North East Referendum of November 2004 - Essay Example

North East England Referendum of November 2004 0 Introduction: Traditionally the English people preferred the continuance of the Government in theform of Parliament in the Westminster with least preferences for any other form of government. When the intentions to from Regional Assemblies and an England-wide parliament were debated there had been clear indications of people's preferences for the Parliament in Westminster. This is because of the reason that the English Peoples' trust on the Westminster that the Parliament in the Westminster alone can work for their best interests in the long-term and any changes brought in the form of government will vitiate such care and concern on the people. Moreover the conservative thinking of most of the English people with their reluctance to accept any changes may be another reason for the refusal to consider the development of regional governments. However the Labour government of England had a different view altogether. With disregard to the public opinion the government wanted to push the conservative policies of regionalization of the government. This, the labour government wanted to do as a measure to strengthen the operating mechanisms of the central government in the different regions. With this intention the Government held a referendum in the North East Region of England on the 4th of November 2004, for assessing the public opinion on the regionalization of the government. For whatever reasons, the referendum was rejected overwhelmingly by the voters showing their intention clearly against the formation of any regional assemblies. This paper attempts to discuss in detail among other things, the possible reasons for holding such a referendum, the campaigns made in support and against such referendum, the turnout of the voters and the details of the final results of the referendum. 1.1 A Brief Background: North East region in one of the eight regions of England, that stretches from Scotland to Yorkshire. "The region was created in 1994 and was originally defined as Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, County Durham and Cleveland As part of a reform of local government Cleveland has since been abolished and several unitary districts created." (All Experts) A rich natural heritage makes the region one of the unique locale with its long stretches of coast and extensive upland tracts. The capital of the region is Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The Cathedral city of Durham in this region is the city's political centre and was tipped to get the assembly housed there. Sunderland and Middlesbrough are the other cities of the North East region of England. Basically these cities were industrialized ones. "As such, wages and the standards of living in the region are the lowest in England, with high unemployment the norm" (Andrew Stevens 2004) The region has also returned to the Parliament political bigwigs like Prime Minister Tony Blair himself among others. With this background the government put forth the referendum to the people of North East England to decide on the introduction of a regional government body in the North East region of England. The voters in the region of North East England rejected the proposal for forming a regional assembly in a decisive manner, making the other two planned referenda for different regions shelved by the government at least temporarily. The referendum had a turnout of 47.8 percent, out of which 22.1 percent voted in favour of the regional assembly, while 77.9 percent voted against making their opinion explicit without doubt. 1.2 Government's Views on the Need for a Directly-Elected Regional Assembly: The government of UK had expressed its views on the necessity to have an elected regional assembly for the North East England and with these views only the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had directed the base work far carrying out a referendum in the region as to assess the public opinion for the creation of the elected regional assembly. The North East Constitutional Convention had identified the following reasons for the North East Region to have a regional assembly to represent the people. The North East Constitutional Convention wanted the regional assembly to: Be big enough and have sufficient powers to make a difference Be democratic, open, participative, accountable and inclusive Change the political culture of the North East The Convention also opined that "The powers of local government have been eroded and the vacuum filled with quangos - organisations whose members are chosen by, and accountable only to, Westminster and Whitehall, not to the people whose lives their decisions impact upon." Hence the need for an elected regional assembly is felt by the convention. The Convention also stressed the need for a regional assembly by stating that the region had an astounding history and glorious tradition and history and for some reason or other the region was not able to retain the leadership it created on these areas. The concern is that the region has fallen to the last place and had become the poorest region in England. In order to change this situation it is important that the region get a representation in the form of a regional assembly to regain the lost glory. The government also recognized that the there is an economical imbalance in the country leaving a disparity between the regions. In that the South East Region is the wealthiest and is even wealthier than the European Union Regional Average. But the overdevelopment of this region was at the cost of other regions like North East which remained economically weak and needs representation to push a fair distribution of the nation's economic resources. Apart from the economic deficit, there was also the democratic deficit in the sense that the civil servants and government appointees responsible for the implementation of the government policies cannot make any distinction between the different regions. They will have to apply the same principles to South East as well as North East regions. Because of the economic imbalances, such application of the principles may not work to the advantage of the North East region which is devoid of a fair distribution of the economic resources. This necessitates the creation of a regional assembly for representing the needs of the people of the North East Region. 1.3 Options Put Forth for Referendum: The government while considering the formation of the elected regional assembly for the North East Region of England put forth the following options along with the main question of deciding on the regional assembly: The voters were asked to decide on the type of unitary government that they would like to have for their region. This question was to be decided in the areas where two-tier form of government was existing. Though the main issue was the abolition of the two-tier government existing in the region, there was also the question of the form of government that should be followed after the abolition of the existing structure. This question was also put to vote. Basically the government recommended the adoption of either a single unitary authority for the entire country or smaller institutions which are larger than the existing districts. Apart from these two options, the other proposals made by the government through the Boundary Committee includes the recommendation of keeping intact the 'ceremonial counties' "Voting was to take place on a per-county council-area basis, except that the Cumbria and Lancashire votes will be run as one - since it would be impossible to have option 1 in one and option 2 in another." (WIkipedia) 2.0 Reasons for Holding the Referendum: Before the reasons for holding the referendum can be analysed, it is important that a mention is made about 'Devolution' in England. England, as a country had always remained in opposition for the devolution settlement. The public opinion had always been not in favour of regionalisation with their undaunted faith in the Parliament in the Westminster. Time and again English people have expressed their opinion against devolution. Despite the public opinion which had not been in favour of any regional set up, the Labour government always had been promoting a twin-track plan for regionalization in the form of localized authority centres wherever possible. The strengthening of the Government offices for the regions, setting up of Regional Development Agencies (RDA) for the regional economic development and the Regional Chambers of 'Stakeholders' are the classic examples of the Labour Government of furthering its policies towards regionalization. The Labour Government wanted to push the policy of regionalization for strengthening the regional networks to follow effectively the policies of the Central Government. "The second track of policy, associated closely with Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, was to democratise this decentralised apparatus of central government by establishing elected regional assemblies (ERAs) which would take over the work of the RDAs and the Regional Chambers" (Paper on Devolution) The main person responsible for bringing out the referendum is the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. In order to leave some legacy for his political career, he chose the devolution of which he is considered to be the Champion. Thus the twin-track policy of the government pushing the regionalization forward and the desire of the John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister to leave a political legacy after his term are the main reasons which brought out the referendum in the North East region of England. 3.0 Process of the Referendum: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister made an appraisal of the need for regional assemblies in the year 2003, in regions of North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber. Based on the assessments the Deputy Prime Minister's Office concluded that there is an apparent demand for such a regional set up in the regions where the appraisal was undertaken. However the government withdrew the referenda in the North West Region and the Yorkshire and the Humber on the plea of complexities involved in the electoral process, although the original reason was the knowledge of the government that the referenda will not see its win in those two regions. In July 2004, the government published the Draft Regional Assemblies Bill formally announcing the referendum and the connected debates. The proposals for the elected regional assemblies as laid out by the government included: "25-35 members, elected by the additional member system, led by a small 'cabinet' 'Strategic' role in setting policy objectives and coordinating regional policy actors, but with policy implementation dependent on arm's length assembly 'functional bodies', including RDAs, and on local authorities and other regional 'stakeholders' Strategic role in: economic development; planning; housing; transport; culture, tourism and sport; public health; rural policy; environment; crime reduction; and fire and rescue Funding by block grant from central government plus limited power to 'precept' (surcharge) local council tax" (Paper on Devolution) Due to the pressure from the central government departments unwilling to share their powers the Elected Regional Assemblies were projected to have modest powers only. 4.0 Campaigns for the Referendum: The government wanted two separate campaigns; one advocating 'no' and the other 'yes' for the referendum. The government through the Electoral Commission also announced the allocation of a campaign finding of 100, 000 each to both 'no' and 'yes' campaigns. The purpose of promoting both the campaigns by the government is basically designed to improve the turnout for the referendum. There was only one 'Yes' campaign that came forward to bid for the campaign funding. There were two contenders for the 'No' campaign and there was a rivalry among them about the fitness of each of them to take on against the 'Yes' Campaign. Finally the Electoral commission announced the 'Yes4the North East' as the official campaigners for 'Yes' campaign. The company 'North East Says No Ltd' was selected for the 'No" campaign. According to the Electoral Commission the companies were allowed an expenditure limit of 665,000 out of which an amount of 100,000 will be provided by the Electoral Commission as a state funding. The Electoral Commission reported that "We hope that both organisations will now lead the North East region in informed debate by highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of an elected regional assembly and enable voters to make an informed decision on 4 November." (Media Centre) Out of the two 'No' campaigners, the official campaigner 'North East Says No Ltd' was business led. The other campaigner was advocating the anti-EU policies in the North East Region. The official 'No' campaign was organized by the more Londoners, with the lead taken by a defeated Tory candidate from the region, but proved totally ineffective in the campaign. Similarly the 'Yes' campaign also suffered by lack of professionalism as the whole campaign was organized mostly by academics, Since, these academics lacked the political experience they could not fair well in spite of the support from Labour and Loberal Democrats. Actually the campaigners had no grounding in the local community. "The elected mayor of Middlesbrough, Ray Mallon, proved to be a controversial frontperson for the 'Yes' campaign as his combative style and openly partisan approach was bemoaned by his opponents as avoiding the issues" (Andrew Stevens 2004) It was found that there were no strong arguments in the form of substantial plans of devolution against the 'No' campaign arguments. In fact 'No' campaign commented that the proposed Elected Regional Assembly is 'toothless talking shop' for which there was no vehement replies put forth by the 'Yes' Campaigners. Even the 'Yes' campaigners could present that the proposed assembly was to be considered only as a starting point and it will be entrusted with enormous powers in the due course. This presentation about the Elected Regional Assembly made the voters conclude that the proposed regional assembly would not be able to make any significant contribution to the region which is in need of an economic fillip to be put in place. 4.1 Reasons Cited by 'No' Campaigners: The following were some of the reasons cited by the 'No' Campaigners for the people to vote against the regional assembly: There was no need for a new tier of politicians and it had not been proved that the people of North East England really need a regional assembly to represent their causes With the formation of the new assembly there was no guarantee that the government would provide additional funds for the region The powers of the proposed assembly was highly questionable and the effectiveness of such an institution always remained doubtful. The elected assembly's powers would not extend into the fields of health, education and law and order also it would not have power in the transport field. Since the assembly would precept the council tax to pay for itself local ratepayers would have to pay higher council tax. The formation of an assembly would result in the construction of a new building for the assembly at a great public expense. The increased bureaucracy will result in slow decision-making "A regional assembly would be just another talking-shop for 'upgraded' local politicians and 'downgraded' national politicians. People on the streets are already saying it will be the 'usual suspects' and result in 'jobs for the boys.'"-North East NO campaign Ten Reasons to Say "NO" to an Elected Regional Assembly 5.0 Results of the Referendum: The negative results of the referendum made the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott admit that his plans for 'regional devolution had suffered an emphatic defeat'. According to BBC News (2004) "The total number of people voting against the plans was 696,519 (78%), while 197,310 (22%) voted in favour. Official figures showed 47.8% of the region's 1.9 million voters took part in the all-postal ballot."(BBC News) 5.1 Reasons for the Negative Result: The John Prescott's brain child of Elected Regional Assembly was shown the door emphatically by the voters with a 78-22 'No' which was a strikingly uniform feature. While there was no single identifiable group of people voted for the regional assembly, the referendum turned out to be an overwhelming rejection. As pointed out elsewhere in this paper the conservative outlook of the English people may be the foremost reason for the people voting against the regional assemblies in the referendum. But this alone is not the reason for such an overwhelming decision given by the voters. The following may be considered as some of the other reason which would have led to such a conclusion: The decision of the Tony Blair's government to go after Saddam Hussein and the conflict in Iraq had every reason to influence the decision of the voters in this respect. The general feeling among the people of the region that the North East region was not given a fair treatment as other parts of England in respect of the economic benefits which the region was short of The anti-government and anti-politics protest would also have played a significant role in defeating the referendum. The time taken for the referendum to arrive is also cited as a reason for the overwhelming rejection of the proposal. It took a very long period to announce the referendum and in the meantime even those supported the Labour government in the general elections, preferred to show their discontent towards the government by saying 'No' to the referendum. The change in the tone of the media coverage about the campaign also contributed to the negative result of the referendum. While at the beginning of the campaign, the media supported the idea of regional assembly at the later stage it changed its stance towards projecting the negative factors. This change in the attitude of the media altered the course of the results of the referendum. According to a survey conducted by the ESRC referendum Study, the feelings of the voters can be summarized in the following table: Details 'Yes' Voters 'No' Voters Did not Vote % dissatisfied with the government 42 59 45 % dissatisfied with Prime Minister 33 60 46 % 'almost never' trust politicians to tell the truth 31 51 48 % attack on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein 'unjustified' 34 50 42 Source: Economic and Social Research Council Referendum Study According to a Briefing paper from Economic and Research Council (2005) the fact that the government believed only North East region where the labour party could retain 28 out of the 30 parliamentary seats, by polling nearly 60 percent of the vote in the general elections held in 2001 and the region, where the government controlled 16 out of 25 local authorities would definitely favour the referendum with a thumping majority for 'Yes'. However the people of the region reacted differently to defeat the confidence of the government. According to the Economics and Research Council, this result would have been brought about by the following factors: 1. The referendum was voted by all parts of the region representing all types of voters who vehemently opposed the establishment of a regional assembly 2. Even form the ruling Labour party, less than one out of four people voted in favour of the regional assembly 3. A general frustration among the majority of the public that the North East region had been neglected in providing a fair share of the government spending 4. It is the 'Yes' voters alone that had been convinced about any positive impact t that the elected regional assembly would create on the economic development of the region 5. The effectiveness of 'No' campaign was very strong that it influenced those who were indecisive about the referendum to decide against the regional assembly 6. The seriousness and commitment among the 'No' voters to stop the proposal to form the regional assembly was stronger than the force of the 'Yes' voters in bringing the regional assembly in to existence. In spite of the fact that the North East region was a neglected area by the Central government and is in a economically disadvantageous position devoid of its share of the resources of the nation and there is absolutely a necessity for some sort of a representation, people decided that the regional assembly is not the solution to represent their cause. This may be due to the effective campaign from the 'No' camp, that the regional assembly would not have the necessary muscle and power to get what the people from the region need economically. According to the study conducted by ESRC on the North East England Referendum the perceived impact of the people on the Elected Regional Assembly can be tabulated as: % Believing 'Yes' Voters "No' Voters Did not Vote Taxes would be 'a lot'/ 'a little' higher 48 80 52 Region's economy would be 'a lot'/ 'a little' better 62 10 20 Region's voice in Europe would be 'a lot'/ 'a little' stronger 54 16 22 Pride in the region would be 'a lot'/ 'a little' stronger 39 11 13 Ordinary people will have more say in how region is governed 63 29 30 Regional Assembly would be a 'waste of money' 15 80 45 Source: Economic and Social Research Council Referendum Study 6.0 Impact of the Referendum: There are absolutely no chances for the present labour government to bring back the issue of devolution in England at least for the rest of the term of the government. This is because of the very decisive majority expressed in favour of Status-quo in the administration of the country and the region. Since there were no alternative plans developed by the government for the eventuality of the referendum being turned down, the 'No' vote has left the region amidst confusion as to what shall be the future course of action for the governance of the region. As Sanford (2006) commented "far more public attention on the existing (unelected) assembly than had ever happened before, and appears to have led to some public confusion as to why a regional assembly still existed when it had been rejected in a referendum" Such a state of no decision on regional representation has given new impetus to the New Local Government Networks to take advantage of the situation. "The way that local and central government work with regional bodies over the forthcoming months will set a pattern of relationships that will endure for many years to come. It is vital that they get this right. Whether the legitimacy of regional working comes to focus on the RDAs and GOs or on the aggregation of local interests in the regional assemblies, will have huge implications for both regions themselves and the nature of governance in the UK" (Robinson, E 2004 p1) The Local governing bodies like Regional Development Authority and Government Office for the North East gained momentum in taking up issues for finding solutions. Several arguments and opinions flew on the role to be assumed by the local governing body appointed by the central government 'One North East' after the referendum failed to give rise to the evolution of the new regional assembly. Some were of the view that the One North East had to take a decisively lead role since with the referendum seeing a rejection it can be assumed that the institution One North East automatically had its all pervasive role to play in the economic development of the North East Region. "Some thought the RDA now has a responsibility to fill that void, but others felt it could not do that legitimately because it is an appointed agency of Government, not answerable to 'the region" (Keith Shaw et al 2006) There were comments on the effectiveness of the functioning of the other regional government agency the Government Office for the North East (GONE) in the aftermath of the referendum. It was generally opined that GONE could still fill up the void created by the failure of the referendum to create a regional assembly. This was considered very much feasible because GONE was the only agency that represented regional issues to the central government. GONE was generally seen to be effective by the public and especially when it had representations from more government departments, it could as well increase the effectiveness of its contribution to the welfare of the North East England. However Pearce argues that 'Government Offices have been encouraged to be more active in representing their region's interests in Whitehall', his research confirms that 'tangible evidence that these efforts have secured significant policy impacts has yet to be fully tested' (Pearce, 2005 p 16). It also was evident that the existing unelected North East Assembly was affected very badly by the 'No' referendum. The assembly became too weak and it could no longer take the regional leadership. The legitimacy and credibility of the un-elected assembly was completely destroyed by the rejection voiced by the people on the referendum. There were also other views expressed, finding that the existing assembly was weakened not only by the referendum but also by the creation of the Association of North East Councils. Such creation of the new councils was regarded as splitting the existing assembly and such splitting shall have the effect of weakening the Assembly's political clout to a great extent. In view of the summary rejection of the referendum on the formation of the elected regional assembly in the North East England, there had been a cascading effect on the other regions also. There have been requests to abolish even the unelected assembly functioning in the South East England. Similarly requests have been rasied for the abandonment of the plans of the government to formulate the regional assembly for the South East England. Boris Johnson MP commented "The next Conservative Government will scrap the existing regional chambers, abolish regional planning, and implement real decentralisation, restoring power to people away from Whitehall and its regional quangos. We will give more control to local people who really know what is best for themselves, their families and their local communities." 7.0 Key Findings of the Referendum: The Key Findings of the referendum are as below: There was a higher turnout than expected for voting on the referendum. In spite of the demographic imbalances, the turnout was more as the people considered the issue of greater importance. The 'no' decision was handed over by the people more because of their discontent with the government with politicians and their activities It was observed that even those who did not vote had a similar negative view on the formation of the regional assembly and also that their opinions would not have changed even if the issue was presented to them by a more powerful institutions There was a general feeling that even those who voted 'yes' wanted the assembly to have more powers than intended to be provided to the elected assembly Another consideration that went with the 'No' voters was that even those who voted 'no' strongly believed that any sort of an assembly was not the right solution to the problem of the North East England. The referendum in North East was quite different from those conducted in Scotland and Wales. In spite of being a stronghold for the Labour party, the region rejected the initiative of the regional assembly mooted by the party, whereas in Scotland and Wales it was not the case "There was little to choose between the two sides in terms of information and knowledge about the proposed assembly but "no" voters were especially sceptical about the impact it would have on increasing prosperity or improving public services in the region."(ESRC Society Today) A very significant proportion of the voters had a personal interest in the result of the referendum and they wanted that whatever decision 'yes' or 'No' opted by them should prevail. 8.0 Conclusion: Thus based on the public reaction as depicted by the results of the referendum, the possibility of devolution and the resultant Elected Regional Assembly in the North East England appeared to be an almost impossibility. It was surprising that even in a region where the domination of the ruling Labour party is prominent, the people voted against the formation of a regional governing body. This shows the public opinion is totally against the policy of the government in bringing about the regionalization. Analysis also point out that the general dissatisfaction among the public that the region was not getting a fair treatment in respect of the allocation of the resources of the country as compared to other parts of the country was also another major cause for the overwhelming rejection of the proposal. Another important factor that contributed for the negative result of the referendum is the suspicion in the minds of the voters as to the effectiveness of the regional assembly in representing their voices in getting more economic benefits from the central government. In this case only those voted 'Yes' did think that the regional assembly would have a positive impact. For the 'No' voters, "it would waste money and lead to higher taxes and have little impact in boosting the region's economy or voice in Europe". (Briefing paper of ERC) The effectiveness of the 'No' campaigners also had a serious impact on the decisiveness of the referendum in that the message that the regional assembly would be ineffective and prove to be a sheer waste of money was carried to the voters more effectively. There appeared to be a lack of conviction even among the 'Yes' voters that such a regional assembly would have the strength to represent the region effectively. The 'No' campaign was so effective that it made those who were indecisive about the issue to vote 'No'. In general as pointed out by the ERC Briefing Paper "Opinions about the establishment of an elected Regional Assembly appear to have played a crucial role in influencing behaviour, and for many voting 'No' was not incompatible with continuing support for a party whose official policy was 'Yes'." References: 1. Andrew Stevens (2004) North East England Rejects Elected Regional Assembly http://www.citymayors.com/politics/uk_neref.html 2. All Experts North East England http://en.allexperts.com/e/n/no/north_east_england.htm 3. BBC News North East Vots No to Assembly http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3984387.stm 4. Boris Johnson MP (2004) Time to scrap South East England's Regional Assembly http://www.boris-johnson.com/archives/2004/11/time_to_scrap_south_east_engla_1.php 5. Briefing paper from Economic and Research Council (2005) Devolution Briefings: Why the North East Said 'No: the 2004 referendum on an Elected Regional Assembly Economic and Research Council Briefing No. 19 February 2005 6. ESRC Society Today Structures, Governance and Constitutional Change http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Plain_English_Summaries/governance_and_citizenship/structure/index61.aspxComponentId=15633&SourcePageId=11746 7. Keith Shaw, Fred Robinson, Gill Davidson and Bill Hopwood (2006) Governance and Governing in the Post-Referendum North East Northumbria University http://www.vonne.co.uk/resources/research/docs/Governance.pdf 8. Media Centre Electoral Commission announce lead campaigners for North East referendum The Electoral Commission http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/newsreleasecorporate.cfm/news/363 9. North East NO campaign Ten Reasons to Say "NO" to an Elected Regional Assembly http://www.northeastnocampaign.co.uk/10reasons.html 10.Paper on Devolution Devolution in 'England http://www.devolution.ac.uk/Final%20Conf/Devolution%20in%20England.pdf 11. Pierce, G (2005) ' Emerging Patterns of Governance in the English Regions' in Regions. The Newsletter of the Regional Studies Association. No 260. December. 12. Robinson, E (2004) Living with Regions. London: New Local Government Network. 13. Sandford, M (2006) English Regions Devolution Monitoring Report. Devolution Monitoring Programme 2006-2008. Constitution Unit, University of London. 14. Wikipedia Northern English devolution referenda, 2004 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_England_referendums,_2004 Read More