English Devolution with no Iraq war

[Višeslav]

So, I've been told that the unpopularity of the Iraq war greatly impacted the failure of the English devolution referendum in the Northeast, that people were pissed at Labour & would vote against anything the party proposed.
Of course this is alongside other issues like intra-regional micro regionalism and a general lack of charisma in the campaign for devolution, but I have a reason for hopping on the Iraq train here.

In one of my many "WIP may or may not ever be finished but likely to produce some pretty solid maps" TLs, I have the coalition invade Iraq on the tail end of the Gulf War (extending the UN mandate for the war a little longer which from my understanding wasn't unpopular at the time) and topple Saddam with Shiite & Kurdish support (as well as to a lesser extent with support from anti Saddam Sunnis and almost certainly a few well-placed bribes). This ends up averting the OTL 2003 Iraq war. The realism of this, though something you're welcome to comment on, is not the focus on the question.

The question is:

Without the loss of popularity resulting from its endorsement of the invasion, how much would Labour's chances of getting devolution approved in the referendum change?

 

[CaptainCalvert]

At the time, even Welsh and Scottish devolution were considered a bit of a bold step for many, and these have the advantage of being distinct countries with well defined borders. Even in the places that didn't want independence, devolution - to get away from Westminister - was often acceptable
Once you get to English devolution, you have much less well defined boundaries, so it's harder to work out who goes where and to get acceptance of a plan. Even now, there are some issues with acceptance of directly elected mayors in major cities like Liverpool and Manchester, so thee's a bit of work needed. Conversely,there are a few areas like Yorkshire, Cornwall and Greater London that are well defined, but they are a bit of a minority.
I think you'd have to start with successful Welsh and Scottish devolution then work on English devolution once people see it can work. Hiwever I think that's too long a time frame for Blair's government.

 

[yulzari1]

The North East referendum was not English devolution. It was seen as an attempt to avoid English devolution by demoting England from a nation into a motley collection of ‘regions’. English devolution has never been put to the English who remain directly ruled by the national Parliament.

 

[Julius Vogel]

So, I've been told that the unpopularity of the Iraq war greatly impacted the failure of the English devolution referendum in the Northeast, that people were pissed at Labour & would vote against anything the party proposed.
Of course this is alongside other issues like intra-regional micro regionalism and a general lack of charisma in the campaign for devolution, but I have a reason for hopping on the Iraq train here.

In one of my many "WIP may or may not ever be finished but likely to produce some pretty solid maps" TLs, I have the coalition invade Iraq on the tail end of the Gulf War (extending the UN mandate for the war a little longer which from my understanding wasn't unpopular at the time) and topple Saddam with Shiite & Kurdish support (as well as to a lesser extent with support from anti Saddam Sunnis and almost certainly a few well-placed bribes). This ends up averting the OTL 2003 Iraq war. The realism of this, though something you're welcome to comment on, is not the focus on the question.

The question is:

Without the loss of popularity resulting from its endorsement of the invasion, how much would Labour's chances of getting devolution approved in the referendum change?

I guess it is possible, but the usual narrative is that the Anti regional assembly campaign was just much more nimble.

 

[david31]

The North East referendum was not English devolution. It was seen as an attempt to avoid English devolution by demoting England from a nation into a motley collection of ‘regions’. English devolution has never been put to the English who remain directly ruled by the national Parliament.

I remember at the time looking through the details of the powers supposedly devolved from Westminister and finding out that more powers would actually be moved upwards from the local councils than devolved downwards from central government.

The North East is also not a coherent entity being more a collection of warring tribes than a clearly defined province.

The Mackems and the Smoggies voted against it as the thing would be run by Geordies
The Geordies voted against it because the Mackems and the Smoggies would gang up on them.
The Smoggies voted against it as it would be run by, and in the interests of, those illegitimates up in Tyne & Wear.
The towns in the countryside were afraid that most of the money they paid into it would be spent in the urban conurbations rather than locally.
And the folk living south of the Tees would have voted for a regional assembly - if it was the Yorkshire Regional Assembly!

In a nutshell the North East Regional Assembly was a Westminster construct imposed by those who knew beggar all about the make up of the area.

 

[kham_coc]

The problem is linking it too devolution - because it's not (as English devolution is dissolution of the Union).
What's needed is real powers transfered out of Westminster, with Taxing powers, wich is an anathema to the 'soverignty fantasists'.
All in all the central problem is the deep alienation of the british people from Westminster which isn't solved by regions is solved by reforming westminster (Which by the by mostly means ditching FPTP, even if that's not what they think would solve it).

 

[Discernible]

I remember at the time looking through the details of the powers supposedly devolved from Westminister and finding out that more powers would actually be moved upwards from the local councils than devolved downwards from central government.

The North East is also not a coherent entity being more a collection of warring tribes than a clearly defined province.

The Mackems and the Smoggies voted against it as the thing would be run by Geordies
The Geordies voted against it because the Mackems and the Smoggies would gang up on them.
The Smoggies voted against it as it would be run by, and in the interests of, those illegitimates up in Tyne & Wear.
The towns in the countryside were afraid that most of the money they paid into it would be spent in the urban conurbations rather than locally.
And the folk living south of the Tees would have voted for a regional assembly - if it was the Yorkshire Regional Assembly!

In a nutshell the North East Regional Assembly was a Westminster construct imposed by those who knew beggar all about the make up of the area.

You left out Sand Dancers...

 

[Disraeli's Ghost]

It's still not getting through even without Iraq. If it does, just one more piece of the British nation and constitution butchered by Bliar.

 

[El Pip]

I guess it is possible, but the usual narrative is that the Anti regional assembly campaign was just much more nimble.

I think the 78-22 margin suggests that the idea was also incredibly unpopular, regardless of the skill of the campaigns or the popularity or otherwise of the Blair government at the time

 

[Julius Vogel]

I think the 78-22 margin suggests that the idea was also incredibly unpopular, regardless of the skill of the campaigns or the popularity or otherwise of the Blair government at the time

It's been a while since I last looked at this, but I recall reading somewhere that pre campaign polling had suggested majority support.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

It's been a while since I last looked at this, but I recall reading somewhere that pre campaign polling had suggested majority support.

Then we saw it wasn't a parliament we'd get but a giant county council with delusions of grandeur.

 

[El Pip]

It's been a while since I last looked at this, but I recall reading somewhere that pre campaign polling had suggested majority support.

The Thrasher and Ralling paper on it says all the polling had "Oppose" in the lead among the certain to vote category and that lead only increased throughout the campaign. It appears most of that was drawn from the 'Don't know' category rather than converting supports to oppose. The more people found out about the propose assembly the less they liked it.

If you want to win the vote then Labour proposing an assembly that actually had powers is probably required, the polling also showed that a large majority felt it would make 'no difference' and didn't trust that an elected assembly would actually work in their interests. But such a proposal seems borderline ASB given the personalities and politics involved.

EDIT: I should be clear that all the evidence is that the No campaign was much more effective and probably did influence the winning margin. The point is just that the No campaign was in the lead from the start amongst those who were going to actually turn out to vote.

 

[yulzari1]

I remember at the time looking through the details of the powers supposedly devolved from Westminister and finding out that more powers would actually be moved upwards from the local councils than devolved downwards from central government.

The North East is also not a coherent entity being more a collection of warring tribes than a clearly defined province.

The Mackems and the Smoggies voted against it as the thing would be run by Geordies
The Geordies voted against it because the Mackems and the Smoggies would gang up on them.
The Smoggies voted against it as it would be run by, and in the interests of, those illegitimates up in Tyne & Wear.
The towns in the countryside were afraid that most of the money they paid into it would be spent in the urban conurbations rather than locally.
And the folk living south of the Tees would have voted for a regional assembly - if it was the Yorkshire Regional Assembly!

In a nutshell the North East Regional Assembly was a Westminster construct imposed by those who knew beggar all about the make up of the area.

Or written to ensure it failed.

 

[Višeslav]

Ok so the response I'm getting is a resounding "at best it would fail by a slightly slimmer margin, most regions aren't cohesive enough anyway & the campaign was too poorly handled, Iraq was not a big factor". Is this a correct reading of the responses?

 

[Crazyduck156]

Ok so the response I'm getting is a resounding "at best it would fail by a slightly slimmer margin, most regions aren't cohesive enough anyway & the campaign was too poorly handled, Iraq was not a big factor". Is this a correct reading of the responses?

That and even if it did pass it'd likely end up being a poison chalice in the future like much of Blairs decisions

 

[Višeslav]

That and even if it did pass it'd likely end up being a poison chalice in the future like much of Blairs decisions

Alright, well, thank you all for the detailed and enthusiastic responses. This was great. Way more extensive than I expected the discussion to be. I think it's safe to ask @CalBear or some other mod to lock the thread, I don't really see anything left to discuss.