baldysblog.co.uk

If you look at the Constitution of the United States of America, you will see a total separation of power between the President (the Executive) and Capitol Hill (the Legislature) but it goes beyond that to the Supreme Court which is designed to protect the Constitution and also the Federal structure verses the States.

In concept, the American Constitution is based upon the simple principle of not trusting anybody with absolute power and this came about because the people who wrote it were starting from scratch and never wanted to be ruled by a hereditary monarch, in the UK, we don’t have this, our Constitution has evolved over time and sometimes…

The Need for Change in the UK

We do have a need for change in the UK but let me state from outset, such change needs to be measured, we do not start with a “greenfield site” as the Americans did, all and any changes may have “unforeseen consequences” so I personally advocate lots of discussion and over time before any legislation is enacted and any particular course of action followed.

It is clear that in recent times, the British system of Governance has been shown to be too easily swayed and abused by the Party in Power and in particular, the Leader of that party who happens to be the Prime Minister of the day. I believe that the period of Labour Government that stretches from May 1997 to May 2010, will be seen as the “Watershed Parliaments” where every and any “abuse of power” by the executive was attempted, illustrated in action that lead to the major reforms I now propose for general debate.

Starting with a Political Failure

Perhaps the most glaring failure of Labour policy was Devolution to Scotland through a Parliament and Wales through an Assembly. The purpose of this policy was to cement a permanent Labour majority in both countries to counter any resurgence of the Conservative Party in England and so that if they could form a majority Government in the future, their freedom of action could be severely restricted.

In the event, the whole policy has backfired and with the strong possibility of a Tory Government in May 2010, the ‘nationalist parties’ in both countries are squeezing the Labour vote so that the next election could see them in third place behind the LibDems in England, the SNP in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales. This makes sense to the electorate as the Tories will be very keen on retaining the UK and domination by ‘nationalist parties’ more likely to yield beneficial financial leverage of Central Government.

Unpicking Devolution

The starting point must be that once something is “given” it cannot be taken away without loud squeals all round but never-the-less, it all adds to the UK being massively ‘over governed’ or ‘over represented’ according to how you see these things. However, if only because of the existence of Stormont in Northern Ireland, perhaps it is better to proceed on not abolishing them but instead turning them into something more useful.

The growing ‘gripe’ of some in England, carefully nurtured by Alex Salmond of the SNP, is that there is no ‘English Parliament’ is of course total tripe, we really don’t need one or, as originally planned by Labour many, but what we do need in England is to revitalise Local Politics by reducing politics at the National level and devolving real power away from Westminster.

It is all really about ‘population size’ because in reality, Stormont, The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are little more than “local government” when you break down the population of the UK. Wales = 3 million, NI = 1.7 million, Scotland 5 million and England 51 million. Oddly as ever, you cannot quite get accurate figures on the population of England because of constant population movement but consistently it is estimated at 84% of the total UK population. If there were ‘English Parliaments’ we would presumably end up with around 8-10 of them which would be a total nonsense, there is a better way.

The Funding Issue

My personal view is that the UK is better of remaining just that as the current financial crisis has shown all too clearly. However, the real local issue as very well exploited in his personal attempt to become King of Scotland by Alex Salmond, is the allocation and control of funds at the local level whether that be for free University Education, Care of the Elderly, Free Prescriptions…and so forth.

Also the really important issue for Scottish people beyond the SNP froth is whether Scotland would be viable as an independent country or whether the historical inevitability of losing the brightest of their young to the South in search of greater personal possibilities would continue leaving large areas of Scotland as little more than tourist attractions.

Political power tends to follow the money so why should we not aim for a different and in an American sense, a “Federal Tax Structure” but with a major twist.

Apart from local property taxes, parking or an odd toll road/bridge, there are likely very few taxes that can be collected at the local level efficiently and without increasing overheads. If we take Council Tax, most of that is supplied via a support grant from Central Government which has led certainly since Maggie’s days to a fair degree of control and leverage from the centre on Local Councils.

Time For Change

I take it as a “given” that we will leave the EU asap and repeal most legislation that came with it.

The following is more of a “statement of principle” rather than a tightly argued case built upon precise percentages of National Income, I would leave that to the Economists to decide upon.

Abolish the Rate Support Grant, Barnett Formula and all such funding from Central Government, let the Local Councils in England, The Welsh Assembly, Stormont and The Scottish Parliament set the level of local property taxes in any way that they want because it is they who will answer to their respective electorates.

We take all the other Nationally raised Taxes be they VAT, Income Tax, Corporation Tax, National Insurance and so on with these being collected by Central Government and split say 60/40 with Central Government retaining 40% and the remaining 60% being returned to the “Local Authority” where they were collected/raised which in turn directly reflects the degree and vibrancy of that local economy.

The “Local Authority” then decides upon its local spend priorities which will cover Health and Education according to its “mandate” from the electorate.

The part retained by Central Government would be to run a much smaller Whitehall and cover Foreign Policy, Defence, Immigration, Prisons, any appropriate Research plus a Central Government Contingency and Project Fund. I will expand on the implications of all this in another blog.