they have succeeded in doing is to stifle local decision-making. The message from last Thursday is these bodies should be dismantled. They cannot continue in their current form if they lack support from the people they purport to represent.
There are other lessons. There is momentum behind the so-called ``localism'' agenda, which seeks to give powers back to communities that have dribbled away as financial control has increasingly passed to Whitehall. But how can this be taken forward? There are suspicions that government ministers are merely paying lip-service to the concept, given their recent decisions on planning. The Tories see an opportunity to atone for the years in which they played a significant part in the centralisation of local decision-making, largely as a counter-weight against the militant Left takeover of local authorities in the 1980s.
Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative regions spokesman, says the notion that ministers and London-based (or regional) civil servants know what is best for local communities is well past its sell-by date. As an example of how far this has gone, consider the establishment by the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) of a chewing gum action unit,
"a multi-stakeholder group… which is part of a wider cross-government campaign to help clean up local communities".
Last week, it published a 160-page report from something called the Gum Droppers Segmentation Survey, analysing why people chew and discard their gum. Alun Michael the Defra minister, said: "Used gum dropped irresponsibly is an unpleasant nuisance for the public and a major headache for those that have to clean it up.'' That is unquestionably so; but is this really a matter for central government?
Mr Jenkin says Labour's idea of ``New Localism'' is not the answer because it is defined as "local decisions within a national framework", simply confirming Whitehall's unwillingness to loosen its grip. He senses an unmissable opportunity for the Tories to rediscover their civic roots.
``Real decentralisation means independent local government, local accountability and local democracy, with councils raising the majority of their own revenues and spending them as they see fit,'' he says. ``The restoration of genuine shire and city self-government would rekindle the kind of civic society that used to be the bedrock our party's strength.'' Judging by the vote in the North-East last week, this is what people want, but do national politicians have the courage and vision to deliver?
By Philip Johnston(Filed: 08/11/2004)
Daily Telegraph
England is a country of shires, not regions
Read online here
The resounding raspberry given to John Prescott's planned regional assembly in the North-East signified an emphatic rejection of big government. The argument that a regional tier of administration would somehow devolve power to people was always pretty thin. If the assembly had gone ahead, district or county councils, which have the merit of being smaller and more accessible, would have been abolished. Elected regional assemblies were not being proposed as a means of making local government more accountable but to enable the Government to complete its programme of devolution for the UK by balkanising England.
The fact is that the English regions are totally artificial constructs. England is a nation made up of shire counties, villages, towns and cities. Indeed, if there is one part of the country that could be considered to have a strong regional identity, it is the North-East; the mistake was to believe that this meant the people wanted their lives to be governed at a regional, rather than local, level.
The danger now is that a bruised and humiliated Government will slink away and wreak its revenge by failing to address the problems inherent in the centralisation of so many functions that should be run locally. There is an opportunity now for a complete rethink of local politics. By definition a parochial subject, it is not one that always grabs the imagination of ministers, who prefer to embrace ``big picture'' politics that allow for grandstanding but do precious little to change people's lives.
Whitehall may find local government tiresome, but it affects our daily lives far more than its national counterpart. In one form or another it spends most of our taxes, raised both nationally and locally.
So, where do we go from here? Given the animus towards remote government expressed in the referendum (and imagine what that means for Tony Blair's chances of securing national endorsement for a European constitution) the way forward is clearly towards smaller and more locally accountable governance. Much of central government policy is still going in the other direction. There is, as many will know, a network of unelected regional assemblies in England. John Prescott's idea was to give these bodies – which comprise local businessmen, councillors and officials – some democratic legitimacy by making them directly elected. But what last Thursday's referendum showed is that people do not want regional government, whether directly or indirectly elected. Yet the Government has only recently passed strategic planning powers from the counties to these regional bodies, which have no grasp of what might be wanted in various parts of their bailiwick. The South East England Regional Assembly (Seera), for instance, covers an area from Kent to the northern borders of Oxfordshire, whose interests are rarely going to coincide.
Last Friday, the unelected Eastern area "assembly" meeting in Southend approved plans for 478,000 new homes in the region over the next 17 years. Representatives from local authorities in Hertfordshire and Essex tried to reduce the number of homes earmarked for their areas, but these were rejected. Later today, the Draft South East Plan goes before Seera's regional planning committee with a proposal for up to 720,000 new houses in the South-East over the next 20 years. Shire leaders say the papers submitted by Seera are ``incoherent, riddled with errors and inconsistencies, and lack any environmental audit''.
These unelected regional assemblies, established in 1999, grew out of the old Government Offices for the Regions, which were established to co-ordinate those local strategic matters for which Whitehall was responsible. But what they have succeeded in doing is to stifle local decision-making. The message from last Thursday is these bodies should be dismantled. They cannot continue in their current form if they lack support from the people they purport to represent.
There are other lessons. There is momentum behind the so-called ``localism'' agenda, which seeks to give powers back to communities that have dribbled away as financial control has increasingly passed to Whitehall. But how can this be taken forward? There are suspicions that government ministers are merely paying lip-service to the concept, given their recent decisions on planning. The Tories see an opportunity to atone for the years in which they played a significant part in the centralisation of local decision-making, largely as a counter-weight against the militant Left takeover of local authorities in the 1980s.
Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative regions spokesman, says the notion that ministers and London-based (or regional) civil servants know what is best for local communities is well past its sell-by date. As an example of how far this has gone, consider the establishment by the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) of a chewing gum action unit,
"a multi-stakeholder group… which is part of a wider cross-government campaign to help clean up local communities".
Last week, it published a 160-page report from something called the Gum Droppers Segmentation Survey, analysing why people chew and discard their gum. Alun Michael the Defra minister, said: "Used gum dropped irresponsibly is an unpleasant nuisance for the public and a major headache for those that have to clean it up.'' That is unquestionably so; but is this really a matter for central government?
Mr Jenkin says Labour's idea of ``New Localism'' is not the answer because it is defined as "local decisions within a national framework", simply confirming Whitehall's unwillingness to loosen its grip. He senses an unmissable opportunity for the Tories to rediscover their civic roots.
``Real decentralisation means independent local government, local accountability and local democracy, with councils raising the majority of their own revenues and spending them as they see fit,'' he says. ``The restoration of genuine shire and city self-government would rekindle the kind of civic society that used to be the bedrock our party's strength.'' Judging by the vote in the North-East last week, this is what people want, but do national politicians have the courage and vision to deliver?
The academics got it wrong as well...
...but when you check out their funding and connections it is all part of the great deception and political con trick. We had Professor Jefferey sussed last year. BBC are complicit in the deception. Thing is tho' the public are streets ahead of the game and the chances of anything other than the same landslide in a referendum on the European Constitution are nil.
More on that score shortly. Meanwhile...
Post below from Peter.
" A major academic study was published on 2nd July 2003 finding that all English regions could win a referendum on elected regional government. The study completed by Pro. Charlie Jeffery, Director of ERSC's Devolution and Constitutional Change programme anayses the reponses to the Government's soundings process conducted to assess the level of interest in holding referendums in the regions.Speaking on behalf of the Campaign for the English Regions Chair George Morran said that this news is a terrific boost for the Campaign. The report finds that the majority of people that intend to vote in the three northern referendums will vote Yes." ,,, and more.
I have quickly gone through Jeffery's report and find that it is not really as Morran would have it. Whilst it found that there was interest across the country in having referendums, it cautiously notes that this fact does not express voting intentions. Nevertheless of various polls mentioned all of them had more in favour than against elected assemblies.
But mostly less than 50% said they'd vote Yes.
Fewer said they'd vote no.
The rest were undecided.
Interestingly the BBC poll was the exception and had 73% in favour. The BBC needs to be hammered on this.Jeffery was not able to equate the ODPM's actions to the soundings. He seems to have sensed a reluctance to look too closely at them. He recognised that the Yes vote was vulnerable to "Talking Shop" etc arguments. He opined that the turn out was likely to be low.Undoubtedly Jeffery will have been disappointed in the NE result.
He is heavily wrapped up in euroconnections.One of the questions now is: will UNISON, Rowntree, Wainwright & Co continue to fund CFER? The LibDem regionalists are now talking of a Northern "Convention" to figure out the way forward.
Peter
More on that score shortly. Meanwhile...
Post below from Peter.
" A major academic study was published on 2nd July 2003 finding that all English regions could win a referendum on elected regional government. The study completed by Pro. Charlie Jeffery, Director of ERSC's Devolution and Constitutional Change programme anayses the reponses to the Government's soundings process conducted to assess the level of interest in holding referendums in the regions.Speaking on behalf of the Campaign for the English Regions Chair George Morran said that this news is a terrific boost for the Campaign. The report finds that the majority of people that intend to vote in the three northern referendums will vote Yes." ,,, and more.
I have quickly gone through Jeffery's report and find that it is not really as Morran would have it. Whilst it found that there was interest across the country in having referendums, it cautiously notes that this fact does not express voting intentions. Nevertheless of various polls mentioned all of them had more in favour than against elected assemblies.
But mostly less than 50% said they'd vote Yes.
Fewer said they'd vote no.
The rest were undecided.
Interestingly the BBC poll was the exception and had 73% in favour. The BBC needs to be hammered on this.Jeffery was not able to equate the ODPM's actions to the soundings. He seems to have sensed a reluctance to look too closely at them. He recognised that the Yes vote was vulnerable to "Talking Shop" etc arguments. He opined that the turn out was likely to be low.Undoubtedly Jeffery will have been disappointed in the NE result.
He is heavily wrapped up in euroconnections.One of the questions now is: will UNISON, Rowntree, Wainwright & Co continue to fund CFER? The LibDem regionalists are now talking of a Northern "Convention" to figure out the way forward.
Peter
One of over a thousand!
Dear North East 'No' Campaign
Thank you for being a competent, professional, down-to-earth campaigning team. Thank you for helping us to say 'No' to huge costs and 'Yes' to getting our current representatives - MPs, MEPs, councillors at various levels - to do the jobs that they are, after all, employed to do and which they have sworn oaths to do..... but which they then ignore in favour of party loyalty and expenses/pay-packet loyalty. That is the real problem that needs fixing that would solve all the other issues that people have been arguing about during the referendum campaign. We need to hold the current office holders to account before we start claiming that a new structure will somehow magically produce accountability from the same people - council leaders etc who would want jobs in an elected assembly - who have a track record of resisting accountability in their current and former public servant roles.
Incidentally, the official 'No' campaign wasn't half as good as your 'No' campaign. Their website just wasn't informative enough nor up-to-date enough. It came across as half-hearted and it lacked comprehensive information. Its design and navigation also wasn't as clear or accessible as yours.
If we'd failed to give a 'no' then some of the blame could be traced to the lack of an effective official 'No' campaign. But we also have to beware of being too web-based. Significant portions of society do not have computers and do not want them. Older people, for instance, have seen politicians come and go, they've seen previous spin and seen how it pans out. They've seen how 'this will give you a voice' has been used time and again and that it hasn't properly delivered 'a voice' yet. These people often do not have web access and would find it difficult to learn from the web even if they had access. These are the people, I believe, who will be instrumental in saying no to an EU constitution because they have lived long enough to not be swayed by window-dressing. They also fought for democratic rights and freedoms - suffragettes, two world wars - so they take these things less frivolously than the gung-ho younger generations who would give the EU a go just for the sake of trying it in their ignorance of the fact that it's all been tried before and it was called things like the German Empire, the British Empire, the Soviet Union.......The 'Yes' campaign was more active than all the 'No' campaigns put together in terms of sending leaflets and letters (to my house, at least), but then certain Labour MPs were in cahoots with them as well as certain sport personalities....... In any case, they weren't effective were they? Lessons learned all round.I'd like to see England united against these plans to fragment the country.
If each 'region' has a 'No' campaign that doesn't bother to join up with the 'No' campaigns of other regions then we have simply fragmented ourselves according to these regional maps from 'on high'. Obviously, that would be to hand them their victory. Unity is the immune system that maintains coherence and integrity in the face of threats of division. United we stand, divided we fall. It's as simple as that.I look forward to your campaign about the EU constitution. This country - preferably as the UK, but failing that, as England - needs to wake up in good time so that we can prevent a huge disaster in democracy that will, I believe, take about a century to correct if it's allowed to happen. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Once again, my gratitude for your teamwork and your campaigning to date.Yours sincerelyA very pleased voter!!
Thank you for being a competent, professional, down-to-earth campaigning team. Thank you for helping us to say 'No' to huge costs and 'Yes' to getting our current representatives - MPs, MEPs, councillors at various levels - to do the jobs that they are, after all, employed to do and which they have sworn oaths to do..... but which they then ignore in favour of party loyalty and expenses/pay-packet loyalty. That is the real problem that needs fixing that would solve all the other issues that people have been arguing about during the referendum campaign. We need to hold the current office holders to account before we start claiming that a new structure will somehow magically produce accountability from the same people - council leaders etc who would want jobs in an elected assembly - who have a track record of resisting accountability in their current and former public servant roles.
Incidentally, the official 'No' campaign wasn't half as good as your 'No' campaign. Their website just wasn't informative enough nor up-to-date enough. It came across as half-hearted and it lacked comprehensive information. Its design and navigation also wasn't as clear or accessible as yours.
If we'd failed to give a 'no' then some of the blame could be traced to the lack of an effective official 'No' campaign. But we also have to beware of being too web-based. Significant portions of society do not have computers and do not want them. Older people, for instance, have seen politicians come and go, they've seen previous spin and seen how it pans out. They've seen how 'this will give you a voice' has been used time and again and that it hasn't properly delivered 'a voice' yet. These people often do not have web access and would find it difficult to learn from the web even if they had access. These are the people, I believe, who will be instrumental in saying no to an EU constitution because they have lived long enough to not be swayed by window-dressing. They also fought for democratic rights and freedoms - suffragettes, two world wars - so they take these things less frivolously than the gung-ho younger generations who would give the EU a go just for the sake of trying it in their ignorance of the fact that it's all been tried before and it was called things like the German Empire, the British Empire, the Soviet Union.......The 'Yes' campaign was more active than all the 'No' campaigns put together in terms of sending leaflets and letters (to my house, at least), but then certain Labour MPs were in cahoots with them as well as certain sport personalities....... In any case, they weren't effective were they? Lessons learned all round.I'd like to see England united against these plans to fragment the country.
If each 'region' has a 'No' campaign that doesn't bother to join up with the 'No' campaigns of other regions then we have simply fragmented ourselves according to these regional maps from 'on high'. Obviously, that would be to hand them their victory. Unity is the immune system that maintains coherence and integrity in the face of threats of division. United we stand, divided we fall. It's as simple as that.I look forward to your campaign about the EU constitution. This country - preferably as the UK, but failing that, as England - needs to wake up in good time so that we can prevent a huge disaster in democracy that will, I believe, take about a century to correct if it's allowed to happen. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Once again, my gratitude for your teamwork and your campaigning to date.Yours sincerelyA very pleased voter!!
Sunday, November 07, 2004
The Suspects...paid for by you and I. How long will the Assembly last?
Below are the members of the unelected North East Assembly. We will continue to shine the spotlight on them until the Assembly is disbanded.
To visit the website of the North East Assembly click here
Government Sector
Alnwick District Council
Councillor JJ Rutherford (Ind)
Berwick upon Tweed Borough Council
Councillor A Hughes (Con)
Blyth Valley Borough Council
Councillor R Watson (Lab)
Castle Morpeth Borough Council
Councillor DJ Parker (LD)
Chester le Street District Council
Councillor L Ebbatson (Lab)
Darlington Borough Council
Councillor J Williams (Lab)
Councillor L Vasey (Lab)
Derwentside District Council
Councillor A Watson - Assembly Vice Chair (Lab)
Durham City Council
Councillor SJ Pitts (LD)
Durham County Council
Councillor NDP Ross (Lab)
Councillor K Manton (Lab)
Easington District Council
Councillor A Napier (Lab)
Gateshead Council
Councillor I Mearns (Lab)
Councillor M F Henry (Lab)
Hartlepool Borough Council
Mr S Drummond (Mayor)
Councillor C Richardson (Lab)
Middlesbrough Borough Council
Councillor R K Brady (Lab)
Councillor P Thompson (Lab)
Newcastle City Council
Councillor P Arnold (LD)
Newcastle City Council
Councillor D Huddart (LD)
North Tyneside Council
Councillor WH Jackson (Con)
Councillor D Ord (LD)
Northumberland County Council
Councillor M Davey OBE (Lab)
Councillor D Luke (Lab)
Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council
Councillor G Jeffery (Con)
Councillor G Nightingale (LD)
Sedgefield Borough Council
Councillor RS Fleming (Lab)
South Tyneside Council
Councillor P Waggott (Lab)
Councillor I Malcolm (Lab)
Stockton on Tees Borough Council
Councillor DW Coleman (Lab)
Councillor R Gibson - Assembly Chair (Lab)
Sunderland City Council
Councillor B Charlton (Lab)
Councillor R Symonds (Lab)
Teesdale District Council
Councillor GK Robinson (Lab)
Tynedale District Council
Councillor HJC Herron (Con)
Wansbeck District Council
Councillor D Ledger (Lab)
Wear Valley District Council
Councillor O Brown (Lab)
Minority Party Balancing Seats
Councillor D Blackie - Teesdale District Council (Ind)
Councillor AR Bowlas - Berwick upon Tweed Borough Council (Ind)
Councillor H Cairns - Alnwick District Council (LD)
Councillor S Fletcher MBE - Stockton on Tees Borough Council (LD)
Councillor C Foote Wood - Wear Valley District Council (LD)
Councillor SAC Oliver - Northumberland County Council (Con)
Councillor EA Richmond OBE - Darlington Borough Council (Con)
Councillor W Stelling - Derwentside District Council (Ind)
Members of Parliament
Mr J Cummings MP
Town & Parish Councils
Councillor T Batson
Economic & Social Partners
Culture / Tourism / Sport
Ms O Grant OBE DL
Environment
Mr G Warren
Ethnic Minorities
Ms B Prevatt Goldstein
Faiths
Bishop P Richardson
Further Education
Mr A G Dixon
Health
Mr PD Carr CBE DL
Higher Education
Professor G Henderson
Learning & Skills Councils
Mr C Roberts
National Parks
Mr Adrian Hinchcliffe
Non Profit Making Organisations
Mr T Morton
Private / Business
Mr P Briggs - Assembly Vice-Chair
Private / Business
Mr L Brown
Sir M Darrington
Mr EM Nunn
Rural
Mr DM Middleton
Trade Unions
Mr R D'Emidio
Ms G Hale
Mr D Hall
Ms M Meling
Mr K Rowan
Voluntary
Ms C Dobson
Mr J Robinson
To visit the website of the North East Assembly click here
Government Sector
Alnwick District Council
Councillor JJ Rutherford (Ind)
Berwick upon Tweed Borough Council
Councillor A Hughes (Con)
Blyth Valley Borough Council
Councillor R Watson (Lab)
Castle Morpeth Borough Council
Councillor DJ Parker (LD)
Chester le Street District Council
Councillor L Ebbatson (Lab)
Darlington Borough Council
Councillor J Williams (Lab)
Councillor L Vasey (Lab)
Derwentside District Council
Councillor A Watson - Assembly Vice Chair (Lab)
Durham City Council
Councillor SJ Pitts (LD)
Durham County Council
Councillor NDP Ross (Lab)
Councillor K Manton (Lab)
Easington District Council
Councillor A Napier (Lab)
Gateshead Council
Councillor I Mearns (Lab)
Councillor M F Henry (Lab)
Hartlepool Borough Council
Mr S Drummond (Mayor)
Councillor C Richardson (Lab)
Middlesbrough Borough Council
Councillor R K Brady (Lab)
Councillor P Thompson (Lab)
Newcastle City Council
Councillor P Arnold (LD)
Newcastle City Council
Councillor D Huddart (LD)
North Tyneside Council
Councillor WH Jackson (Con)
Councillor D Ord (LD)
Northumberland County Council
Councillor M Davey OBE (Lab)
Councillor D Luke (Lab)
Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council
Councillor G Jeffery (Con)
Councillor G Nightingale (LD)
Sedgefield Borough Council
Councillor RS Fleming (Lab)
South Tyneside Council
Councillor P Waggott (Lab)
Councillor I Malcolm (Lab)
Stockton on Tees Borough Council
Councillor DW Coleman (Lab)
Councillor R Gibson - Assembly Chair (Lab)
Sunderland City Council
Councillor B Charlton (Lab)
Councillor R Symonds (Lab)
Teesdale District Council
Councillor GK Robinson (Lab)
Tynedale District Council
Councillor HJC Herron (Con)
Wansbeck District Council
Councillor D Ledger (Lab)
Wear Valley District Council
Councillor O Brown (Lab)
Minority Party Balancing Seats
Councillor D Blackie - Teesdale District Council (Ind)
Councillor AR Bowlas - Berwick upon Tweed Borough Council (Ind)
Councillor H Cairns - Alnwick District Council (LD)
Councillor S Fletcher MBE - Stockton on Tees Borough Council (LD)
Councillor C Foote Wood - Wear Valley District Council (LD)
Councillor SAC Oliver - Northumberland County Council (Con)
Councillor EA Richmond OBE - Darlington Borough Council (Con)
Councillor W Stelling - Derwentside District Council (Ind)
Members of Parliament
Mr J Cummings MP
Town & Parish Councils
Councillor T Batson
Economic & Social Partners
Culture / Tourism / Sport
Ms O Grant OBE DL
Environment
Mr G Warren
Ethnic Minorities
Ms B Prevatt Goldstein
Faiths
Bishop P Richardson
Further Education
Mr A G Dixon
Health
Mr PD Carr CBE DL
Higher Education
Professor G Henderson
Learning & Skills Councils
Mr C Roberts
National Parks
Mr Adrian Hinchcliffe
Non Profit Making Organisations
Mr T Morton
Private / Business
Mr P Briggs - Assembly Vice-Chair
Private / Business
Mr L Brown
Sir M Darrington
Mr EM Nunn
Rural
Mr DM Middleton
Trade Unions
Mr R D'Emidio
Ms G Hale
Mr D Hall
Ms M Meling
Mr K Rowan
Voluntary
Ms C Dobson
Mr J Robinson
Prescott in Drag? An Assembly in disguise.
Just a little reminder that the unelected North East Assembly still exists. The piece below was written about eighteen months ago.
It is not acceptable to have the unelected bodies continuing to spend public money when the public have rejected the idea of elected bodies.
The North East Assembly needs to disband and the association of North East Councils handed back any control and powers.
The monumental wave of public opinion that delivered a serious political message will be a monumental wave of anger should they believe they have been well and truly shafted and deceived.
Woe betied any councillor or local authority that continues to support this body. We will name and shame and ensure that they pay a very heavy political price at the next elections.
The 'Barber of S'EVIL
www.neilherron.co.uk
The comic opera continues in the North East with the Director, Stephen Barber of the North East Assembly again making the headlines, but unfortunately, this time the audience is not laughing. There is no Figaro, just a complicated trail that everyone is trying to ' Figarout,' and the amount of money that is involved in this case, is slightly more than a tenor!The first 'gross distortion' was the fact that the North East Assembly denied that they had misused public money in campaigning for and promoting elected regional government. A complaint was made to the District Auditor who censured the Assembly publicly and they were forced to adopt a neutral stance.
The Director gave reassurances to all the subscribing local authorities that he would not step over the line again, as it is the authorities that would have to face, and bear the costs of any legal action. The Chairman of the Assembly quietly resigned at the AGM 'a la Milburnesque', to,'spend more time with family.
The 'second 'lie' manifested itself just the other day and is the start of another duplicitous trail involving more misuse of public money, the self-generating proliferation of bureaucracy disconnected from any accountability by any elected structures and the link into the European Union and its wish to ultimately create a 'Europe of the Regions' with the neutering of the nation state.
As I have previously mentioned, John Prescott has always had a dream that the United Kingdom be divided into twelve regions. (My dreams tend to involve scoring hat tricks in cup finals, hero worship and beautiful women, and winning the lottery, but there must be something wrong with me. Reminds me of the waiter who brought two bottles of champagne to George Best's hotel room. George had had a drink and was lying on the bed with Miss World and surrounded by tens of thousands of pounds from winning at the Casino earlier in the evening. The waiter said, "Mr. Best, where did it all go wrong?")
Back to Prescott's dream. It has always been strenuously denied that there is any connection between the Deputy Pie Minister's vision of the nation's future governance and the European Union's blueprint for a 'Europe of the Regions,' which is a bit like ignoring the elephant in the room. Ongoing research threw up a connection between the shadowy English Regions Network and the European Commission in London, but there were strenuous denials that there had ever been any meetings between the two.Sad as I've become, last Friday night I was trawling through minutes of little ERN's meetings when I found a little golden nugget. The significance of ERN is that it is the body whose remit is to co-ordinate the political strategy of the eight English regions outside London, as they move towards having elected regional assemblies.
The plot thickens as this body appears to have no democratic accountability at all. The problem for Mr. Barber is that the North East Assembly is now the Secretariat of ERN as it operates on a rotating basis. The lead Assembly is responsible for the administrative costs. The ratepayers of the subscribing councils will therefore bear the cost.
So, yet again we are back to square one with my money going to an organisation to attempt to create regional government without my consent, and I am one of many who ain't gonna put up with that.
The golden nugget that I found was the agenda and minutes for a meeting held in the Commission's office on 15 November 2001. This began with lunch given to senior ERN officials by Commission officials, headed by Geoffrey Martin, then the Commission's top man in the UK, followed by a meeting in the Commission conference room until 4pm. It was recorded that ERN had 'agreed an invitation from the EU Commission UK office to hold further meetings at that venue'.
Last week the same question was put to the ERN itself, whose affairs, as mentioned,are currently being managed by the North East Regional Assembly, Stephen Barber (former Head of European Operations for Kent County Council). He replied that ERN is seeking a meeting with the EU's regional commissioner Michel Barnier, but he would have to check with other regional assemblies 'what the position is on any previous meetings'. Yet Mr Barber was recorded in the minutes as one of those present in 2001, and he also delivered an address. It seems that he may have selective amnesia which may also be contagious.
The former Chairman of the Assembly, Tony Flynn, who is also Leader of Newcastle Council (he has more positions than the hardback version of the Kama Sutra. Makes you wonder where they actually get time to listen to the electorate) also seems to have ERNnesia. He forgot to declare last year in his Council's register of Member's Interests that he was Deputy Chairman of ERN. Just an oversight of course!
So how deep does this rabbit hole go? How many lies and half-truths have been told to get the gravy train to its current station? How many more connections need to be made before this completely manipulated sham is exposed?
Is it any surprise that ConnectPA, the public affairs consultants who 'advise' ERN is filled with former New Labour advisors who have worked for Patricia Hewitt, Stephen Byers and David Blunkett?
Mr. Barber has given an undertaking to all the North East Councils that the North East Assembly will 'insure and indemnify' council members and officials from all costs in relation to any attempted legal action.The indemnity cannot be provided with North East Assembly money as that money belongs to the councils who received it from their ratepayers. You could hardly use ratepayers money to cover court costs in an action brought by ratepayers. That would be a bit like a burglar being found guilty and asking to burgle another house to pay his costs.We wait with bated breath for sight of this insurance policy, and hope it is not underwritten by Hoodwink, Fleeceham and Scarper. I do believe that the noise I can hear from my office window is that of seagulls and not that of a cock crowing before the third denial...but I cannot be sure.As the Government lurches from one crisis to another and the Deputy Prime Minister is left in charge of the country one wonders how this opera will end. As we know it will not be over until the fat lady sings. Perish the thought of Prescott in drag.
It is not acceptable to have the unelected bodies continuing to spend public money when the public have rejected the idea of elected bodies.
The North East Assembly needs to disband and the association of North East Councils handed back any control and powers.
The monumental wave of public opinion that delivered a serious political message will be a monumental wave of anger should they believe they have been well and truly shafted and deceived.
Woe betied any councillor or local authority that continues to support this body. We will name and shame and ensure that they pay a very heavy political price at the next elections.
The 'Barber of S'EVIL
www.neilherron.co.uk
The comic opera continues in the North East with the Director, Stephen Barber of the North East Assembly again making the headlines, but unfortunately, this time the audience is not laughing. There is no Figaro, just a complicated trail that everyone is trying to ' Figarout,' and the amount of money that is involved in this case, is slightly more than a tenor!The first 'gross distortion' was the fact that the North East Assembly denied that they had misused public money in campaigning for and promoting elected regional government. A complaint was made to the District Auditor who censured the Assembly publicly and they were forced to adopt a neutral stance.
The Director gave reassurances to all the subscribing local authorities that he would not step over the line again, as it is the authorities that would have to face, and bear the costs of any legal action. The Chairman of the Assembly quietly resigned at the AGM 'a la Milburnesque', to,'spend more time with family.
The 'second 'lie' manifested itself just the other day and is the start of another duplicitous trail involving more misuse of public money, the self-generating proliferation of bureaucracy disconnected from any accountability by any elected structures and the link into the European Union and its wish to ultimately create a 'Europe of the Regions' with the neutering of the nation state.
As I have previously mentioned, John Prescott has always had a dream that the United Kingdom be divided into twelve regions. (My dreams tend to involve scoring hat tricks in cup finals, hero worship and beautiful women, and winning the lottery, but there must be something wrong with me. Reminds me of the waiter who brought two bottles of champagne to George Best's hotel room. George had had a drink and was lying on the bed with Miss World and surrounded by tens of thousands of pounds from winning at the Casino earlier in the evening. The waiter said, "Mr. Best, where did it all go wrong?")
Back to Prescott's dream. It has always been strenuously denied that there is any connection between the Deputy Pie Minister's vision of the nation's future governance and the European Union's blueprint for a 'Europe of the Regions,' which is a bit like ignoring the elephant in the room. Ongoing research threw up a connection between the shadowy English Regions Network and the European Commission in London, but there were strenuous denials that there had ever been any meetings between the two.Sad as I've become, last Friday night I was trawling through minutes of little ERN's meetings when I found a little golden nugget. The significance of ERN is that it is the body whose remit is to co-ordinate the political strategy of the eight English regions outside London, as they move towards having elected regional assemblies.
The plot thickens as this body appears to have no democratic accountability at all. The problem for Mr. Barber is that the North East Assembly is now the Secretariat of ERN as it operates on a rotating basis. The lead Assembly is responsible for the administrative costs. The ratepayers of the subscribing councils will therefore bear the cost.
So, yet again we are back to square one with my money going to an organisation to attempt to create regional government without my consent, and I am one of many who ain't gonna put up with that.
The golden nugget that I found was the agenda and minutes for a meeting held in the Commission's office on 15 November 2001. This began with lunch given to senior ERN officials by Commission officials, headed by Geoffrey Martin, then the Commission's top man in the UK, followed by a meeting in the Commission conference room until 4pm. It was recorded that ERN had 'agreed an invitation from the EU Commission UK office to hold further meetings at that venue'.
Last week the same question was put to the ERN itself, whose affairs, as mentioned,are currently being managed by the North East Regional Assembly, Stephen Barber (former Head of European Operations for Kent County Council). He replied that ERN is seeking a meeting with the EU's regional commissioner Michel Barnier, but he would have to check with other regional assemblies 'what the position is on any previous meetings'. Yet Mr Barber was recorded in the minutes as one of those present in 2001, and he also delivered an address. It seems that he may have selective amnesia which may also be contagious.
The former Chairman of the Assembly, Tony Flynn, who is also Leader of Newcastle Council (he has more positions than the hardback version of the Kama Sutra. Makes you wonder where they actually get time to listen to the electorate) also seems to have ERNnesia. He forgot to declare last year in his Council's register of Member's Interests that he was Deputy Chairman of ERN. Just an oversight of course!
So how deep does this rabbit hole go? How many lies and half-truths have been told to get the gravy train to its current station? How many more connections need to be made before this completely manipulated sham is exposed?
Is it any surprise that ConnectPA, the public affairs consultants who 'advise' ERN is filled with former New Labour advisors who have worked for Patricia Hewitt, Stephen Byers and David Blunkett?
Mr. Barber has given an undertaking to all the North East Councils that the North East Assembly will 'insure and indemnify' council members and officials from all costs in relation to any attempted legal action.The indemnity cannot be provided with North East Assembly money as that money belongs to the councils who received it from their ratepayers. You could hardly use ratepayers money to cover court costs in an action brought by ratepayers. That would be a bit like a burglar being found guilty and asking to burgle another house to pay his costs.We wait with bated breath for sight of this insurance policy, and hope it is not underwritten by Hoodwink, Fleeceham and Scarper. I do believe that the noise I can hear from my office window is that of seagulls and not that of a cock crowing before the third denial...but I cannot be sure.As the Government lurches from one crisis to another and the Deputy Prime Minister is left in charge of the country one wonders how this opera will end. As we know it will not be over until the fat lady sings. Perish the thought of Prescott in drag.
BBC and an Assembly agenda? Surely not
Well, surprise surprise, the BBC now seems to be embarking on a campaign to get us all excited about regional assemblies.
Just three days after the landslide rejection of the elected version up pops a special section on the BBC Online website telling us how the voters can get involved in "your" regional assembly.
As far as the North East is concerned we have already exposed unelected North East Assembly for misusing public money to campaign for an elected version. The public has rejected the idea and therefore the unelected one has no legitimacy. It is a voluntary body funded by 'voluntary' subscriptions from local authorities...and therefore ratepayers. Once the North East ratepayers find they have been duped by Prescott's political con trick there will be an even bigger political price to pay...watch this space.
Guide: How to get involved in your regional assembly
THIS PAGE WAS CREATED BY THE BBC
Click here
...oh, and this was the same BBC who found four impartial members of the public to listen to the debate and arguments from Yes (at the Director's Box at Newcastle United, drinking Bollinger and enjoying full corporate hospitality) and No (in a bare room at the Baltic with not even the offer of a coffee or a glass of water) in the weeks leading up to the referendum and monitored their voting intentions.
they ALL, BBC reported, were voting Yes!
Just three days after the landslide rejection of the elected version up pops a special section on the BBC Online website telling us how the voters can get involved in "your" regional assembly.
As far as the North East is concerned we have already exposed unelected North East Assembly for misusing public money to campaign for an elected version. The public has rejected the idea and therefore the unelected one has no legitimacy. It is a voluntary body funded by 'voluntary' subscriptions from local authorities...and therefore ratepayers. Once the North East ratepayers find they have been duped by Prescott's political con trick there will be an even bigger political price to pay...watch this space.
Guide: How to get involved in your regional assembly
THIS PAGE WAS CREATED BY THE BBC
Click here
...oh, and this was the same BBC who found four impartial members of the public to listen to the debate and arguments from Yes (at the Director's Box at Newcastle United, drinking Bollinger and enjoying full corporate hospitality) and No (in a bare room at the Baltic with not even the offer of a coffee or a glass of water) in the weeks leading up to the referendum and monitored their voting intentions.
they ALL, BBC reported, were voting Yes!
Northern Echo Round-up
We must unite to fight for a fair deal
by Tony Kearney
LEADING figures in North-East politics and business yesterday issued a rallying call for action to deal with the region's continuing economic ills in the wake of the dramatic rejection of a directly-elected assembly. Read here
'No' campaigners get message across
After a large turn-out to vote and an emphatic victory for the No campaign, Chris Lloyd looks at the reasons behind the rejection.
When the result came, moments after 1am yesterday, it was staggering in its size.
Although all but the most convinced of Yes campaigners reckonned No would win, not even the most persuaded member of the No team was expecting such an overwhelming landslide. How did this come to pass? Read here
Why we have to strive for change
After the region's overwhelming No vote on a regional assembly, Neil Hunter looks at the areas where the North still needs special consideration.
The economy
Campaigners for a regional assembly claimed one of the most important benefits would be a better financial deal for the North-East, which suffers more than most from a funding system called the Barnett Formula. Read here
District councils will not be scrapped, despite county vote
by Tony Kearney
LOCAL Government Minister Nick Raynsford yesterday ruled out the abolition of district councils in County Durham in the wake of the No vote.
Within minutes of the announcement in the early hours of yesterday - in which the North-East electorate voted by 89,149 votes to 87,050 to scrap the district councils in favour of a single unitary authority, Durham County Council leader Ken Manton called on the Government to abide by the result and set up a single county-wide council. Read here
Northern Echo Regional Assembly News here
by Tony Kearney
LEADING figures in North-East politics and business yesterday issued a rallying call for action to deal with the region's continuing economic ills in the wake of the dramatic rejection of a directly-elected assembly. Read here
'No' campaigners get message across
After a large turn-out to vote and an emphatic victory for the No campaign, Chris Lloyd looks at the reasons behind the rejection.
When the result came, moments after 1am yesterday, it was staggering in its size.
Although all but the most convinced of Yes campaigners reckonned No would win, not even the most persuaded member of the No team was expecting such an overwhelming landslide. How did this come to pass? Read here
Why we have to strive for change
After the region's overwhelming No vote on a regional assembly, Neil Hunter looks at the areas where the North still needs special consideration.
The economy
Campaigners for a regional assembly claimed one of the most important benefits would be a better financial deal for the North-East, which suffers more than most from a funding system called the Barnett Formula. Read here
District councils will not be scrapped, despite county vote
by Tony Kearney
LOCAL Government Minister Nick Raynsford yesterday ruled out the abolition of district councils in County Durham in the wake of the No vote.
Within minutes of the announcement in the early hours of yesterday - in which the North-East electorate voted by 89,149 votes to 87,050 to scrap the district councils in favour of a single unitary authority, Durham County Council leader Ken Manton called on the Government to abide by the result and set up a single county-wide council. Read here
Northern Echo Regional Assembly News here
"Stick your ******* Barnett Formula"
The Scotsman
Sunday 7th November
read online here
MONDAY We had to trek down to Geordieland after Percy Higginbottom, John Prescott’s adviser, phoned to say that Jack was needed for the referendum. I arranged for him to meet half a dozen teenagers in a Newcastle basement. They hadn’t a clue who he was - one thought he was the former bass player with the Bay City Rollers. And, with Jack’s haircut, who could blame him
FRIDAY Disaster! Old Prescott was on the phone first thing, cursing and swearing about the north-east referendum result. "You blank, blank Jocks have blanked everything up thanks to that blank, blank Parliament of yours. You can stick your blanking Barnett formula up your blank." Oh dear. It can only get better!
Sunday 7th November
read online here
MONDAY We had to trek down to Geordieland after Percy Higginbottom, John Prescott’s adviser, phoned to say that Jack was needed for the referendum. I arranged for him to meet half a dozen teenagers in a Newcastle basement. They hadn’t a clue who he was - one thought he was the former bass player with the Bay City Rollers. And, with Jack’s haircut, who could blame him
FRIDAY Disaster! Old Prescott was on the phone first thing, cursing and swearing about the north-east referendum result. "You blank, blank Jocks have blanked everything up thanks to that blank, blank Parliament of yours. You can stick your blanking Barnett formula up your blank." Oh dear. It can only get better!
Europe of the Regions...Not here mate! Booker in the Telegraph
Sunday Telegraph
Christopher Booker's Notebook
7th November 2004
A resounding No for Prescott's big scheme
It is hard to exaggerate the significance of the defeat inflicted by the voters of the North-East on John Prescott's plan to give them an elected regional assembly. Until last Thursday it used to be said that the largest margin of victory in any British election was the two-to-one vote in favour of staying in the Common Market in 1975. But the margin of Mr Prescott's defeat was almost four to one.
This marked the first serious rebuff for one of the most ambitious personal projects in our political history - Mr Prescott's plans for what Andrew Marr called on Friday the "Balkanisation" of Britain. In 1998, with scarcely a murmur of protest, Mr Prescott pushed through six Acts of Parliament all linked to his grand design - setting up regional governments for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, and unelected regional assemblies for the eight remaining English regions, and dividing the United Kingdom into 12 giant "regional constituencies" for elections to the European Parliament.
Curiously, the only senior politician to protest that this was all part of a hidden agenda to diminish the role of national governments in creating a "Europe of the Regions" was that great Europhile Michael Heseltine. This particular version of "European federalism", he said in 1998, was "totally unacceptable".
As the final piece in his jigsaw puzzle, Prescott intended to turn his appointed regional assembles into elected regional parliaments. Beginning with a referendum in the "safe" Labour heartland of the North-East, he hoped this would set off a domino effect across the rest of the English regions.
As readers of this column will know, if there is one man who, more than anyone else, stopped this plan in its tracks, it is Neil Herron. This former Sunderland market trader has been transformed by years of campaigning - first as leader of the "metric martyrs", then against Prescott's assembly - into something of a North-East folk hero. It was Mr Herron who, by repeatedly wrong-footing the local political establishment, managed to turn what had once seemed the unstoppable advance of an elected assembly into a rout.
Despite the best efforts of the BBC (see below) and the ineptitude of the Electoral Commission, Prescott's grand design is now in total disarray. The problem is that, having advanced so far towards his goal by stealth, we are left with eight wholly undemocratic regional assemblies, costing us £200 million a year and serving no useful purpose whatever. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the people's verdict on Thursday is that these absurd bodies, staffed by self-important placemen, must be scrapped.
Christopher Booker's Notebook
7th November 2004
A resounding No for Prescott's big scheme
It is hard to exaggerate the significance of the defeat inflicted by the voters of the North-East on John Prescott's plan to give them an elected regional assembly. Until last Thursday it used to be said that the largest margin of victory in any British election was the two-to-one vote in favour of staying in the Common Market in 1975. But the margin of Mr Prescott's defeat was almost four to one.
This marked the first serious rebuff for one of the most ambitious personal projects in our political history - Mr Prescott's plans for what Andrew Marr called on Friday the "Balkanisation" of Britain. In 1998, with scarcely a murmur of protest, Mr Prescott pushed through six Acts of Parliament all linked to his grand design - setting up regional governments for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, and unelected regional assemblies for the eight remaining English regions, and dividing the United Kingdom into 12 giant "regional constituencies" for elections to the European Parliament.
Curiously, the only senior politician to protest that this was all part of a hidden agenda to diminish the role of national governments in creating a "Europe of the Regions" was that great Europhile Michael Heseltine. This particular version of "European federalism", he said in 1998, was "totally unacceptable".
As the final piece in his jigsaw puzzle, Prescott intended to turn his appointed regional assembles into elected regional parliaments. Beginning with a referendum in the "safe" Labour heartland of the North-East, he hoped this would set off a domino effect across the rest of the English regions.
As readers of this column will know, if there is one man who, more than anyone else, stopped this plan in its tracks, it is Neil Herron. This former Sunderland market trader has been transformed by years of campaigning - first as leader of the "metric martyrs", then against Prescott's assembly - into something of a North-East folk hero. It was Mr Herron who, by repeatedly wrong-footing the local political establishment, managed to turn what had once seemed the unstoppable advance of an elected assembly into a rout.
Despite the best efforts of the BBC (see below) and the ineptitude of the Electoral Commission, Prescott's grand design is now in total disarray. The problem is that, having advanced so far towards his goal by stealth, we are left with eight wholly undemocratic regional assemblies, costing us £200 million a year and serving no useful purpose whatever. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the people's verdict on Thursday is that these absurd bodies, staffed by self-important placemen, must be scrapped.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
BBC Coverage...Suits you, Sir? Funny Guy tho'.
North East Votes 'No' to an Assembly
To read the BBC's coverage of the result click here and before everyone comments...yes it is my suit, but it is not me inside it.
Neil H
...and the BBC coverage of Mallon vs Herron here and on this link you will see on the right hand side a link to the Yes Campaign and to the No Campaign. The No Campaign link comes to us. There is a seperate link to NESNO.
For people across the land who actually find the NESNO site you will see that it appears they have packed up and gone...and not even had the decency to post up the result on their site. Click
To read the BBC's coverage of the result click here and before everyone comments...yes it is my suit, but it is not me inside it.
Neil H
...and the BBC coverage of Mallon vs Herron here and on this link you will see on the right hand side a link to the Yes Campaign and to the No Campaign. The No Campaign link comes to us. There is a seperate link to NESNO.
For people across the land who actually find the NESNO site you will see that it appears they have packed up and gone...and not even had the decency to post up the result on their site. Click
Will Prescott Survive this?
Yorkshire Post
6th November
Enforcer Prescott will survive
SO THAT, then, is that. The North-East's thumbs-down to a regional assembly must surely mark the end of John Prescott's devolution dream, mustn't it?
Indeed, some might say that it should mark the end of the Deputy Prime Minister's political career. For, coming on top of the decision to call off similar referendums in Yorkshire and Humber and the North-West, this latest blow is nothing less than political humiliation for Mr Prescott.If anywhere was predicted to have enough popular enthusiasm for a regional mini-parliament, it was the North-East where disillusion with government by London runs deep. So if a regional assembly is rejected there – and by such an overwhelming margin – what future can devolution have anywhere else?
Fortunately for the Deputy Prime Minister, however, the North-East is far enough away from the Westminster village for this decision to have little impact there. For much of the London political and media establishment, places such as Sunderland and Middlesbrough might as well be in Outer Mongolia for all the relevance they are thought to have to national life.So Mr Prescott might be humiliated, but few in the capital will have noticed. And in any case, his importance to Tony Blair is not based on the success or failure of his policies – if it were, he would have been sacked long ago – but on the influence he wields in Cabinet and with the Prime Minister's truculent backbenchers. And for this reason the MP for Hull East will carry on in Government for as long as Mr Blair does.But if Mr Prescott will survive, what of the dream he has had for the best part of 30 years, of devolving power to the regions?Perhaps surprisingly, given the apparent depth of public antipathy to the idea, that, too, will refuse to go away.For the atrocious way in which Mr Prescott has handled the regional-assembly debate so far does not mean that devolution is not desirable, or even necessary.Instead of playing the canny game that was necessary if his ideas were to have any hope of exciting public imagination, the Deputy Prime Minister blundered into the debate with all the subtlety of the surly shop steward that he once was.At no time did he commission the private opinion polls that would have signified early on the level of public interest in devolution. Instead, he soldiered on with his much trumpeted, but somewhat unscientific, soundings exercise and when even this showed that the level of support for devolution was derisory – and also, crucially, that few people had any real knowledge or understanding of what was on offer – he chose to ignore it.
Many of the seasoned pro-devolution supporters, such as the Yes 4 Yorkshire movement, believed that the regional-assembly campaign was winnable, but only if it was handled correctly which in the end was anything but the case.This was why Lord Haskins, a fervent advocate of devolution, admitted, shortly before the Yorkshire referendum was called off, that it was unwinnable.For he and other devolution purists always believed that the powers talked about in the regional assembly White Paper were hopelessly inadequate. And Lord Haskins, as an adviser to Mr Blair, is likely to have witnessed at first-hand the difficulties that Mr Prescott was having in wringing anything more meaningful out of central government.
In the end, a titanic struggle was reported to have gone on between Mr Prescott and Charles Clarke over whether Learning and Skills Councils should be put under the control of the assemblies or should remain with the Education Department. But if central government was reluctant to let such a comparatively minor responsibility go to the regions, then clearly the notion of any real power being devolved was just not on.
In other words, what was being offered to the public was a sham, an exercise in words, a new and costly tier of government which would have little if any relevance to most people's lives. But what if this were not the case? What if devolution involved real powers being transferred from Whitehall into regional control. This remains the dream of Yes 4 Yorkshire and the other campaigners and it will refuse to die.Were a regional assembly to have teeth, it would have been far more likely to have won support and far harder to make a case against it. A Yorkshire parliament which took real powers from Westminster and Whitehall, or from unaccountable quangos, rather than vacuuming a few responsibilities from local councils – and which therefore meant huge savings in bureaucracy – would have been a proposal which might have ignited the popular imagination.
One argument used to justify the creation of elected assemblies – but one that never really completed the difficult journey from Mr Prescott's brain to mass public comprehension – was that they would provide oversight and democratic accountability for the regional development agencies, such as Yorkshire Forward.There is, however, a much wider democrat deficit building up, involving far more than the RDAs. Quietly, almost unnoticed, powers over planning, transport and other issues are being given to the shadowy, unelected regional assemblies, many of which are dominated by New Labour's placemen.At the same time, local democracy is being hollowed out. What were once proudly independent town and city halls are becoming little more than colonial outposts of the Treasury, their spending levels and their council-tax charges determined by Whitehall.Against this background, the last thing needed was another costly tier of government that would have been both unpopular and powerless.However, had Mr Prescott tried to win the hearts and minds of people in the regions by boosting the powers of local government, to the extent of transferring tax-raising powers from central government, it could have been a different story. Even if Mr Prescott and his sidekick, Nick Raynsford, had wanted to do this, however, they would have been no match for Gordon Brown.For not only is the Chancellor determined never to relax his vice-like grip on the nation's purse-strings, he is also intent on personally driving forward the regional agenda.In the gospel according to Mr Brown and his acolytes, such as Ed Balls, his former adviser and now prospective Labour candidate for Normanton, the RDAs, the unelected assemblies and new initiatives such as the so-called Northern Way are all tools of economic regeneration to be controlled by the Treasury.Under what Mr Brown calls Regional Spatial Strategies, these unelected quangos are acquiring enormous powers over planning and their role can only grow bigger now that the idea of democratically elected assemblies has bitten the dust.This huge job-creation programme has been developing over several years and the tide, quite clearly, is not now going to be turned. But what is essential is that it is made accountable to the people it is supposed to serve.The Northern Way notion of boosting city-regions, led in Yorkshire by Leeds and Sheffield, is one way of addressing this through the boosting of local councils. But this idea is already being badly handled and creating acute resentment in those authorities, such as Bradford and Wakefield, who are appalled at the idea of being subsumed into a region known by the name Leeds.Public money is being pumped into these enterprises, but while it is winning over some local policymakers, it is failing to win over the public and threatening to repeat the fiasco over elected regional assemblies
.Democratic accountability is desperately needed, but while any campaign to introduce it is handled with all the tact and sensitivity of a sledgehammer in the hands of John Prescott, the empire of Gordon Brown will continue to expand, with quangos and bureaucracies growing untrammelled by public consultation.richard.hopwood@ypn.co.uk
6th November
Enforcer Prescott will survive
SO THAT, then, is that. The North-East's thumbs-down to a regional assembly must surely mark the end of John Prescott's devolution dream, mustn't it?
Indeed, some might say that it should mark the end of the Deputy Prime Minister's political career. For, coming on top of the decision to call off similar referendums in Yorkshire and Humber and the North-West, this latest blow is nothing less than political humiliation for Mr Prescott.If anywhere was predicted to have enough popular enthusiasm for a regional mini-parliament, it was the North-East where disillusion with government by London runs deep. So if a regional assembly is rejected there – and by such an overwhelming margin – what future can devolution have anywhere else?
Fortunately for the Deputy Prime Minister, however, the North-East is far enough away from the Westminster village for this decision to have little impact there. For much of the London political and media establishment, places such as Sunderland and Middlesbrough might as well be in Outer Mongolia for all the relevance they are thought to have to national life.So Mr Prescott might be humiliated, but few in the capital will have noticed. And in any case, his importance to Tony Blair is not based on the success or failure of his policies – if it were, he would have been sacked long ago – but on the influence he wields in Cabinet and with the Prime Minister's truculent backbenchers. And for this reason the MP for Hull East will carry on in Government for as long as Mr Blair does.But if Mr Prescott will survive, what of the dream he has had for the best part of 30 years, of devolving power to the regions?Perhaps surprisingly, given the apparent depth of public antipathy to the idea, that, too, will refuse to go away.For the atrocious way in which Mr Prescott has handled the regional-assembly debate so far does not mean that devolution is not desirable, or even necessary.Instead of playing the canny game that was necessary if his ideas were to have any hope of exciting public imagination, the Deputy Prime Minister blundered into the debate with all the subtlety of the surly shop steward that he once was.At no time did he commission the private opinion polls that would have signified early on the level of public interest in devolution. Instead, he soldiered on with his much trumpeted, but somewhat unscientific, soundings exercise and when even this showed that the level of support for devolution was derisory – and also, crucially, that few people had any real knowledge or understanding of what was on offer – he chose to ignore it.
Many of the seasoned pro-devolution supporters, such as the Yes 4 Yorkshire movement, believed that the regional-assembly campaign was winnable, but only if it was handled correctly which in the end was anything but the case.This was why Lord Haskins, a fervent advocate of devolution, admitted, shortly before the Yorkshire referendum was called off, that it was unwinnable.For he and other devolution purists always believed that the powers talked about in the regional assembly White Paper were hopelessly inadequate. And Lord Haskins, as an adviser to Mr Blair, is likely to have witnessed at first-hand the difficulties that Mr Prescott was having in wringing anything more meaningful out of central government.
In the end, a titanic struggle was reported to have gone on between Mr Prescott and Charles Clarke over whether Learning and Skills Councils should be put under the control of the assemblies or should remain with the Education Department. But if central government was reluctant to let such a comparatively minor responsibility go to the regions, then clearly the notion of any real power being devolved was just not on.
In other words, what was being offered to the public was a sham, an exercise in words, a new and costly tier of government which would have little if any relevance to most people's lives. But what if this were not the case? What if devolution involved real powers being transferred from Whitehall into regional control. This remains the dream of Yes 4 Yorkshire and the other campaigners and it will refuse to die.Were a regional assembly to have teeth, it would have been far more likely to have won support and far harder to make a case against it. A Yorkshire parliament which took real powers from Westminster and Whitehall, or from unaccountable quangos, rather than vacuuming a few responsibilities from local councils – and which therefore meant huge savings in bureaucracy – would have been a proposal which might have ignited the popular imagination.
One argument used to justify the creation of elected assemblies – but one that never really completed the difficult journey from Mr Prescott's brain to mass public comprehension – was that they would provide oversight and democratic accountability for the regional development agencies, such as Yorkshire Forward.There is, however, a much wider democrat deficit building up, involving far more than the RDAs. Quietly, almost unnoticed, powers over planning, transport and other issues are being given to the shadowy, unelected regional assemblies, many of which are dominated by New Labour's placemen.At the same time, local democracy is being hollowed out. What were once proudly independent town and city halls are becoming little more than colonial outposts of the Treasury, their spending levels and their council-tax charges determined by Whitehall.Against this background, the last thing needed was another costly tier of government that would have been both unpopular and powerless.However, had Mr Prescott tried to win the hearts and minds of people in the regions by boosting the powers of local government, to the extent of transferring tax-raising powers from central government, it could have been a different story. Even if Mr Prescott and his sidekick, Nick Raynsford, had wanted to do this, however, they would have been no match for Gordon Brown.For not only is the Chancellor determined never to relax his vice-like grip on the nation's purse-strings, he is also intent on personally driving forward the regional agenda.In the gospel according to Mr Brown and his acolytes, such as Ed Balls, his former adviser and now prospective Labour candidate for Normanton, the RDAs, the unelected assemblies and new initiatives such as the so-called Northern Way are all tools of economic regeneration to be controlled by the Treasury.Under what Mr Brown calls Regional Spatial Strategies, these unelected quangos are acquiring enormous powers over planning and their role can only grow bigger now that the idea of democratically elected assemblies has bitten the dust.This huge job-creation programme has been developing over several years and the tide, quite clearly, is not now going to be turned. But what is essential is that it is made accountable to the people it is supposed to serve.The Northern Way notion of boosting city-regions, led in Yorkshire by Leeds and Sheffield, is one way of addressing this through the boosting of local councils. But this idea is already being badly handled and creating acute resentment in those authorities, such as Bradford and Wakefield, who are appalled at the idea of being subsumed into a region known by the name Leeds.Public money is being pumped into these enterprises, but while it is winning over some local policymakers, it is failing to win over the public and threatening to repeat the fiasco over elected regional assemblies
.Democratic accountability is desperately needed, but while any campaign to introduce it is handled with all the tact and sensitivity of a sledgehammer in the hands of John Prescott, the empire of Gordon Brown will continue to expand, with quangos and bureaucracies growing untrammelled by public consultation.richard.hopwood@ypn.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
