North East votes No to Regional Assembly - 5th Nov 2004
"Regional agenda will continue to be controlled from Whitehall"
"With a resounding 78% No vote, the people of the North East have rejected an elected regional assembly, and with that have put paid to any form of elected regional government in England, outside London for the next 25 years"
Cllr Nic Best, Green Party Spokesperson for Regional Affairs summed up the result, and said:
"But how many of the people voting know that decisions will continue being taken at a regional level:
- by One NorthEast, the regional development agency whose Board is appointed by and answerable to the DTI in London
- by the Government Office of the North East, which remains a bastion of Whitehall within the region
- and by the existing unelected Regional Assembly, made up of local government appointees and placemen?"
"We have and will continue to have regional government in the North East, voting No does not mean that powers will be returned to the local authorities, it just means that decisions will continue to be made by unaccountable QUANGOs."
He concluded:
"Widespread popular support for the principle of an elected regional assembly for the North East was effectively wasted by government's reluctance to devolve any real powers and their insistence on inappropriate linkage to local government reform. They now have a regional agenda that continues to be controlled from Whitehall, which probably suits them fine."
What price democracy? --- 27th Oct 2004
The campaign against a North East regional assembly is using scare tactics over the assembly's costs, says the Green Party
The North East England Green Party today condemned "petty-minded" arguments about the cost on an elected regional assembly for the North East.
Green Party spokesperson Cllr Nic Best said today: "The government has said that an elected assembly will get a £350 million grant diverted from grants currently given to regional QUANGOs, particularly the regional development agency, One NorthEast. In addition, the government has promised £100 million 'new money' as a 'sweetener' for the region.
"And it claims that the assembly running costs will be around £3.5 million, met by a regional precept of around £25 a year on council tax. The 'No' campaign simply doesn't believe the figures and are resorting to scare tactics on cost."
He continued: "Even ignoring claims from the 'Yes' campaign that an elected assembly might influence up to £1 billion spend in the region, that promised £450 million grant is real money and properly spent could make a real difference."
Wealth redistribution
"Of course it comes from income tax, but it is tax from all over the country coming into our region," said the Morpeth councillor, who is also the party's national spokesperson on regional affairs. He continued: "The £3.5 million running cost is the cost of making regional decision-making democractically accountable. And even if that figure were to double over the next five years, the assembly will still be costing the council taxpayer about the same as a large town council.
"Then again," he added, "we'll be losing at least ten local councils in the change to unitary authorities and well over 600 local councillors. That'll be a big saving on council tax which should offset the cost of a regional assembly - and despite what the 'No' campaign are saying, there'll be fewer politicians around, not more."
Loss of local democracy
"To tell the truth," he concluded, "we are more concerned about the loss of local democracy than the cost of an elected assembly. But successive governments have already concentrated powers at regional and national level, and voting 'No' won't return those powers to the local authorities. So we are calling for a 'Yes' vote, but we are also campaigning for more resources and powers to be given to parish councls to restore the loss of local democracy."
