The 'dark' secrets of devolution?

A Freedom of Information request, which had been made for publication of the minutes of the Cabinet Ministerial Committee of Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions, dating from 1997 and 1998, has been turned down by Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General on the grounds that release would not be in the public interest to release the papers because it would undermine the operation of Government. Digressing slightly, it appears that there is now a move to charge for FOI requests; a report commissioned by the Ministry of Justice has been submitted to the Justice Select Committee found that the number of requests had risen by 25% each year and are being seen as a drain on resources. This rather makes a mockery of the promise contained in the Coalition Programme for Government (page 11):

"We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency".

It is necessary to return to the days of the Brown Government and the year 2007, when on 28th June Gordon Brown appointed Regional Ministers. When the Coalition was formed the Prime Minister's Spokesman was asked on 17 May 2010 if Regional Ministers had been scrapped. He said that the process of completing appointments to the Government was continuing, and that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, "had been very clear on the importance of devolution". On 4 June 2010 the Evening Standard reported that the post of Minister for London had been scrapped. No formal announcements were made in relation to regional ministers, but I believe it correct to say there has been no announcements of any similar appointments by region. However Greg Clark was appointed as a Minister of Cities in July and according to the report on Conservative Home Clark will initially focus on the so-called 'Core Cities' outside of London; Birmingham (West Midlands - UKG), Bristol (South West - UKK), Leeds, Sheffield (Yorkshire and the Humber - UKE), Liverpool, Manchester (North West - UKD), Newcastle (North East - UKC) and Nottingham (East Midlands - UKF). That takes care of 6 of the 9 English regions, those omitted being London (UKI), the South East (UKJ) and East of England (UKH). (Note that I have added the Eurostat NUTS nomenclature for each region at Level 1).

Leading up to point of this post it is necessary that we consider two further links; the Committee of the Regions - from which we learn their raison d'être - and a most illuminating post from Ian Parker-Joseph (IPJonPolitics) to which I linked here.

With the appointment of Greg Clark it is obvious that the regionalisation of England is still 'alive and kicking' - it is also obvious, I maintain, that the reason for Grieve to veto the release of the papers in question is due to the fact it would show too much of the 'elephant in the room', which would be a surprise - not.

Needless to say Grieve can negate my accusation by releasing the damn papers - no?

Just a normal piece of 'flint'?

Caroline Flint virtually bares all (steady male readers, I write in the metaphorical sense) in the Standard, during an 'interview' in which she provides details of her past, details which if we wanted to know we could quite easily ascertain from the internet.


Leaving to one side the 'PR' and 'Spin' aspects of the article, it is important to pay attention to the contradictions contained in what amounts to a 'puff piece' by one who is supposed to be a 'journalist'. The fact she has turned 50 is neither here nor there - and it would have helped if some indication had been given as to what the figure '50' referred. Presumably it did not refer to any aspect of her physical appearance - like the size of her mouth?


She states that energy companies should do something to simplify energy tariffs, yet were not said tariffs just as complicated during her time in government? Also the reason people are paying so much must surely be due the government, of which she was a member, adhering to diktats 'de Bruxelles'? She complains of being used as 'window dressing', yet presumably there was no coercion suffered by her when she posed for pictures such as these? Was not Flint also 'tolerating sexism' when she posed for those pictures? It is not surprising, knowing the standard of journalism currently practiced, that there is not one word on the points I have raised.


In agreeing to this article Flint can be accused of being hypocritical, just as the newspaper - and the journalist writing for that newspaper - can be accused of engaging in 'propaganda' for the promotion of a politician. That is not what journalism is supposed to be about, unless of course said journalist worked for the likes of OK Magazine, or similar publications.


I am fairly certain that were anyone to praise prostitutes and the use thereof, both Flint and Mensch would promptly mount (now there's a thought) their high horse and complain about sexualisation of women - yet is that not what both have done, Flint in this article and Mensch by posing for GQ magazine?


Oh the power of the press - used so expertly by both our government and our politicians!

Err, bit puzzled here.........

According to the Evening Standard:

"This tension will be at the heart of the debate when British MPs vote on an increase in the IMF contribution. A big Tory rebellion is inevitable."

Cameron is quoted by the BBC:

"(the last vote had) allowed for some extra headroom and what we would anticipate doing would be within that headroom."

Ergo, if the last vote contained sufficient 'headroom' to allow Cameron to increase funding to the IMF, how can there be any further debate or vote in Parliament? Even Douglas Carswell appears to be slightly confused here, where he intimates that a vote will be forthcoming on any increase in the UK's contribution to the IMF.

Just saying.............