Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 26/07/2023 14:44, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
>> On 26/07/2023 14:34, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 26/07/2023 14:30, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
>>>> On 26/07/2023 14:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <u9r0av$1fqd8$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:33:48 on Wed, 26
>>>>> Jul 2023, Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The article does not say NR execs should never go by air, the story
>>>>>> highlighted the fact they are spending over £10,000 a week on air
>>>>>> travel on internal flights.
>>>>>
>>>>> And how much would the extra salaries be (for hiring twice as many
>>>>> of them) if they spent half their working day sat on trains instead,
>>>>> unable to do their site inspections or whatever over the broken wifi
>>>>> on the train.
>>>>>
>>>> Twice as many staff? That's a far fetched assumption, Notwork Rail
>>>> are responsible for the track network and they could be collecting
>>>> information on track conditions as they travel, they won't be able to
>>>> do that on an aircraft.
>>>
>>> What information on track conditions are they likely to get that is
>>> not better and more accurately gathered by specialist recording
>>> equipment already in use?
>>>
>> They would at least get the same (sometimes very poor) general ride
>> experience that passengers get whilst at the same time being able to
>> prepare for whatever meeting they are going to.
>
> And that helps how?
>
>>
>> I doubt if the economic argument of cheaper flights works out in reality
>> as they may well have a rail pass anyway.
>
> Supposition based on prejusdice.
>

I suppose you could argue that it doesn't matter: NR is government-owned,
and all rail fare revenue goes to the Treasury or regional government. So
it's just moving public sector money between ledgers.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:

>On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at part two.
>>
>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even though
>> no foreign responsibilities.
>
>Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only feasible
>way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's Edinburgh
>Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>
>BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather than a
>mere assembly.
>
Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
to say so.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>
>>On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at part two.
>>>
>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even though
>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>
>>Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only feasible
>>way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's Edinburgh
>>Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>
>>BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather than a
>>mere assembly.
>>
>Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>to say so.

I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
use the same term (not 'parliament').

In message <u9r7v9$1gjqd$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:44:05 on Wed, 26 Jul
2023, Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>On 26/07/2023 14:34, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 26/07/2023 14:30, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
>>> On 26/07/2023 14:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <u9r0av$1fqd8$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:33:48 on Wed, 26
>>>>Jul 2023, Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> The article does not say NR execs should never go by air, the
>>>>>story highlighted the fact they are spending over £10,000 a week
>>>>>on air travel on internal flights.
>>>>
>>>> And how much would the extra salaries be (for hiring twice as many
>>>>of them) if they spent half their working day sat on trains
>>>>instead, unable to do their site inspections or whatever over the
>>>>broken wifi on the train.
>>>>
>>> Twice as many staff?

Twice as many of that grade of exec, if they spend half their time
wasted on trains.

>>>That's a far fetched assumption, Notwork Rail are responsible for
>>>the track network and they could be collecting information on track
>>>conditions as they travel, they won't be able to do that on an aircraft.

I don't think execs going to meetings are in any position to collect
data about the tracks, en-route.

>> What information on track conditions are they likely to get that is
>>not better and more accurately gathered by specialist recording
>>equipment already in use?
>>
>They would at least get the same (sometimes very poor) general ride
>experience that passengers get

They don't need to go to dozens of meetings by train to experience that.

>whilst at the same time being able to prepare for whatever meeting they
>are going to.

This is the IT geek fallacy again, that people can "prepare for any
meeting" on the train.

There's a certain amount of reading of agendas and background papers,
but you can do that on a plane as well. And if it's a five hour train
journey, and much of the meeting is going to be QA's (and no-one sent
you the Q's in advance) then the likelihood is at least four of those
hours will be wasted.

>I doubt if the economic argument of cheaper flights works out in
>reality as they may well have a rail pass anyway.

We've been told hat such passes are not usable for work-related travel.

If we cost this sort of exec's time at around £150/hr, then quibbling
about some travel costs is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
--
Roland Perry

On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at part two.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even though
>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>
>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only feasible
>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's Edinburgh
>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>
>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather than a
>>> mere assembly.
>>>
>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>> to say so.
>
> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
> use the same term (not 'parliament').

It would help. I still don't know how to refer to the English
government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
England.

Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are delegated
to the other governments.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:37:01 +0100, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:

>On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at part two.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even though
>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>
>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only feasible
>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's Edinburgh
>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather than a
>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>
>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>>> to say so.
>>
>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>
>It would help. I still don't know how to refer to the English
>government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
>England.
>
>Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are delegated
>to the other governments.

Yes, it's a confusing mess. The same minister may have UK-wide responsibilities in certain areas, England and Wales in
others, and England-only in the rest.

In message <u9r9hr$1gt6m$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:11:07 on Wed, 26 Jul
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <u9qsqe$1fgv4$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:33:50 on Wed, 26 Jul
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 24/07/2023 19:05, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/07/2023 17:48, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/rail-bosses-spend-10-000-a-we
>>>>>>>> ek-on-flights-because-it-s-cheaper-than-trains/ar-AA1eguGE?cvid=af4
>>>>>>>> 35715321741b0c7c5fc006593d853&ocid=winp2fptaskbar&ei=28
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Network rail executives spend £10000 a week on plane travel mainly on
>>>>>>>> routes where they could have taken the train, e.g Birmingham to
>>>>>>>>Glasgow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You couldn't make it up!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That link takes me to a completely (relevant) content free page full of
>>>>>>> scream headlines and adverts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW is there a C missing from the subject line or is this a comment on
>>>>>>> drinking habits? I though most means of transport were
>>>>>>>considerably less
>>>>>>> generous in that area these days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I appreciate the humour Sam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The link works as intended just now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The SOT was to acknowledge the post was indirectly rail related but you
>>>>>> can't please 'em all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Standard class travel on a long journey is miserable - cramped seating and
>>>>> a fairly high chance of sharing your journey with some anti social
>>>>> specimens. First class travel is extremely expensive unless you are very
>>>>> lucky with Advance tickets. The Birmingham Glasgow EasyJet flight is 40
>>>>> minutes in the air and the seats are comfortable.
>>>>>
>>>> Agreed, but most will see the irony in Notwork Rail execs preferring to
>>>> travel by air rather than the product of the industry they run!
>>>
>>> Some might say that they’re choosing the most appropriate form of
>>>transport
>>> for the task in hand. No one pretends that rail is the right transport for
>>> any conceivable trip.
>>
>> I've used the example of fettling ticket machines on a line with 1tph.
>>
>> So the guy catches a train to the first station (with a trolley full of
>> all the gear he needs), does the work, then sits there 50 minutes
>> waiting for a train to take him to the next station (I'm also assuming
>> all trains are all-shacks). And towards the end of his shift he has to
>> get a train back to the depot he set off from.
>>
>> Presumably, for lunch and PNBs he has to bring sandwiches and use the
>> facilities (assuming the train has any working ones) on the short trip
>> between stations.
>>
>> At a push, he might do six stations a day. Give him a van, and he'd be
>> able to do three times as many. But there would be the ignominy of
>> driving round in a van with <TOC name> painted on the side.
>
>Conceivably there might be a pattern where shuttling backwards and forwards
>might make his journey more efficient, but I agree with your point
>completely. Similarly one wouldn’t expect CRT[1] maintenance staff to do
>all their work from a single narrow boat.

Indeed, and I met several earlier in the month doing a mixture of
supervisory and maintenance roles. Here's a volunteer helper, and a
staffer's van (and our boat, of course; a bit of a handful with only two
able-bodied crew and wide staircase locks like that):

<http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Hanging_Gardens_of_the_Leeds_and_Liverpo
ol.jpg>

Being diagonal is official advice, if there's leaky top gates and your
boat is more than 50ft long.

ObRail: that evening we moored[**] a hundred yards from Leeds Station,
which you can't get to via their posh new wharfside entrance, unless you
already have a ticket. I would have only wanted a platform ticket, and I
don't think they are available online.

>[1] The wet kind, not the sparky kind.

[**] Not least because Lock #1 on the canal is currently only open two
hours a day to ration the water supply (Omnes: But I's been raining
almost non-stop for weeks), and having been let through that, the next
day, by the chap whose van that is [Oh, you lot again!] we got stuck at
the confusingly named Leeds Lock #1 on the Aire because the power-
operation gubbins was broken. So had to call out a different CRT chap
(who had a pickup truck this time) to fix it. Long story short, because
of various infrastructure issues on the Leeds and Liverpool + Calder and
Hebble, the trip was last seen running 10 days late. And I don't think
CRT does "Delay Repay".
--
Roland Perry

In message <l4m4cittn3tro32kjcpct6a0gloo0pq5rj@4ax.com>, at 12:46:50 on
Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>I still don't know how to refer to the English government when
>>referring to their responsibilities which cover only England.
>>
>>Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are delegated
>>to the other governments.
>
>Yes, it's a confusing mess. The same minister may have UK-wide responsibilities in certain areas, England and Wales in
>others, and England-only in the rest.

Welcome to devolution. Aren't you relieved they didn't push through
Phase 2, which would have meant mayors like Andy Burnham being entirely
in charge some things too.

That's not to knock their individual talents, but a comment about the
Balkanisation.

Where I live the majority of the population are hopelessly confused
about which aspects of life come under the City [it's actually a large
Parish with a Mayor], District or County Councils.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:56:46 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <l4m4cittn3tro32kjcpct6a0gloo0pq5rj@4ax.com>, at 12:46:50 on
>Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>I still don't know how to refer to the English government when
>>>referring to their responsibilities which cover only England.
>>>
>>>Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are delegated
>>>to the other governments.
>>
>>Yes, it's a confusing mess. The same minister may have UK-wide responsibilities in certain areas, England and Wales in
>>others, and England-only in the rest.
>
>Welcome to devolution. Aren't you relieved they didn't push through
>Phase 2, which would have meant mayors like Andy Burnham being entirely
>in charge some things too.
>
>That's not to knock their individual talents, but a comment about the
>Balkanisation.
>
>Where I live the majority of the population are hopelessly confused
>about which aspects of life come under the City [it's actually a large
>Parish with a Mayor], District or County Councils.

I think that, in principle, devolution is a good thing; the UK is too centralised. But I wish we did it more
consistently.

On 27.07.23 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <l4m4cittn3tro32kjcpct6a0gloo0pq5rj@4ax.com>, at 12:46:50 on
> Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> I still don't know how to refer to the English government when
>>> referring to their responsibilities which cover only England.
>>>
>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are delegated
>>> to the other governments.
>>
>> Yes, it's a confusing mess. The same minister may have UK-wide
>> responsibilities in certain areas, England and Wales in
>> others, and England-only in the rest.
>
> Welcome to devolution. Aren't you relieved they didn't push through
> Phase 2, which would have meant mayors like Andy Burnham being entirely
> in charge some things too.
>
> That's not to knock their individual talents, but a comment about the
> Balkanisation.
>
> Where I live the majority of the population are hopelessly confused
> about which aspects of life come under the City [it's actually a large
> Parish with a Mayor], District or County Councils.

The system of sub-UK level government in the UK is a complete mess, with
no consistency from one location to another. Personally I think there is
a lot of sense in the original New Labour era plan to create English
regions covering population districts of broadly comparable population
sizes in the range of Scotland or Wales, aligned along historical
cultural as well as economic lines, to allow for a uniform degree of
devolution everywhere, combined with a rationalionalisation of the more
granular layers of local government (so abolish counties and districts
as political entities and consolidate their powers at the regional
level). Pretty well no other developed country has such a mix of
inconsistent layers of government as the UK.

Robin

On 27/07/2023 13:04, Recliner wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:56:46 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <l4m4cittn3tro32kjcpct6a0gloo0pq5rj@4ax.com>, at 12:46:50 on
>> Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> I still don't know how to refer to the English government when
>>>> referring to their responsibilities which cover only England.
>>>>
>>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are delegated
>>>> to the other governments.
>>>
>>> Yes, it's a confusing mess. The same minister may have UK-wide responsibilities in certain areas, England and Wales in
>>> others, and England-only in the rest.
>>
>> Welcome to devolution. Aren't you relieved they didn't push through
>> Phase 2, which would have meant mayors like Andy Burnham being entirely
>> in charge some things too.
>>
>> That's not to knock their individual talents, but a comment about the
>> Balkanisation.
>>
>> Where I live the majority of the population are hopelessly confused
>> about which aspects of life come under the City [it's actually a large
>> Parish with a Mayor], District or County Councils.
>
> I think that, in principle, devolution is a good thing; the UK is too centralised. But I wish we did it more
> consistently.

There are two options, full devolution or full centralisation. The
current mess has my Council blaming Edinburgh and Edinburgh blaming
Westminster - so nowt ever gets done, the "blame game" is the only
issue. Whilst I am not liking the idea, centralisation may well be the
only way to remove the blame game issue.

--
Colin

On 27/07/2023 12:37, Coffee wrote:
> On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson
>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at part
>>>>>> two.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even though
>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>
>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only feasible
>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's Edinburgh
>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather than a
>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>
>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>>> to say so.
>>
>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the various
>> legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use
>> different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>
> It would help.  I still don't know how to refer to the English
> government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
> England.

One of the problems is that there is no English government.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 27/07/2023 14:22, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 27/07/2023 12:37, Coffee wrote:
>> On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at part
>>>>>>> two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even
>>>>>> though
>>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only feasible
>>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's Edinburgh
>>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather than a
>>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>>
>>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>>>> to say so.
>>>
>>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the
>>> various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use
>>> different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>>
>> It would help.  I still don't know how to refer to the English
>> government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
>> England.
>
> One of the problems is that there is no English government.
>
>
So how do you refer to HMG with reference to their English governmental
duties?

On 27.07.23 15:45, Coffee wrote:
> On 27/07/2023 14:22, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 27/07/2023 12:37, Coffee wrote:
>>> On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at
>>>>>>>> part two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even
>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only
>>>>>> feasible
>>>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's Edinburgh
>>>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather than a
>>>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>>>>> to say so.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the
>>>> various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>>>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use
>>>> different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>>>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>>>
>>> It would help.  I still don't know how to refer to the English
>>> government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
>>> England.
>>
>> One of the problems is that there is no English government.
>>
>>
> So how do you refer to HMG with reference to their English governmental
> duties?

"HMG with reference to their English governmental duties"

Robin

On 27/07/2023 14:45, Coffee wrote:
> On 27/07/2023 14:22, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 27/07/2023 12:37, Coffee wrote:
>>> On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at
>>>>>>>> part two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even
>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only
>>>>>> feasible
>>>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's Edinburgh
>>>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather than a
>>>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>>>>> to say so.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the
>>>> various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>>>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use
>>>> different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>>>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>>>
>>> It would help.  I still don't know how to refer to the English
>>> government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
>>> England.
>>
>> One of the problems is that there is no English government.
>>
>>
> So how do you refer to HMG with reference to their English governmental
> duties?

That is the problem.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 27/07/2023 15:23, Bob wrote:
> On 27.07.23 15:45, Coffee wrote:
>> On 27/07/2023 14:22, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 27/07/2023 12:37, Coffee wrote:
>>>> On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at
>>>>>>>>> part two.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even
>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only
>>>>>>> feasible
>>>>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's
>>>>>>> Edinburgh
>>>>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather
>>>>>>> than a
>>>>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>>>>>> to say so.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the
>>>>> various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>>>>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use
>>>>> different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>>>>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>>>>
>>>> It would help.  I still don't know how to refer to the English
>>>> government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
>>>> England.
>>>
>>> One of the problems is that there is no English government.
>>>
>>>
>> So how do you refer to HMG with reference to their English
>> governmental duties?
>
> "HMG with reference to their English governmental duties"
>
> Robin

And why should Scottish and Welsh MPs have any say in governing English
matters when English MPs have no say in their governments.

--
Colin

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/07/2023 15:23, Bob wrote:
>> On 27.07.23 15:45, Coffee wrote:
>>> On 27/07/2023 14:22, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> On 27/07/2023 12:37, Coffee wrote:
>>>>> On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at
>>>>>>>>>> part two.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>>>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even
>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only
>>>>>>>> feasible
>>>>>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's
>>>>>>>> Edinburgh
>>>>>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather
>>>>>>>> than a
>>>>>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>>>>>>> to say so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the
>>>>>> various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>>>>>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use
>>>>>> different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>>>>>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>>>>>
>>>>> It would help.  I still don't know how to refer to the English
>>>>> government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
>>>>> England.
>>>>
>>>> One of the problems is that there is no English government.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So how do you refer to HMG with reference to their English
>>> governmental duties?
>>
>> "HMG with reference to their English governmental duties"
>>
>> Robin
>
> And why should Scottish and Welsh MPs have any say in governing English
> matters when English MPs have no say in their governments.
>

Even stranger, the minister (or even PM) might be a Scottish MP, who has
power over English matters, but not over the same matters in Scotland. So
Dr Brown had power for various matters (eg, the NHS and education) in
Kirkby Lonsdale but not Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, his own constituency.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:37:01 +0100, Coffee
<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:

>On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at part two.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even though
>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>
>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only feasible
>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's Edinburgh
>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather than a
>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>
>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>>> to say so.
>>
>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>
>It would help. I still don't know how to refer to the English
>government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
>England.
>
If it is the English MPs only then that is the English Grand
Committee.

>Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are delegated
>to the other governments.
>
That isn't all that many of them manage to be ignorant about.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 14:22:24 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 27/07/2023 12:37, Coffee wrote:
>> On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at part
>>>>>>> two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even though
>>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only feasible
>>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's Edinburgh
>>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather than a
>>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>>
>>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>>>> to say so.
>>>
>>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the various
>>> legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use
>>> different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>>
>> It would help.  I still don't know how to refer to the English
>> government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
>> England.
>
>One of the problems is that there is no English government.
>
They issued a stamp in 1965 to celebrate its 700th anniversary.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 20:00:12 +0100, ColinR
<rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>On 27/07/2023 15:23, Bob wrote:
>> On 27.07.23 15:45, Coffee wrote:
>>> On 27/07/2023 14:22, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> On 27/07/2023 12:37, Coffee wrote:
>>>>> On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at
>>>>>>>>>> part two.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>>>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even
>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only
>>>>>>>> feasible
>>>>>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's
>>>>>>>> Edinburgh
>>>>>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather
>>>>>>>> than a
>>>>>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>>>>>>> to say so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the
>>>>>> various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>>>>>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use
>>>>>> different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>>>>>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>>>>>
>>>>> It would help.  I still don't know how to refer to the English
>>>>> government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
>>>>> England.
>>>>
>>>> One of the problems is that there is no English government.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So how do you refer to HMG with reference to their English
>>> governmental duties?
>>
>> "HMG with reference to their English governmental duties"
>>
>> Robin
>
>And why should Scottish and Welsh MPs have any say in governing English
>matters when English MPs have no say in their governments.
>
Because the lack of separate accounting means that Scotland and Wales
are paying for their activities.

In message <u9tn8e$1sf46$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:17:18 on Thu, 27 Jul
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 27.07.23 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <l4m4cittn3tro32kjcpct6a0gloo0pq5rj@4ax.com>, at 12:46:50
>>on Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> I still don't know how to refer to the English government when
>>>>referring to their responsibilities which cover only England.
>>>>
>>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are delegated
>>>> to the other governments.
>>>
>>> Yes, it's a confusing mess. The same minister may have UK-wide
>>>responsibilities in certain areas, England and Wales in
>>> others, and England-only in the rest.

>> Welcome to devolution. Aren't you relieved they didn't push through
>>Phase 2, which would have meant mayors like Andy Burnham being
>>entirely in charge some things too.

>> That's not to knock their individual talents, but a comment about
>>the Balkanisation.

>> Where I live the majority of the population are hopelessly confused
>>about which aspects of life come under the City [it's actually a large
>>Parish with a Mayor], District or County Councils.
>
>The system of sub-UK level government in the UK is a complete mess,
>with no consistency from one location to another. Personally I think
>there is a lot of sense in the original New Labour era plan to create
>English regions covering population districts of broadly comparable
>population sizes in the range of Scotland or Wales, aligned along
>historical cultural as well as economic lines, to allow for a uniform
>degree of devolution everywhere, combined with a rationalionalisation
>of the more granular layers of local government (so abolish counties
>and districts as political entities and consolidate their powers at the
>regional level). Pretty well no other developed country has such a mix
>of inconsistent layers of government as the UK.

I had an interesting discussion with a local politician who was I think
wondering about running for Mayor of Cambs+Peterborough (two very
contrasting demographics, incidentally, and as I point out from time to
time Peterborough is north of Wolverhampton, geographically).

His view was it resembled a poisoned chalice, because Cambridge and the
south were focussed on becoming "Outer Islington" and home to lovies and
hi-tech industry (see also Gove this week who also seems to have
discovered the buzzphrase "UK's Silicon Valley" 20yrs after everyone
else), whereas everything to the mid/north was farmland whose
inhabitants rather resent the "ripple effect" of house prices and so on,
while all the development funds seemed to be spent in the south.

There's an on/off proposal for some of those lands to be seceded to west
Norfolk (where Madame Truss is the MP). Although much of it is probably
more in tune with Lincolnshire.

Drawing these boundaries is difficult, and I constantly shout at the TV
when the BBC says "And now for the news where you are" and I'm NOT IN
NORTHAMPTON. I'm not in Norwich or Great Yarmouth either, but at least
they feel like places one would naturally associate with "East Anglia".
And you can get a train there easily (Northampton and Milton Keynes, not
so much).
--
Roland Perry

On 28.07.23 07:27, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <u9tn8e$1sf46$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:17:18 on Thu, 27 Jul
> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 27.07.23 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <l4m4cittn3tro32kjcpct6a0gloo0pq5rj@4ax.com>, at 12:46:50
>>> on  Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> I still don't know how to refer to the English government when
>>>>> referring to their responsibilities which cover only England.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are
>>>>> delegated
>>>>> to the other governments.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's a confusing mess. The same minister may have UK-wide
>>>> responsibilities in certain areas, England and Wales in
>>>> others, and England-only in the rest.
>
>>>  Welcome to devolution. Aren't you relieved they didn't push through
>>> Phase 2, which would have meant mayors like Andy Burnham being
>>> entirely  in charge some things too.
>
>>>  That's not to knock their individual talents, but a comment about
>>> the  Balkanisation.
>
>>>  Where I live the majority of the population are hopelessly confused
>>> about which aspects of life come under the City [it's actually a
>>> large Parish with a Mayor], District or County Councils.
>>
>> The system of sub-UK level government in the UK is a complete mess,
>> with no consistency from one location to another. Personally I think
>> there is a lot of sense in the original New Labour era plan to create
>> English regions covering population districts of broadly comparable
>> population sizes in the range of Scotland or Wales, aligned along
>> historical cultural as well as economic lines, to allow for a uniform
>> degree of devolution everywhere, combined with a rationalionalisation
>> of the more granular layers of local government (so abolish counties
>> and districts as political entities and consolidate their powers at
>> the regional level). Pretty well no other developed country has such a
>> mix of inconsistent layers of government as the UK.
>
> I had an interesting discussion with a local politician who was I think
> wondering about running for Mayor of Cambs+Peterborough (two very
> contrasting demographics, incidentally, and as I point out from time to
> time Peterborough is north of Wolverhampton, geographically).
>
> His view was it resembled a poisoned chalice, because Cambridge and the
> south were focussed on becoming "Outer Islington" and home to lovies and
> hi-tech industry (see also Gove this week who also seems to have
> discovered the buzzphrase "UK's Silicon Valley" 20yrs after everyone
> else), whereas everything to the mid/north was farmland whose
> inhabitants rather resent the "ripple effect" of house prices and so on,
> while all the development funds seemed to be spent in the south.

A form of that problem exists in any level of government. They Mayor of
London has to deal with the differing needs of the super wealthy
neighbourhoods of Mayfair or Chelsea, the business districts of the City
or Canary Wharf, the poorer areas of places like Tottenham, and the
suburbanites of Bromley.

The different demographic pressures you highlight between the needs of
those places that are within the sphere of influence of Cambridge and
its economic bubble, and those in rural areas or other more urban areas
in the vicinity won't go away just because some lines on a map are
drawn. By splitting Peterborough and environs away from Cambridge and
environs has the effect that the residents of the former will still
experience the economic impact of the latter but will have no democratic
input into decisions made about the latter at anything below the
Westminster level.

With modern levels of mobility, the economic influence of one town or
city on its neighbours in unavoidable, and for regional government to
actually be an effective way of balancing the needs and wants of people
living in a region, the regional government needs to have representation
for all of the relevant people. There is also the case of the costs
associaed with patterns of living being externalised. If someone lives
in somewhere in the Peterborough sphere but works in the Cambridge
sphere, they will be making demands of services provided by the
Cambridge sphere (transport infrastructure, as well as the utility
demands created by their workplace) without contributing to either the
decision making or financial arrangements to provide those facilities.

If the local levels of government do not allow these regional level
issues or conflicts to be resolved at a regional level, then the only
venue they can be resolved at is the Westminster level. The fact that
places where there is a strong regional level government in the UK
(Wales, Scotland, London) have experienced significant levels of
investment in public services in a way that places not covered by such a
level of government (the rest of England) have not suggests that on
ballance the geographically larger but less homogeneous regional scale
does a better job than the county or district scale.

Robin

On 28/07/2023 00:21, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:37:01 +0100, Coffee
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at part two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even though
>>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only feasible
>>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's Edinburgh
>>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather than a
>>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>>
>>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>>>> to say so.
>>>
>>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>>
>> It would help. I still don't know how to refer to the English
>> government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
>> England.
>>
> If it is the English MPs only then that is the English Grand
> Committee.
>
>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are delegated
>> to the other governments.
>>
> That isn't all that many of them manage to be ignorant about.

True.

In message <u9vplj$26e75$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:42 on Fri, 28 Jul
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 28.07.23 07:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <u9tn8e$1sf46$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:17:18 on Thu, 27 Jul
>>2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 27.07.23 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <l4m4cittn3tro32kjcpct6a0gloo0pq5rj@4ax.com>, at
>>>>12:46:50 on  Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> I still don't know how to refer to the English government when
>>>>>>referring to their responsibilities which cover only England.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are
>>>>>>delegated
>>>>>> to the other governments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it's a confusing mess. The same minister may have UK-wide
>>>>>responsibilities in certain areas, England and Wales in
>>>>> others, and England-only in the rest.
>>
>>>>  Welcome to devolution. Aren't you relieved they didn't push
>>>>through Phase 2, which would have meant mayors like Andy Burnham
>>>>being entirely  in charge some things too.
>>
>>>>  That's not to knock their individual talents, but a comment about
>>>>the  Balkanisation.
>>
>>>>  Where I live the majority of the population are hopelessly
>>>>confused about which aspects of life come under the City [it's
>>>>actually a large Parish with a Mayor], District or County Councils.
>>>
>>> The system of sub-UK level government in the UK is a complete mess,
>>>with no consistency from one location to another. Personally I think
>>>there is a lot of sense in the original New Labour era plan to create
>>>English regions covering population districts of broadly comparable
>>>population sizes in the range of Scotland or Wales, aligned along
>>>historical cultural as well as economic lines, to allow for a uniform
>>>degree of devolution everywhere, combined with a rationalionalisation
>>>of the more granular layers of local government (so abolish counties
>>>and districts as political entities and consolidate their powers at
>>>the regional level). Pretty well no other developed country has such
>>>a mix of inconsistent layers of government as the UK.
>> I had an interesting discussion with a local politician who was I
>>think wondering about running for Mayor of Cambs+Peterborough (two
>>very contrasting demographics, incidentally, and as I point out from
>>time to time Peterborough is north of Wolverhampton, geographically).
>> His view was it resembled a poisoned chalice, because Cambridge and
>>the south were focussed on becoming "Outer Islington" and home to
>>lovies and hi-tech industry (see also Gove this week who also seems
>>to have discovered the buzzphrase "UK's Silicon Valley" 20yrs after
>>everyone else), whereas everything to the mid/north was farmland
>>whose inhabitants rather resent the "ripple effect" of house prices
>>and so on, while all the development funds seemed to be spent in the south.
>
>A form of that problem exists in any level of government. They Mayor of
>London has to deal with the differing needs of the super wealthy
>neighbourhoods of Mayfair or Chelsea, the business districts of the
>City or Canary Wharf, the poorer areas of places like Tottenham, and
>the suburbanites of Bromley.
>
>The different demographic pressures you highlight between the needs of
>those places that are within the sphere of influence of Cambridge and
>its economic bubble, and those in rural areas or other more urban areas
>in the vicinity won't go away just because some lines on a map are
>drawn. By splitting Peterborough and environs away from Cambridge

They can't make their mind up about this. Peterborough is half new town,
half Midlands city, and has absolutely nothing in common with
Cambridgeshire. But they try to force them together to get critical mass
in certain services, such as the Police. Who recently decided to in
effect throw in the towel and rather than have several divisions for
different bits of their area, have reinvented an earlier model of
"Peterborough City and suburbs" and "Everything else".

>and environs has the effect that the residents of the former will still
>experience the economic impact of the latter but will have no
>democratic input into decisions made about the latter at anything below
>the Westminster level.

The economic impact of Cambridge itself on Peterborough is virtually
zero. It's simply too far away and a completely different demographic.
Although the ripple is getting closer: now that so many people from
Cambridge commute to London, leaving vacancies for people living in
mid-Cambs to commute there, with employers in mid-Cambs therefore hiring
from as far away as Downham Market and March, eventually that will
abstract workers and housing from Peterborough itself (unless the ripple
never gets that far because of post-Covid issues).

>With modern levels of mobility, the economic influence of one town or
>city on its neighbours in unavoidable, and for regional government to
>actually be an effective way of balancing the needs and wants of people
>living in a region, the regional government needs to have
>representation for all of the relevant people. There is also the case
>of the costs associaed with patterns of living being externalised. If
>someone lives in somewhere in the Peterborough sphere but works in the
>Cambridge sphere, they will be making demands of services provided by
>the Cambridge sphere (transport infrastructure, as well as the utility
>demands created by their workplace)

Oddly enough, both of those are paid for at the point of delivery. And
that should be sufficient.

>without contributing to either the decision making or financial
>arrangements to provide those facilities.

That's the reason they sometimes try to charge local income tax in the
USA based on where people's offices are, not where they live. I'm far
from convinced that abstracting that revenue from the rural areas is a
good idea.

>If the local levels of government do not allow these regional level
>issues or conflicts to be resolved at a regional level, then the only
>venue they can be resolved at is the Westminster level. The fact that
>places where there is a strong regional level government in the UK
>(Wales, Scotland, London) have experienced significant levels of
>investment in public services in a way that places not covered by such
>a level of government (the rest of England) have not suggests that on
>ballance the geographically larger but less homogeneous regional scale
>does a better job than the county or district scale.

No, it just means they get loads of subsidies paid for by the others.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:27:15 +0100, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:

>On 28/07/2023 00:21, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:37:01 +0100, Coffee
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at part two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even though
>>>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only feasible
>>>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's Edinburgh
>>>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather than a
>>>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>>>>> to say so.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>>>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>>>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>>>
>>> It would help. I still don't know how to refer to the English
>>> government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
>>> England.
>>>
>> If it is the English MPs only then that is the English Grand
>> Committee.
>>
>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are delegated
>>> to the other governments.
>>>
>> That isn't all that many of them manage to be ignorant about.
>
>True.

It's inevitable. In our system, politicians with no relevant work experience get parachuted into senior ministerial
posts with no warning or time to prepare. They probably know little about the subject area, and have generally received
no training in how to be a minister. It's not like a normal management position, so even those with management
experience will be out of their depth.

The civil servants working for them aren't directly managed by them, and they have their own career progression, largely
independent of ministers. Generally, ministers can't sack civil servants they regard as incompetent, nor simply promote
ones they rate.

In normal jobs, people reach senior management levels after years of relevant experience in the same of similar
organisations. They will have worked in that or a similar industries for years, and probably done some of the jobs they
now manage. They probably have relevant educational and/or professional qualifications. And they will have had to
demonstrate competence in their field.