Fracking is a classic reason why England needs Regional Devolution (Part Two)

As previously stated, I do declare myself to be softly in favour of fracking.  As we exit 2013 and move into 2014, it appears increasingly likely that the fracking debate will if anything, become more significant.  The Conservative led Coalition Government of David Cameron is making broadly pro-fracking noises, including tax breaks for fracking companies that set up in the UK.  This may all be very well in terms of meeting energy targets; but it may also threaten to divide communities who see their very futures controlled by commercial interests and Central Government policies with little or no consideration for the local environment.  The best regulatory answer is for devolved assemblies to be set up in the English regions to regulate.  The main point is that such regional assemblies will be able to take on board the positives of fracking in terms of job creation and economic growth, but would be less likely to ignore any consistent evidence of environmental harm.

The North West of England contains two of England's biggest Cities in Liverpool and Manchester.  There are also historic cities like Chester and Lancaster, in addition to fine coastal scenery on the Wirral Peninsula, the Sefton Coast (north of Liverpool), and the Fylde Peninsula in Lancashire.  The Lake District National Park is England's most visited National Park.  All these areas mentioned are central to the region's tourist industry.  If it ever were to be established that fracking is causing an environmental harm, that is having a knock on effect on visitor numbers to the North West, a regional administration would be much more passionate than David Cameron and George Osborne (Chancellor of the Exchequer) in looking to correct any adverse effects fracking may have for the region.

The Lake District is England's most visited National Park.

Across the Penines in Yorkshire, the similar act of balancing economic gains against environmental concern may be more tricky.  This is particularly so considering there are possible shale gas resources underneath North Yorkshire's two national parks, the Yorkshire Dales and the North Yorkshire Moors.  I can state from personal experience that some of the scenery in each national park is up there with England's finest.  The best means of balancing competing interests here surely needs greater input from Yorkshire lawmakers, not the Westminster village.

Goathland Station in the North Yorkshire Moors, has been used for filming in many television programmes and films, most famously in Harry Potter.

In the United States, the debate over regulating fracking at State level or at Federal level has intensified recently as the House of Representative passed a bill that prohibits the Department of the Interior to regulate on fracking in states that already have their own fracking regulations in place.  Whether this bill actually does become law is another matter, as the House of Representatives is only one legislative hurdle and President Obama is known to be in favour of tighter fracking rules at Federal level.  On the other side of the argument, supporters of state regulation argue that another level of regulation merely duplicates regulation and potentially may drive up costs to companies.

Back in the UK, some opponents of English devolution may well argue that in terms of geographical area size, England does not need devolution considering there are states in America which are bigger than England itself.  However, considering England is much more densely populated than the US, that argument certainly does not wash with me.  The devolution that has taken place in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland has opened up imbalances in the Union of the United Kingdom, in the sense that MPs from outside England have been able to vote on some English only matters, yet English MPs have been unable to vote on some non-English matters.

My belief is that fracking is an issue which needs to be regulated on a region to region basis, and that MPs with no geographical connection to a potential fracking region in question, are not being helpful in debating a regulation process for a location which would have few concerns for their own constituents.  I will hammer home this point again: IT IS TRUE THAT FRACKING AND IT'S POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS COULD BE BENEFICIAL TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES; IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT LOCAL COMMUNITIES WILL FEEL ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FROM FRACKING!  It is for this reason that I believe English Regional Governments would be best placed to balance the benefits against the potential environmental costs of fracking.

How to Stop a Qatar World Cup farce from happening ever again!

Tomorrow will see the draw for next year's World Cup Finals.  For all the negative coverage we hear about Brazil's ability to deliver on building it's World Cup Stadia, Brazil is the world's most illustrious football nation.  Therefore the idea of a Brazillian World Cup is not particularly controversial on footballing grounds.  Now let's fast forward eight years to 2022.  This tournament will see a host nation with a very different pedigree- Qatar.  Whereas Brazil have qualified for every World Cup to date (not to mention being the five times World Champions), Qatar have never even qualified for a World Cup before.  Let's also not forget that Qatar won the bid on the basis of a summer World Cup.  Now that is apparently not going to happen!

For much of the criticism FIFA President Sepp Blatter has correctly endured, the idea of moving the World Cups around the continents was with some merit against a backdrop of evidence suggesting there were football powers emerging from both Africa and Asia.  For me, this Qatar episode has I'm afraid blown FIFA's whole credibility up in smoke.  For many people in the West, the idea of taking the World Cup to the Middle East was always going to be contentious on Human Rights grounds.  But whilst nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran may both also carry much political baggage, they at least had some credibility of having appeared at previous World Cups.

We do from time to time hear of the need to get rid of Mr Blatter from some sections of the game.  To make sure this farce is never to be experienced by world football ever again, getting rid of this ridiculous specimen of a man is just the tip of the iceberg.  We must consider the reform of the World Cup itself to make it fit for purpose once again.  Do we even need to have a World Cup bidding process?  I have come to the view that we don't necessarily need this process of bidding for the right to hold the greatest football show on earth; a process could be introduced instead to reward success on the pitch as the way forward.

A very simple way of rewarding success on the pitch would be to allow the World Cup winner the honour of staging the next tournament.  Some critics would say Brazil would then have a platform for complete domination.  I would on balance share that concern.  One dimension of what enables the World Cup to capture the global imagination is the cultural variation of a different host nation.  For that reason I would not on balance favour a system of simply allowing the World Cup winner to continuously win the right to host a World Cup per se, especially if we have a cycle of a dominant winning nation.  I am not sure there would be the same level of global captivation if there was a cycle of nearly every World Cup being staged in Brazil or Germany for instance.

That said, going down that route would be better than the status quo which has proven to allow a football minnow to be awarded the honour of hosting the World Cup in what many people believe to be very dubious circumstances.  It should also be pointed out that the last time in which Brazil hosted the tournament in 1950, it was their near neighbours from Uruguay who came out on top (from a most unusual tournament format which saw the last four play in a final group rather than a knockout format).  However, Brazil's greatest teams which have produced the likes of Pele, Carlos Alberto, Zico, Socrates, Ronaldo etc have emerged of course in the years since they hosted the 1950 tournament.

I would personally favour a system of rewarding football success by first of all allowing the World Cup Winner the honour of being awarded the right to host the next World Cup, provided they have not hosted the event previously over a twenty year period.  The only other factors which could see a World Cup Winner not host the subsequent tournament are political instability, lack of suitable stadia, or the country in question simply deciding they do not wish to host the tournament.  Should a World Cup Winner not meet the criteria to host a subsequent tournament, I would propose to look first at the World Cup Runners-Up, then the Semi-Finalists, and then the Quarter-Finalists etc until a country is decided upon who has not been a host over the recent tournaments (and of course who is not seen as a pariah politically).

When it comes to choosing between the two semi-finalists or two or more quarter-finalists, the deciding factor could be a points table based on the teams' performances in that tournament.  In addition to the usual one point for a draw and three points for a win as in the group stage, knockout matches could merely reflect the result after ninety minutes for the purpose of such a performance table.  In an unlikely event that two teams who reach the same stage of a World Cup share an identical points and goal difference record, the two nations could have their World Cup record from the previous World Cup campaign (from four years ago) used as a deciding factor instead.

I recognise that some people may read this post and come to the conclusion that I am proposing a system that will stifle the ambition of some less illustrious footballing nations.  I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THAT!  I WILL GIVE FOUR REASONS WHY.  First of all, this system would mean a big hitter like Brazil, Germany, or Italy (like any other nation) can only host the World Cup once every twenty years at best.  Secondly, every World Cup since 1986 has seen an African Nation reach the knockout stages; although there is little doubt that Africa can perform better if off the field matters can be rooted out.  Thirdly, Mexico (from the CONCACAF Confederation) regularly make the World Cup knockout stages.  Fourthly, Asian Football has had plenty of highs in recent World Cup history: Australia, Saudi Arabia, Japan and South Korea have all reached the knockout stages at various stages over the last twenty years.  NOW THIS IS THE MAIN POINT: IT WOULD BLOCK A NATION WITH NO WORLD CUP PEDIGREE FROM EVER STAGING A WORLD CUP EVER AGAIN!

Fracking is a classic reason why England needs Regional Devolution (Part One)

Imagine the scene- walking down the high street, enjoying a bit of retail therapy when you get approached by some dude conducting a survey on Fracking of all things.  Despite emerging as a very divisive issue in recent years, there are still a fair number of people throughout the North West of England who are not aware of what fracking actually is.  An Opinion Poll conducted for a regional television news programme does illustrate this; also that more people in the region now support fracking than not.  This method of creating cracks in rocks to extract Gas has been used in parts of the United States for many years.  Now we have companies in the North West of England undertaking exploratory work to establish what potential lies this side of the pond.

On balance, I feel that fracking could be good for the local economy.  But I do say a silent yes in principle at this point, with a note of caution to take on board environmental concerns.  I am open minded that I could switch my viewpoint to the other side of the fence at any moment.  Regardless of what I think and may think in the future on fracking, what this issue does highlight is that English Regions do need to have stronger voices.  I expressed my viewpoint in my post on 1 November 2013 that regardless of the outcome of next year's referendum in Scotland on Independence, that England's interest would be better served by the introduction of Regional Assemblies and for the Westminster Parliament to be cut in numbers.

With Fracking, the potential benefits in terms of job creation will be local communities within the North West of England, or any other English region for that matter.  But on the downside, any negatives such as pollution and general environmental risk will also be most felt at a local level.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DAVID CAMERON AND HIS CON-DEM COALITION OR AN ED MILLIBAND LED LABOUR GOVERNMENT.  A National Government sitting in London (which is too detached from the North West) is not best placed to balance the competing industrial and environmental interests; a Regional Administration would be better placed to be accountable for what is in almost every aspect, a more local issue.

Don't join the great Russell Brand vote boycott!

Russell Brand is no doubt a curious comedian who has been noted for more than the odd controversy down the years.  One latest controversy arose from Mr Brand's October stint as guest editor of a popular left leaning British political magazine.  Mr Brand talks about the need for a Revolution in consciousness and how we see the truth.  If you believe him, it could be that the Spiritual Revolution is now under way!  Is it really?

There can be no doubt that Russell Brand is very witty.  His notion that some of the planet's great religions are merely comparable to karate as great ideas, certainly tickled me.  As did his suggestion that shaking George Osborne's hand accidentally, was like sliding his hand into a dilated cow.  I do sincerely apologise incidentally at this point if I have offended anyone who is deeply religious.

Seriously though,  my interpretation of Russell Brand's spiritual revolution is that I just don't quite get him.  Brand makes some plausible points, but he also talks a lot of what I consider to be intellectual waffle as well.  Yes it is very concerning the power rich business people possess in today's Western World.  But the point he should make is that if any vested interest holds too much power then that is also worrying.  What I find particularly concerning is the point Brand makes that everyone should follow his example of staying away from polling stations.  I consider this viewpoint to be very worrying indeed!

Of course, many of us go through phases when we wonder if it is worth voting.  Many years ago, I did not cast my vote at a local election poll.  My recollection is that as I was so busy and pre-occupied with other stuff, I forgot the elections were even taking place.  In fact a few days later when I met up with some friends, I used another excuse along the lines of there being little point in casting a vote towards one political party with certain views against another party with similar views.  A very dear friend in fact gave me a right dressing down!  She was right.  The sacrifices which brave men and women have made to give present day Britons the right to vote, is a right that too many Britons take for granted.  I subsequently registered for a postal vote, and have voted in every General Election, European Election, and Local Authority Election ever since.  

As a Trade Union member I have always cast my vote whenever the Union has asked me to vote, whether it be an election for General Secretary or some other matter.  However as a member of one of the UK's biggest Unions, I recently found myself with a dilemma of which candidate to vote for as General Secretary.  At the time I was considering leaving this powerful Union for a more moderate and smaller Union, and was presented with a choice between two candidates who I believed to be very similar in a policy direction I did not consider to be desirable.

Against this backdrop, I simply could not support the manifesto of any candidate.  My response was to cast my vote with a spoiled ballot paper.  I have since decided to stick with the larger Union, mainly due to the excellent work done by the Union Reps at a local level.  On that note, I may well regret in years to come that I did not cast a vote in this particular election for either candidate on offer.  However, had I not cast my vote with the spoiled ballot paper, potentially my regret could be much greater.  AT LEAST I WAS TRUE TO MYSELF AND EXPRESSED WHAT I FELT AT THE TIME!

Now I do intend to continue to vote for a particular party/candidate at future UK Parliamentary and Local Authority elections.  That is despite me being a critic of the British Parliamentary Electoral System, the First Past the Post System.  The No Vote in the 2011 Referendum on Electoral Reform may well be a missed opportunity to give more voters the chance to be heard.  But from a personal personal perspective, should there ever be a moment in the future when I could not cast my vote to a particular party/candidate, I would have no hesitation in spoiling my ballot paper once again.

If we had a lot more voters spoiling their ballot papers than simply not casting their vote, the penny could well drop amongst the political classes that the Governing Party's share of the popular vote may not give them the necessary moral authority to carry through their programme of Government (even if they do have a working majority) and that to continue to ignore the voices at present which are unheard, cannot go on.  Considering turnouts at the last three British General Elections have been less than seventy per cent, turnout has been low enough as it is.

Like Brand, I share a strong distaste of a certain British newspaper owned by a certain Australian American Media Mogul.  His views will most definitely strike a chord with some disaffected sections of society.  But on the suggestion that it is good not to vote, I personally don't believe the Russell Brand option to be particularly appealing at all.

Discovering the treasure that is Dovedale

The Peak District National Park is Britain's oldest National Park.  Although most of the Peak District's area falls within the County of Derbyshire, five other counties also fall within the Peak District National Park's boundaries.  Living in the North West of England, I have made the odd foray from time to time into the Peak District down the years.  However, I only really concentrated such rare forays around the Buxton and High Peak area, due to it's proximity to the North West.  That changed in 2010 when my wife and I were travelling back from my brother's wedding in Northampton.  We decided on a night's camping on the way home, and had planned to look for a campsite in the Buxton area.  It was just after we drove through Ashbourne that we found a campsite by the road with it's own Pub and Microbrewery.

We had such a good time that night in September 2010 that we made arrangements to come back to the same campsite the following spring for a bit of a longer stay, and hopefully some nice country walking.  With walking in mind, it was during that longer stay in which I was to discover the River Dove and the treasure that is Dovedale, situated just four and a half miles from Ashbourne.  The scenery below does start to set the scene.  Although, there is much much more to come!

The main Dovedale Car Park is situated on the Derbyshire/Staffordshire Border between the villages of Thorpe (in Derbyshire) and Ilam (in Staffordshire).  Ilam Hall is also nearby.  Once the Car is parked and the walk commences, the real beauty of this limestone gorge within the River Dove Valley will soon take your breath away, just like it did mine!

And if that is not enough, how about the famous Dovedale Stepping Stones?

Like many Brits, I would state that I believe the Lake District is England's most beautiful national park.  But I do find the Peak District also to be particularly intriguing, and Dovedale is right up there with much of the finest scenery the Lake District has to offer.  My travelling experience of the Lakes is greater than my experience so far of the Peak District as a whole.  That said, I would be pleasantly surprised if I ever find another Peak District treasure to match Dovedale.  About twenty years before the Peak District itself became a National Park in 1951, there were suggestions that Dovedale itself could have become one of Britain's first national parks.  Not surprising really.

The walk along the River Dove from the Car Park to the Village of Milldale is about three miles long.  The good news for those walkers with an aversion to steep climbs, is that the walk is largely flat.  The walk also takes in wildlife and interesting rock formations on route to Milldale.

And so a most pleasant walk will finally conclude in Milldale.  The local shop will have a nice selection of sandwiches and other snacks, which can subsequently be enjoyed by the riverside.

Once you have enjoyed that snack, it is time to go again and walk back to the Dovedale Car Park, reliving the wonderful Dovedale experience one more time.

Warrington's very own Tom and Dave.

Featuring in the Warrington Amateur Comedy Circuit every now and then are Tom McGuinness and Dave Appleton.  I went along to see what they are about at Cinnamon Brow Farm Club on Friday November 8 2013, where they were in action individually alongside other amateur artists from around the North West of England.  The whole evening was a grand evening of entertainment, which was made all the more entertaining by ending on the same table as Dave's wife.  How myself and my wife ended up there, well we won't go there...

Both Tom and Dave have worked together for the same retail convenience store chain for a number of years now.  In real life, it is believed that the two generally bounce off each other.  Local Warringtonian stereotypes feature highly in Tom's style.  More generally, Tom is so random there is always a good little bit for everyone.  It could be that like Tom, you support a very obscure football team for the north west.  If that is the case, then you may well relate to Tom's experiences of waiting over ten hours to get served in a very well known sports retail shop!

Dave's wife is very much part of Dave's style, as Dave will talk about the wonders of Mrs A in an eloquently tongue and cheek style.  The style is in fact so eloquent, it does in fact paint a picture of Mrs A up on stage accompanying him.  I would though at this point warn against ending up on the same table as the delightful Mrs Appleton.  The reason being that one runs the risk of being clobbered (for laughing at her expense) as as I found out!

Dave will also talk in great fondness of his rise from YTS boy to Store Manager.  What is most striking are the challenges Mr A has had to overcome to achieve his rise through the ranks.  To give an example, once upon a time Dave gave some sound advice to a nice old lady who sought guidance on how to stop cheese from going mouldy.  Unfortunately the old dear did not take kindly to being advised to eat it!

Tom and Dave will be in action again on Sunday 1st December at the Marquis of Granby Public House in Warrington.

Football: time to scrap the Euros?

Looking to the next Euros

The next week will see the likes of the French, the Portuguese, the Swedes, and the Romanians take to the field in two legged play-offs that will determine their World Cup destiny.  Victory will earn one of the remaining four European places available.  However, defeat will not only be too painful to contemplate, but would leave a losing nation looking towards the next European Championships Qualifying draw in Nice on 23 February 2014, and the chance to go once again in competitive international football after the summer World Cup.

Both FIFA and UEFA have come under immense scrutiny in recent times.  FIFA's decision to award the 2022 World Cup to Qatar was highly questionable, considering Qatar is a nation with a population of about two million people who have never before qualified for a World Cup.  Question marks have also been raised in Europe about the direction of the European Championships.  The 2016 tournament in France has been expanded to twenty four teams, whilst Michel Platini (UEFA's President) has suggested the 2020 tournament could be spread across twelve or thirteen cities around the continent instead of having a host nation.  Is all this necessary?

I say we should scrap the Euros altogether!

The truth is that International Football is becoming more relevant to the game's politicians than the worldwide public it is supposed to relate to.  We have farcical contests like England v San Marino, and UEFA has of course recently admitted a new minnow in the form of Gibraltar.  I am not saying such nations don't have a right to compete.  But when you consider that a top player like Theo Walcott was hospitalised in such an unnecessary game, the club v country debate is all too real.  My belief is that we need to scrap the European Championship Finals altogether.  Why not have a dual European Championships/World Cup Qualifying structure instead?  We could still have a contest between Europe's top two nations to decide on who gets the European Crown.

UEFA has fifty four member nations.  My proposal would be to create a three tier divisional structure with promotion and relegation.  All the matches would be played over the three summers when there is no World Cup.  The regular club season should have the absolute minimum disruption from the international game.  At the most, there should be two friendlies and maybe a couple of other international training camp get-togethers during the regular season.  The top teams in the top flight of the new UEFA structure should automatically qualify for the World Cup, with some mid-table teams earning a place in a play-off system along with the leading teams in the lower league tiers.

Explaining the proposed structure

1. The top two divisions would each contain twenty nations, and would be each split into two pools of ten teams.  With each team playing each other twice, that will mean eighteen rounds of fixtures which would be played over three summers.  The bottom tier would be split into two pools of seven teams each.  This structure would allow twelve European Nations to qualify for a World Cup.

2. In the top division, the top four teams in each pool would qualify automatically for the World Cup.  The teams finishing fifth and sixth in each pool would enter a two legged play-off to reach the World Cup.  The bottom team in each pool will be relegated after each qualifying period.  The top team in each pool will go into the European Championship Final, which could be played in the build up to the World Cup.

3. In the second division, the winners of each pool would earn a World Cup play-off against the teams that finish sixth in each top division pool.  Each second division pool winner would also gain promotion to the top flight.  The runners-up in each second division pool would also enter the World Cup play-off structure, but would have to play two rounds.  The first of those rounds would see each runner-up play-off against a winner of a third division pool.  Should the second division runner-up get past that first hurdle, then they would play-off against a fifth placed team from the top flight.  As in the top flight, the bottom team in each second division pool would get relegated.

4. The third division would see two pools of seven based on UEFA's current membership of fifty four nations.  The top team in each pool would achieve promotion to the second tier, and a place in a two round play-off system.  That play-off system would first involve getting past a runner-up in the second division, then a fifth placed team from the top division.

Making the Case for Change

We do at present have one summer in which FIFA insists on imposing the Confederations Cup onto the World.  This tournament could currently make my proposed structure unworkable due to at least one top European Nation being involved.  However whilst it may throw up the odd interesting game, is the Confederations Cup really something we need?  I certainly believe it is not in Europe's interest.  If the top European Nations wish to see meaningless fixtures against fifth rate no-hopers disappear, then something has got to give.

Plus, is it good for these fifth rate no-hopers to be continually taking to the field against far superior opposition knowing that at best they may get a 0-0 draw once a generation against illustrious opponents by parking the bus in front of the goal?  A contest between San Marino and the Faroe Islands for instance could also be more meaningful for the countries involved.

At the top end of the European game, clashes between heavyweight nations would become more common.  The closing stages of the three year competition for instance could see a contest between one nation trying to get into the European Final, whilst the other nation is trying to stay in an automatic qualifying spot for the World Cup.  I feel this could be very intriguing.

Ultimately, the big plus I believe would be to help ease the Club v Country tension.  You will always get supporters of course who understandably will be more passionate about their club than their country.  But with a new structure defining the main international season to be after the club season, more and more younger fans over time will grow up to appreciate that supporting your country does not have to be at the detriment of supporting your club.  We certainly cannot say that at present!

An English Devolution Perspective

Scotland will go to the polls in 2014 on whether or not they should become Independent from the rest of the UK.  Personally I would rather Scotland stays in the Union.  However I do accept it is a choice in which the Scottish people have to make their own judgement on.

A more  pressing matter for me personally is the future of England and the English regions.  Whatever the outcome of the Scottish referendum, an imbalance now exists within the UK as MPs from all nations of the Union can vote on English only matters.  However, English MPs cannot vote on policy areas which have been devolved to the National Parliaments or Assemblies of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.  I fully agree that something needs to be done to correct this imbalance.

There are two suggestions I would not agree with.  One is that you have some sittings in Westminster that only England based MPs can take part in.  Even if the English MPs were to be given higher salaries to reflect the fact that they would be doing more work, it would create a complicated situation where some members of the same house would be more important than other members.  For me, in any democratic body an individual vote should be equal.

The second option I would not favour is that of an English Parliament.  For me, the big disadvantage of no English devolution is the lack of locally elected politicians with clout who could argue the case of inward investment to the business world for the area in which they represent.  Also, I don't see the point in having a second parliament based in London. It would be another decision making machine that would be too remote from the great cities of the north like Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle etc.

On that note, seeing cities around the country introduce elected mayors is a measure which I consider to be a positive step.  Moving on from elected mayors, another idea of interest is City regions.  As a Merseysider, but not quite from Liverpool itself, I can state there are a number of towns around the outskirts of Liverpool in which the people would still class themselves as Liverpudlians, despite not being in the official population count.  This is a situation repeated in other northern cities.  Although the official population count of Manchester is half a million, such population figures can be misleading due to the neighbouring areas which are excluded.  I do have some suspicion that boundaries have been erected or maintained for convenience.

Back in my native Merseyside and the town of Formby in which I mainly grew up, there is little debate that Formby is economically and culturally linked with the great City that is Liverpool.  However there are other towns with less affiliation with Liverpool, such as Southport which is eight miles north of Formby.  Southport is a traditional seaside town with tourism very much key in the Town's economy.  Although, it should also be pointed out that there are also residents in Southport who commute to Liverpool, Preston or beyond.  Sections of Southport's population have long argued for a return to their traditional county, Lancashire.  Some Merseysiders would understandably view this as snobbery.  That said, such towns would still need consideration in a new English devolution model, even if they don't wish to be linked to a City region.  On that note, a drawback of City Regions is that you could see a regional map with some towns clearly linked to a City, and others either enclaved separately out on their own or being forced into an uneasy co-existence which is perhaps no good for anyone.

Another idea that comes up for discussion from time to time is English Regional Assemblies.  This would be my own preferred model for devolution.  People may well ask what powers should be devolved?  I believe a sensible approach would be to follow the principle of subsidiarity, as laid out in article five on the Treaty of European Union.  That means the decision is taken at the closest possible level to the citizen.  For example, UK Defence Policy would logically require policy making to remain at national level.  However, on the other side of the coin, an area such as nature conservation or tourism would require a very limited role from Central Government.

The North East voted against a regional assembly in 2004.  I do understand the reason in which many voters in the North East voted against the proposal, in that there was a fear it would merely mean another unnecessary tier of government.  My answer is simple.  Take a leaf out of previous proposals to reform the House of Lords, which would have seen the number of members almost halved.  We could simply do something similar with the House of Commons.  This could mean that some of the MPs who would lose out on a seat at national level, could instead contest a seat in a regional assembly.  That way some of those turkeys sitting at Westminster would not necessarily be voting for Christmas!

Argentina needs to re-examine Malvinas tactics!

The Falklands/Malvinas is far from a settled issue.  The referendum in March 2013 has shown if anything that the issue of self-determination is far from the sole issue at stake.  It is no secret on how I view the issue could be resolved long term.  But recent manoeuvres by the Argentine Government will benefit the Malvinas cause very little in the long run, even if President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner somehow sees merit in helping to use the policy for short term domestic consumption.

Last month saw the Argentine Foreign Minister, Hector Timmerman meet up with the President of the Chagos refugees Group.  Whilst the disgraceful case of the Chagossians being expelled from their homeland does expose double standards in Britain's self determination argument, what exactly is Argentina's point about the Chaggosians with regard to the Malvinas question?  Suggestions have been made by the Argentine Foreign Ministry that both the Chagos Islands and the Malvinas Islands are linked by the argument of territorial integrity, due to the Indian Ocean archipelago's sovereignty being claimed by Mauritius.  However, if the Kirchner Government also believes in the repatriation of these people to their homeland with full rights to self determination, then are they saying that maybe self determination could play some part in a resolution to the Falklands/Malvinas dispute?

Back in September, there was the attempt to cosy up to Spain and form a Latin Alliance to put Britain under international pressure on both Falklands/Malvinas and Gibraltar.  The suggestion that Spain suddenly lost interest in the alliance is not the surprise here.  It is rather the motivation to form a Latin Alliance in the first instance on the part of Argentina!  How would Argentina's case benefit from an alliance with a nation that has arguably three territories whose natural geographical link is with Morocco rather than Spain?  Rather like Gibraltar being situated on the southern tip of Spain, Morocco's northern coast is interrupted by enclaved Spanish territory in the form of Ceuta and Melila.  It should also be pointed out that the Canary Islands are clearly much closer to Morocco's west coast than the Spanish mainland.

Arguments made by Spanish Politicians along the lines of Ceuta and Melila having long been part of Spain, compared to the time Gibraltar has been occupied by Britain, or that Ceuta and Melila are actually part of Spain as opposed to Gibraltar being a British Overseas Territory and not a part of the United Kingdom, are complete nonsense.   As for Argentina's Malvinas aspirations, it is quite clear that they will not accept any long term settlement that would see them lose face.  With weaknesses in the British self determination argument which I highlighted in my post on 30 September, and the inevitability that the place in which the Falklands/Malvinas war holds in the British psyche likely to recede over time, Argentina could one day have the opportunity to secure at least a meaningful compromise.  But what Argentina also needs to do is to not undermine it's own case by forming an alliance with a nation  like Spain, even if they do both speak the same language!

ARGENTINA NEEDS TO FOCUS ON IT'S OWN CASE WITH REGARDS TO THE FALKLANDS/MALVINAS.  IT IS NOT IN ARGENTINA'S LONG TERM INTEREST TO ALLOW ANY DISTRACTION FROM OTHER CASES LIKE GIBRALTAR WHICH MAY WELL HAVE SOME SIMILARITIES, BUT WHICH ARE FAR FROM IDENTICAL!

Time to change the US Electoral College System?

From one of my posts on 30 September, it is fairly clear that I fall into the category of someone concerned about the British Parliamentary electoral system.  Very simply not enough voices are heard and if you live in a safe Conservative or a safe Labour seat, you don't see the main parties' big hitters knocking on your door during a general election campaign.

I feel this is also a problem across the pond.  The US Presidential Election system is often referred to as the Electoral College System.  What it means is that the candidate who polls the most votes in a particular state, gets all that state's electoral college votes irrespective of the margin of victory in that particular state.  As with the British Parliamentary System's marginal constituency, it is all very well if you live in a swing state like Florida.  However if you live in what is generally considered to be a non-swing state like Texas or New York, then the Presidential candidates will not be concentrating their campaigning on your doorstep!

I recognise the US and UK have other big issues on their respective agendas at the moment such as the economy, and rightly so.  However turnouts at recent Presidential elections have been consistently below 60%.  In the UK, general election turnouts have been consistently below 70% in recent times.  You don't have to be a political genius to understand that there is a feeling the larger parties are quite happy to snuff out the smaller parties from making any kind of impact.

I acknowledge that in the US, there have been more proposals in Congress for constitutional amendments on the electoral college subject than on any other subject.  But why is the electoral college issue not as big an issue as it should be?  We are living in changing times.  If the western world, arguably led by the US is trying to convey a message to parts of the world such as the Middle East that democracy is the way forward, then surely there needs to be a clear demonstration that voices do get heard!

Tightening UK Dog Laws

I will straightaway admit I am not a great dog lover.  In fact I grew up petrified of dogs due to a phobia my Mother had, which was as a result of her being attacked when she was a small child.  That said, I can now be more comfortable around a number of dog breeds.   I accept that due to my own phobia, opinions which I have held in the past on the subject of dangerous dogs, could have been a little unbalanced.  I would have often said that certain breeds should not be allowed as pets, and instead belong in the zoo!

There is the counter argument that out of control dogs are purely down to how a dog is treated.  Only this week a woman from Atherton in Greater Manchester received a suspended prison sentence for animal cruelty, after her four dogs who had been kept close together in her home, killed a fourteen year old girl.  The Crown Prosecution Service had ruled a month earlier that there had been insufficient evidence to pursue a charge of manslaughter.

Whilst the incident in Greater Manchester could arguably support the view about how well dogs are treated, an incident in Northern Ireland this year saw an apparently well behaved Alaskan Malamute dog that was owned by a teacher, suddenly turn on a five year old pupil causing serious facial injuries.  This was on a day towards the end of the summer term when the teacher brought the dog in for an end of term treat for the children.

Stories of people being attacked by dogs do keep coming.  Only last month, an elderly gentleman got attacked by a Rottweiler (not on a lead) whilst out walking in St Leonards-On-Sea, Sussex.  Whilst there generally may be some substance in the argument that it all depends on how the dog is treated, how many more savage dog attacks do we need to hear about?  IT IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!

There is legislation in the pipeline which will now make dog owners no longer immune from attacks which take place on their own property.  This is a matter in which Trade Unions representing postal, utility, and delivery staff have long campaigned for.  There has also been speculation that the intention of the planned legislation is to increase the maximum penalty for the owners of killer dogs to life imprisonment.  Will this go far enough?

I would personally argue for a new type of licensing system rather similar to the different categories of driving licence which are required for different sized vehicles.  Under the terms of such a licensing system, basic character checks would be sufficient to gain a licence for a person to own one dog, of a breed widely accepted to be a placid breed.  However to own more than one dog or a dog whose placidness is more debatable, the granting of a licence should require further tests to be satisfied before a higher category of licence is granted.  Such tests could in some circumstances require a demonstration of extensive dog handling skills.

I recognise that the cost of such a scheme could be prohibitive at this moment in time, and possibly another issue linked to this would be the costs that would need to be incurred by those people applying for such a higher grade dog ownership licence.  I recognise we are currently in an era of austerity, which will probably take us into the next decade.  However, when the public finances are in better shape, windows of opportunities will open for areas of spending that will presently not get a look in.  Should a case ever be successfully argued that a new dog licensing system is the way forward, THEN MAYBE NOW IS THE TIME TO ENGAGE IN THE DEBATE THAT LIES AHEAD!

Michael Gove, if only..

Recent events would appear to suggest that the UK Education Secretary, Michael Gove is a man with more enemies than your average Tory Politician!  It would seem his enemies expand beyond teachers towards a Children's Author and even the Church of England!  Is it any wonder a Michael Gove Vodoo Pincushion is on the market?  

Lets remember though that this is a man who wants re-sit exam results to be excluded from official league tables.  Even if such a move should eventually result in his discredited league tables being disbanded, the main concern must be that it undermines the efforts of so many good schools to give students the best chance in life.  It is important to remember that the best chance for a young student sometimes requires that student to be given as many opportunities as possible!

If the events of the last few weeks are anything to go by, it would appear that Gove can embrace controversy equally on educational matters as he can on matters of distasteful press coverage.  That said his defence of the Daily Mail over it's controversial coverage of Labour Party Leader Ed Milliband's late father's feelings towards Britain, could be motivated by self interest.  This is a self interest that is possibly explained by the fact that his spouse is of course a Daily Mail Columnist.

I spent Friday evening catching up with some friends.  Amongst these friends are a few teachers, all of whom at various social occasions have been particularly keen to express their views on the delightful Mr Gove!  One common theme that always comes up is his lack of willing to engage with the people who actually work in Education.  This theme is possibly backed up by recent speculation that Gove instead prefers to engage with those who say a child's educational performance is linked more to genetics than teaching!  This week's Cabinet re-shuffle also featured in our little catch up.  One casualty of the re-shuffle was Michael.  But sadly for my friends, the Michael in question was in fact Liberal Democrat Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore.  My friends would dearly have loved it to have been Mickey Morris Dancer!

In reality that was not likely to happen, and this brings me onto why I refer to Gove as "Mickey Morris Dancer".  A few days after the 2010 General Election, Mr Gove was being interviewed on a popular Sunday Morning Politics TV Programme against the backdrop of a Hung Parliament.  On being asked if he would give up his seat in Cabinet to facilitate a coalition deal between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, Gove answered that he would in a most decisive manner.  I felt at the time that should Mickey miss the cut for the ConDem Cabinet, then he would have been most grateful to be offered the post of Minister for Morris Dancers!  If only..

A Distinct Quebec Identity

One of the most curious political sagas in North America is the position of the largely French speaking Quebec Province within the Canadian Federation.  Quebecans narrowly voted against going it alone in a referendum nearly two decades ago.  But despite resisting Independence back then, the signs are there that Quebecans will never be completely at ease within the Canadian Confederation.  Even if Quebec continues to resist any temptation to completely break free from the rest of Canada, surely that distinctive identity needs to be recognised somehow.

Perhaps it is time for Quebecans to draw inspiration from across the North Atlantic at the United Kingdom.  There are now Devolved Assemblies or Parliaments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.  This is arguably very similar to the Parliaments in the Canadian Provinces.  However, the Nations of the United Kingdom do also enjoy elements of a distinct identity through sport.  On the one hand, the four nations do compete together in the Olympics as Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Scottish Tennis player Andy Murray does officially represent Great Britain.  But on the other hand the home nations do also compete individually across a number of sports.  

One of those sports is Football.  The British Home Nations are not the only examples of non-sovereign countries taking their place in FIFA, World Football's governing body.  The Faroe Islands have been FIFA members since 1988.  They are still officially part of the Danish realm, despite voluntarily reducing their subsidy from Denmark in recent years.  Despite ceasing to be a British Overseas Territory in 1997, Hong Kong still retains it's own National Football Team despite now being part of China.  

Of course, the best topical example of a non-sovereign country becoming part of the International Football Family is the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, who were formally accepted into UEFA (European Football's Governing Body) earlier this year.  Ironically, Gibraltar's accession into UEFA has been during a year in which Britain's ongoing dispute with Spain over the territory has been heated at times.

So back to Quebec.  If Quebec continues to stay within the Canadian Confederation, should the Quebecans become FIFA members?  As a football fan, I say why not!

Ullswater's Unique Beauty

With the exception of my native Merseyside, my favourite corner of England is the Lake District.  I would estimate that I have visited the Lakes nearly every year for over a decade now, even if it has been just for a short break.  In that period of time I have got to know the area reasonably well, and know most of the main roads in and around the Lake District National Park.  

The part of the English Lakes I regard as my favourite is Ullswater, which is the second largest lake.  For me it is the most beautiful, and what I find particularly appealing is the limited commercialisation.  The lake has two main villages on it's shores.  There is Pooley Bridge to the North, and Glenridding to the South West.  

If you love your walking, you will not be disappointed.  There are a range of walks available around the lake.  One small walk I have identified is from Glenridding to Lanty's Tarn.  As demonstrated by some of the shots below, some of the scenery can only be described as breathtaking.

Rather than take the walk straight back down to Glenridding, why not then take a small detour towards the path to Helvellyn?

And then you can find your way back into the Village via the Pub!

For those who like to relax there is always the option of the Ullswater Steamer boat which runs each day between Glenridding, Pooley Bridge, and the small hamlet of Howtown on the quieter eastern shore. 

Glenridding and Pooley Bridge are both nice villages with a good choice of pubs or hotel bars which are open to non-residents.  

If you do go on the Steamer, a small stop off at Howtown is a must.  On my most recent visit I briefly visited the Howtown Hotel, which gave me an experience I can only describe as timeless, serving a nice local beer from a hatch.

With views like this, what's keeping you from Ullswater?

A Falklands (Malvinas) Compromise

Has the Falklands Referendum solved anything?

The people of the Falkland Islands will go the polls on 7 November to vote in their General Election.  The year 2013 will best be remembered in this remote South Atlantic archipelago though for the referendum back in March which overwhelmingly endorsed the Falkland Islands' status as a British Overseas Territory. 

The referendum was always going to give the British/Falkland Island position a bit of a bounce in the short term, but a most crucial point could be that the Obama Administration has resisted and will continue no doubt to resist any pressure to jump off the fence.  So was there a point to a referendum in which the result was never in doubt?

If anything, it has merely demonstrated that there are other issues at stake other than self determination.  With other issues such as mineral wealth potentially becoming more significant in the years ahead, all the 2013 referendum will serve to do is confirm a stand off between Britain and Argentina for some time to come!

I believe that the Falklanders do have a right to some form of Self Determination. However, there is also other British Territory in the South Atlantic in which the argument of Self Determination simply does not relate to.  This does in my view suggest that something has got to give somewhere along the line.  I have my own views as to how a potential compromise could develop.  I may be proven right or I may be proven wrong.  There is only one thing certain about the Falklands/Malvinas dispute, that being we have certainly not reached the end game at this point in time!

A potential long term solution

Should the time come for all parties to get to the negotiating table, there are a number of various solutions which have been previously suggested.  One such proposal is Joint Sovereignty between Argentina and the United Kingdom.  There is nowhere on the planet where Joint Sovereignty has ever worked!  As with a Football Team with Joint Managers, who would ultimately have the final say if there was a point of disagreement between the two Sovereigns?

My own belief is that a long term solution could see the two main islands eventually split into separate British and Argentine territories.  This would see West Falkland and the surrounding islands transferred to Argentine control.  East Falkland (where the overwhelming majority reside) would remain a British Overseas Territory, which I believe on population density arguments would more than satisfy the Falkland Islanders' rights to self determination.

A handover period of the West could be agreed with a view to the territory remaining British for the remaining lifetimes of some West Falkland residents, whilst also restricting immigration to people who have good English language skills. This is something I believe could be useful to help the British Falklanders on East Falkland to build trading relations with a future neighbouring Argentine territory, and perhaps better trading relations with Argentina itself one day. An Anglo-Argentine Treaty could also address issues like mineral resources, military activity, and future territorial claims.

A partition of a chain of islands is not the same thing as the partition of one island such as Ireland. Whilst Joint Sovereignty has no positive form guide, there are working examples of island groups being split between different jurisdictions. One is the Virgin Islands which is split between the UK and USA.  Another example is Samoa which is split between Samoa (previously Western Samoa) and American Samoa.

Why Should Britain one day be open to Compromise?

I am hopeful that another Falklands/Malvinas war will not happen in my lifetime.  What I am less hopeful of is that this issue will disappear.  Argentina may not currently account for a massive proportion of the UK's International Trade.  But taking on board that we are talking about a fellow G20 Country, that could change in the future.  The brief war in 1982 was tragic.  But taking on board that Argentina has over 100,000 citizens of British descent, that war does not tell the full story of Britain's past relationship with Argentina.  Let's also remember that Argentina at the time was under a dictatorship which had murdered it's own people!  For over 30 years now, Argentina has been a democracy.

I do accept it will be difficult to see any movement on the Falklands/Malvinas issue for the remainder of the Kirchner Presidency.  I would also suspect it to be nigh on impossible for the remainder of Mr Cameron's Premiership as well.  But even if there is to be no sign of the Argentine claim on Las Malvinas being dropped, it is possible at some point in the future that relations between Britain and Argentina will improve.  After all, Britain and the Falkland Islanders did enjoy better relations with Argentina during the Menem Presidency, even though the line from Buenos Aires was generally along the lines that we will agree to disagree on the Malvinas Sovereignty question for the timebeing.

Although the amount of money which the UK spends is a very tiny fraction of the UK Defence Budget, it would be wrong to say cost is not an issue.  This is particularly so if Britain continues to assert that they will retain a garrison forever!  There are always different interest groups back in the UK lobbying for an increased share of the public purse.  And besides, maintaining the garrison long term does not solve the issue.  It merely continues to contribute to the stand off between Britain and Argentina.  That also means the Falkland Islanders don't have a settled peace (even if it is something they have always lived with) and their scope to develop their economy is hindered by little or no trade with their closest neighbour.  Considering all the regional trading blocks that now exist around the world, some form of strong trading relationship with Argentina would surely be desirable long term.

I have stated that I believe a split in the land to be my belief as a long term solution to the dispute.  I have also stated this to be a means to satisfy the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination on population density grounds.  I will now explain this point in more detail.  It is my viewpoint that the Falklands are not sparsely populated, but in fact underpopulated.  The Falkland Islands cover a land area which is roughly five times that of the combined land area of the Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands.  The two sparsely populated Scottish archipelagos have a combined population of a little over 42,000.  Whereas there are just under 3,000 Falklanders!  As for West Falkland and it's surrounding islands, we are still talking about an area of land that is still nearly double the total combined land area of Orkney and Shetland.  We are in fact also talking about a population count of about 300 at best!

I mention Orkney and Shetland for two reasons.  Firstly, they are widely regarded as a place not to live for many mainland Brits.  Secondly, it is generally regarded that the weather is similar in the two Scottish archipelagos to that in the Falklands.  Filling the Falklands' population gap in the future is surely going to be done more from South America than the UK, a fact backed up by the Chilean Community of about 200 people now residing on the islands.  As a Brit myself, if I wanted to live in a Falklands/Shetlands climate, I would not wish to emigrate to the other side of the world thanks!

Whether you agree or disagree with my population density viewpoint, there is another simple angle to the very question of why Britain should one day compromise.  That being Britain's position does not enjoy universal support in the international community.  I am not saying Argentina is in a stronger position either.  But more generally, if either side was that confident of it's position in International Law, this dispute would have been heard by the International Court of Justice long before now.

Could I be proven wrong?

Of course it is possible.  I cannot pretend to have a crystal ball.  But I would urge everyone who has been courteous to take the time to read this post to put my views into perspective.  I am not saying I want David Cameron to enter into negotiations with CFK tomorrow, next week, or even next year.  What I am saying is that if both nations at some point in the future show that bit of bravery, and don't look back into history, then there could be hope.

If Argentina were to repeat some of it's past mistakes, then I would be quick to say the dispute would probably have been set back by another two generations.  That said my own country is far from perfect as well!  Argentina has been a democratic nation now for over thirty years, and it is probably worth remembering that post war West Germany had been a new democracy for about half that period of time when Britain was trying very hard to join the Common Market in the 1960s.  West Germany, unlike the United Kingdom had been one of the Common Market's founder members.

Before I became more informed on this subject, my views were previously more in line with recent successive British Governments.  I still believe it to be true that there are some Argentines who are ignorant about those who live on the Malvinas.  But it should also be stated that those Argentine citizens who have challenged President Kirchner's Malvinas policy, deserve special praise.

What I have come to realise is that there is also a British ignorance as well, and that I was previously ignorant to various geographical facts I have highlighted in this post.  I did not previously realise that we were talking about an archipelago with a land area size of about 90% of the size of Northern Ireland.  I feel that does go some way to explain why some countries will not give the UK full backing on the Self Determination argument.  

I would also point out that I had never previously wondered how I would have felt had history worked out differently to give Argentina (or any other distant nation for that matter) control of an island or group of islands off the British coast.  The fact that the Falklands is much further away from Argentina than Shetland is from the north coast of Scotland, is to me irrelevant.  I don't consider the Falkland Islands' natural link to the outside world to be London via Ascension Island.  

Once again, I could be proven wrong on my beliefs.  But I would also repeat that I believe I am correct in stating there is much British ignorance on the subject as well.  The Falklands/Malvinas issue is one at this moment in time that won't go away.  But with a more favourable point in the cycle of relations between Britain and Argentina in the future, that could all change.