Local Government and how it could be better.

So according to the news on the third of May some of the UK’s major cities – Bristol, Liverpool and Wakefield among them – will be holding a referendum to decide if they want to have an elected Mayor, London style,  to oversee the administration of these mighty conurbations. I quite like this idea.

Then, because my brain is a weird and wonderful place,  I moved from thinking about what a great idea elected Mayors would be (especially as up north they would be form a block of Labour strongholds) and onto the issue of local government. Or, more precisely, why local government doesn’t work.

You see local government is quite complex animal in the UK, made up as it is of a mix of boroughs, unitary authorities and metropolitan areas.  Now while I’m sure they do a good job (I mean the country is still standing so they must be) I do feel as if they are neither very accountable nor very well known. I would bet you any money you like that if asked people would be unable to name their local councillors. Now when it comes to representative democracy and making decisions on behalf of the people I don’t really think that’s good enough.

These two thoughts – local government and the concept of elected mayors – then came together to form the nucleus of a new local government strategy. A strategy that would be both representative and effective. 

Firstly we need to abolish the current mix of unitary authorities and metropolitan areas, instead setting up London style assemblies and assembly wards across the country. Some counties such as Yorkshire may have to be split into two or three assemblies but mostly these could be done along county lines. Then the residents of those wards would elect members to sit on those assemblies. They would also elect a Mayor to chair the Assembly as is done in London. The Mayor would then select from among the Assembly members a miniature cabinet, the members of which would be responsible for the overseeing of a specific department such as education, the budget or policing within the Assembly’s boundary. The rest of the Members would be responsible for acting as check on the cabinet, debating ideas that are put to  them. Essentially each Assembly would act as a miniature Parliament and would do what the current Councils do now, only there would be more of an obvious link between the residents and the members.

Of course there would still be room for the Westminster Parliament in this system. They would still draft the laws, set the budget and have overall control over hospitals, policing and schools. However the assemblies would implement these on a local level. In order to be truely accountable local decisions need to be made on a local level, similar to how state decisions are made by the State legislature in the US.  Also under this system if something happened within an assembly ward – such as the building of a new supermarket over a playing field – the first port of call would not be the MP but the Assembly Member. MP’s roles would relate to country wide problems. Also of course a period as an Assembly Member would serve as a good starting point for a career as an MP.

In conclusion I think under this system there would be far more accountability at the local level and a far better level of management. By devolving power to the regions, Westminster would be freed up to deal with the bigger picture.

Plus. I just think it would be more democratic.

We Believe

Don't make people into heroes John. Heroes don't exist. And if they did I certainly wouldn't be one of them.

In this world, in this day and age we get used to discovering our heroes have feet of clay. Footballers have affairs. Musicians do drugs. Politicians lie and cheat and steal. We watch the newspapers tear them down bit by bit day after day until their reputations lie in shreds. Then we shake our heads and say that they deserved it. Maybe because they did. Or maybe it's our way of coping with discovering they weren't the people we thought they were.

Sherlock Holmes wasn't real. He was a character that existed on paper, on the internet and on TV. But somehow watching him being torn apart in The Reichenbach Fall hurt even more than watching it happen to people in the real world. I kept expecting him to find some way out of it. Someway to salvage his reputation and taken Morairty down. He was Sherlock and he always had a plan. Maybe he wasn't a real person. But he was real to me.

Never mind what he said. Sherlock was a hero. He was a good man. Even if his motives for going out and solving crimes weren't alturistic - even if they were money and an attempt to alleviate boredom - he still helped people. He still helped put criminals behind bars. Even if he did treat his friends as if they were people who he simply put up with, as if they didn't really count, they so obviously did matter to him. Molly mattered. Lestrade mattered. Mrs Hudson mattered. John Mattered. I liked knowing that in some alternate universe, if some alternate version of me got into trouble, there was someone I could go to for help.

Moriarty said that "Falling is just like flying. Only there's a more permenant destination.". He may have thought that he had bought about the Fall of Sherlock Holmes. But people like me, to whom Sherlock was real in some way shape or form. We will make sure that Sherlock Flies.

Sherlock Holmes was my hero. And I believe in him.

I Believe in Sherlock Holmes.

Here's the Cart. Where's the Horse?

This week I’m going to take a break from the Americas and look at something a little closer to home.

Independence for Scotland has always been a central aim of the Scottish National Party – hence the name – and no one has been a stronger crusader for this than current SNP leader Alex Salmond. Now the waving of the saltire has been taken to the extreme with Salmond – the Scottish First Minister – setting out a time table for a referendum on Scottish independence. Despite attempted meddling from Westminster with David Cameron trying to limit Salmond options, a date has now been set, the autumn of 2014.

The question the coming referendum raises is ‘how feasible is Scottish independence?’ For all the SNP’s rhetoric about a “Better Scotland,” a “Wealthier Scotland” and a “Fairer Scotland,” Scotland has been run from London for over 300 years, ever since Elizabeth the First died without an heir, putting her Scots cousin James on the throne of England . Despite the powers devolved to Holyrood and the Scottish Parliament, Westminster still controls a lot what goes on north of the border.

If, theoretically, Scotland gained independence tomorrow, it would suddenly have to oversee border control and a police force, construct a credible military – most likely regiments pillaged from the British Army – and create new political and trade relationships with countries that it previously related to as part of the United Kingdom. This is, of course, on top of constructing a stable, manageable economy.

Figures from the Government Expenditure in Scotland report show that public spending in Scotland from 2004 – 5 was £47.7bn while revenue was £36.4bn. That leaves a deficit of £11bn. While Scotland does have the devolved powers to raise its own taxes it also receives a large amount of money from Westminster. If you removed that subsidy then the Scots would have to come up with a new source of revenue quite quickly or watch themselves collapse into an Ireland like period of economic downturn.

Now I’m sure that Alex Salmond, who is, as Nick Robinson says, possible the canniest political operator in the UK at the moment, has thought these problems through. He may even have ideas how they could be overcome. However, as of yet, I have seen no evidence of this. At the moment it looks like Mr Salmond is putting the cart a long way in front of the horse. About twenty miles in front I would say.

I’m all for the Scots voting on their independence. They have the right. I’d just like to see some evidence that they are ready for it first.