Co-ordination across the greater South West

[whole diary]

[grahame]

The Greater South West - an area that stretches all the way from deepest Cornwall into the Home Counties and close to the Midlands - needs co-ordinated and linked policies and implementation to ensure that the area fulfils its economic and social role within England.  To be powered both by co-ordinated local government and by investment from central government at a similar level to that provided in regions such as The North and such as London.

Whether it's tourism, transport, healthcare, environmental or emergency services (to name but a few) the whole can be so much more than a sum of the parts. Where appropriate that connected approach gets the widest benefit from capital spend, and provides an effective groundwork for systems with a high return in quality of life and economic development, while controlling ongoing operational expenditure.

[PhilWakely]

I've put 'None of the above' although it is a complete contradiction of my views as I wanted to select two choices....

No - Can't improve much on how we do things now.
No - this should all be done country-wide!

The latter would be my ultimate choice but it is nothing more than a Utopian solution since the former is decided by the current political climate.
   

[ellendune]

No - this should all be done country-wide!

But doing it country-wide means we only get the interests of London and the South East because that is where central government is based.  So who would do it country-wide? Not central government!

[SandTEngineer]

No - this should all be done country-wide!

But doing it country-wide means we only get the interests of London and the South East because that is where central government is based.  So who would do it country-wide? Not central government!

Thats the very reason why I voted 'No - each smaller area should be an island' 

[Adelante_CCT]

I have voted, like it - great merit, although I think certain aspects could be done this way I believe others should remain separate.

[grahame]

The "Greater SouthWest" poll is intentionally asking about the broad brush idea for appropriate elements; which elements are appropriate would be better learned from a look at what's included in the Northern Powerhouse and the Midland Engine and their experiences.

Interesting to see the results so far ... I would love more votes from members so that it's starting to have statistically useful numbers, even though the sampling method is the self-selecting "members of the Coffee Shop" one!.

[RichardB]

I've voted "None of the above" because I think the Greater South West is too big a region.  I think it needs to be smaller combinations e.g. the Peninsula Rail Task Force covers Somerset, Devon & Cornwall plus the Unitaries of Plymouth and Torbay.  A good and manageable size both in terms of area and also the actual people (policy makers, officers) needed to make things happen.

I certainly think we need change.  To me, power over English regions is generally too centralised in Whitehall. 

[ellendune]

I've voted "None of the above" because I think the Greater South West is too big a region.  I think it needs to be smaller combinations e.g. the Peninsula Rail Task Force covers Somerset, Devon & Cornwall plus the Unitaries of Plymouth and Torbay.  A good and manageable size both in terms of area and also the actual people (policy makers, officers) needed to make things happen.

I am not sure I agree with this.  Transport to the far SW is affected by Road congestion in Wiltshire and Rail Congestion even further East.  A large regional body can address these issues>

On the other hand I take the point that a very large body may end up favouring, for example, Bristol over Devon and Cornwall.

I certainly think we need change.  To me, power over English regions is generally too centralised in Whitehall. 

I can certainly agree with that

[broadgage]

I think that we are actually heading for an era of LESS Co-ordination across the greater west.

Near the Eastern end of the route at Reading we have a vociferous MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) who seems to believe that whole of the  GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) should be run to maximise the number of standard class seats for Reading commuters over all else.
In London we have a mayor who wants control of all inner suburban routes, to maximise capacity for inner London commuters.
Cross rail is coming, and some perceive a risk of it gobbling up paths and money that are also needed for longer distance services to say Cornwall.

Much further West we are about to have a new "metro mayor" who will presumably want the needs of Bristol and surrounding districts prioritised over all else.

And in the future, further powers will probably be granted to the Welsh assembly. Likely result More and/or better specified trains for the routes serving Wales whilst the far southwest gets downgraded.

[Bmblbzzz]

I feel that the Greater South West as a region doesn't quite make sense. The problem in my mind is not that it's too large, either in area or population, but that it's incohesive. It simply doesn't "feel" like there's much connection in it. Partly it's an awkward shape but also it has no logical centre. Bristol is obviously by far the largest city but it's stuck out in one corner of the region and doesn't serve as a focus for people in Dorset let alone Cornwall, either in terms of employment, administration, culture, population or anything else.

In this way it doesn't hang together as say the Midlands does, centred on Birmingham. The West of England metro-mayor region does make sense (I'm not totally convinced it makes sense as an additional layer of local government) but obviously it's easier cos it's much smaller. If these metro-regions (WoE, Gtr Manchester, West Mids, Mersey, Teeside – there might be a couple of others I've forgotten; London of course) turn out to be a successful idea, perhaps there's room for another one in the GSW around Exeter. Or maybe that would be an exaggeration of the city, I don't know.

I'd like regional cooperation to make sense, I think it can offer benefits, but first of all the region has to make sense and I don't think the Greater South West does.

[TonyK]

Having read the comments, I am not sure whether I like it (as I voted) any more. I'm caught between it being a brilliant idea, or plain barking mad. The middle ground doesn't interest me.

[Trowres]

Grahame's question was posed in a context of general policy and not specific to transport, but I think that the replies so far have provided a useful introduction to some of the issues involved.

The shape of regional coordination depends upon the extent to which common ground can be found; the previous posts give examples of the tensions between the western peninsula, Bristol and the Thames Valley.

However I think that the bigger issue is the way that policy has become detached from a vision of what we might be trying to achieve on this little island, and why. This is compounded, for transport especially, by the current single-issue focus on economic growth (with other issues such as environment, safety, social and quality-of-life relegated to a minor weighting).

There is a natural tendency for networks of many sorts to refine themselves into trunk routes and major key nodes. However I've never seen any analysis of whether the volume-hungry nature of rail and the focus of investment in the south east have taken London beyond the most efficient level of concentration. Economic efficiency aside, it's not obvious that it's the best arrangement for the sanity of English citizens. So... where is the evidence to support a more dispersed economy?

We hear about "economic powerhouses" and see the concentration of jobs in major cities - but there's no exploration of the consequences of that for the many smaller towns and cities. What is our vision? ( dormitory towns sound awfully dull ).

We measure regional productivity in simple GVA terms - without acknowledging that GVA is a poor indicator of the real value of local activities (anyone need food?... or a weekend break?)

So... regional cooperation, yes, but not just for strength and only with a thoughtful appraisal of what it is towards which we should be striving.

[Bmblbzzz]

That makes a lot of sense; but sort of ironically most of it applies at a national (or even global) level.