The Federal United Kingdom?

TREASON (and other good ideas)In the aftermath of the Scottish referendum, which saw the Scots vote to stay part of the Union, 55%-45%, I interviewed John Redwood MP, who has been the driving force behind the proposals of English MPs (only) for English votes.

He took me through his plan, which no doubt he pushed for in a mini-conference with Prime Minister David Cameron in Chequers days after the Scottish vote.

Basically, it’s a simple plan. There will be no new English parliament, they’ll use the current one in Westminster. There will be no “Members of English Parliament”, they’ll just use the current MPs who represent English constituencies. Mr. Redwood told me that this would make it a fairly “cost-free” solution, that doesn’t burden the people who yet another layer of politics.

His case is compelling, and it will probably be the primary type of English devolution that the Tories will push for. It will also be the most popular in terms of backing among the electorate.

That said, I wish that we were looking for a more radical solution. The “Redwood Plan”, (as I’ve just decided to start calling it) will help “federalise” the UK more, but I’d take it much further.

Some are concerned that a totally federalised solution in the UK wouldn’t work, as 85% of the population would live in one of the constituent parts (England) and the remaining 15% in the other three areas (Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland). Gordon Brown made that same point recently.

That could be a valid practical point, but I think it wouldn’t matter so much if we had this solution:

  • The Parliament in Westminster is called the “UK Parliament” with a Prime Minister and Vice Prime-Minister (who we vote for on a national level, counting all our votes up, just like they did with the Scottish referendum). We then also have MPs on a constituency basis, but the whole parliament just concentrates on UK-based decisions, that are dramatically cut, like national defence, international trade and relations, embassies, infrastructure projects of “UK importance”, etc. The MPs are paid a salary that matches the national average full-time wage (about £22,500 at present, plus expenses). The job is effectively not a full-time job, as their responsibilities are dramatically cut.
  • This dramatic cut in power and cost in the UK parliament is used to create (hopefully almost revenue-neutral) four parliaments in the UK: One in Scotland (which already exists), one in Northern Ireland (again, we’re almost there with that), Wales (upgrading the Welsh Assembly) and a new English Parliament (maybe set up in the middle of the country in Manchester? Or London if that’s more practical and economically viable).
  • The MPs in each of the four parliaments get to legislate on everything else: income taxes and all other taxes, health, education, infrastructure, policing, etc. They are the source of most government income, and a percentage (say, 10%) from each of the 4 “states” kicks up to the UK government to fund it. This is crucial: all 4 “states” MUST be self-funding. Again, a First Minister and Second Minister (with a constitutionally-recognised order of succession) is voted for separately in state-wide Executive elections, that maybe coincide with the state MP elections, and possibly the UK executive/legislative elections.
  • Power then for many more things goes down to each region, constituency, town/city/parish.

Probably not viable, but much more democratic and accountable. This isn’t my utopian idea, but a practical step towards a “Federal Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” that makes us more prosperous and free.

And of course, some of this is covered in my book TREASON (and other good ideas) which – unsurprisingly during this time of potential UK constitutional upheaval – is making something of a comeback in sales.

Sorry to end the post on a cheap plug, but hey, I’ve got to eat, right? 😉

Advertisements

The “Anglo-Saxon” Approach was not to Blame for this Mess

My local MP John Redwood has, in four basic points, eviscerated the myth that laissez-faire light touch regulation (or the so-called “Anglo-Saxon Approach”) was responsible for the banking crisis:

1. The European banking system is in a worse mess than the UK or US systems today. There is no evidence that the EU, Spaniards, Italians, Greeks and Germans suddenly fell in love with “light touch Anglos Saxon regulation” and made the same mistake, yet they ended up with more weak banks.

2. The volume of regulations expanded substantialy during the build up of the boom. The EU came into the game and added many pages of new financial regulation at their level, on top of all the extra regulations the UK and US authorities were issuing. The UK was governed by a left of centre administration which believed in the efficacy of more regulation. The FSA reviewed all past banking regulation and added to it.

3. The authorities themselves were enthusiastic proponents of the easier credit they allowed under their myriad of new detailed regulations. In the US a Democrat President promoted more mortgages to people on low incomes as a social policy, which led directly to the junk loans which jeopardised the system later. They called the crisis the “sub prime” crisis in honour of the loans advanced by mortgage banks and by a couple of state financing arms that were fully nationalised in the crisis. The UK government ran up big bills paid for by off balance sheet transactions called PFI and PPP in the spirit of the lend more age.

4. The UK administration was particularly keen on promoting the growth of Northern Rock, a North Eastern company, and RBS,a Scottish company, as they grew very quickly. They took pride in the huge expansions of their balance sheets, and in the way they used off balance sheet vehicles to speed their growth. In the good days these were northern and Scottish companies showing London and the south how to run modern banking and financial services.

I wonder if we’ll ever be able to put this myth that laissez-faire is to blame to bed for good? Sadly, I doubt it…