The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against their European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
It also has the very damaging effect that most people in London simply don't understand how life functions outside it (and the other way around, for the matter of that). It still worries me that two years ago on this very forum I spoke to somebody who thought three-bed ex council semis in Cannock would be worth around £450,000 (the actual figure is £130,000). And that's not the cheapest of areas.
In "hooray for brexit" news. We're moving from Upper Thames Street to a new European HQ in Liverpool Street, should mean around 400 new jobs on London.
I think, although my French is awful, it's a comment on the 'yellow jacket movement' spreading throughout Europe and indeed beyond with startling rapidity.
Whether this is true, or partially true, or just a video peddling fake news I wouldn't know.
The French are revolting but that is a pretty normal state of affairs.
The French revolting is normal.
Lots of people channeling their inner Blackadder today!
True , well the French after the revolution giving each male some land to live on and be independent. Sure had an effect on birth control as the eldest son usually did not want to split the land up he had been given. One can see how their small landowners, are so defensive of their way of life.
In contrast the British aristocracy preferred enclosure acts.
Well Edmond, it appears that Charles himself agrees with me on this occasion. Not that I disagree with your general point. Many, probably most, people thankfully recognise the need to contribute to the society where they earn their living. Those that don't (Amazon comes to mind) are indeed parasites as someone suggested well down thread.
I don't mean it's offensive to Charles to make that connection, I mean it's offensive to citizens of everywhere, who have no connection with the tax-evading scumbags he's talking about, who (admittedly anecdotally) seem to be the biggest nationalistic tub-thumpers out there.
I think you are reading too much it to it.
I am explicitly refering to the tax evading scumbags
An expat, who pays their taxes in a different jurisdiction, is not one of those. They clearly retain links to there home country but are making a life elsewhere. That’s totally fine - it will mean they have 2 sets of loyalties not no loyalties.
Redistributing from the very wealthy to the victims of the process is simply a sensible precaution, as Southam observes.
Except it won't work. The very rich - and most of their wealth - are too mobile, and besides there aren't enough of them to make a lasting difference. You can only confiscate someone's flat in Knightsbridge and spend the money on a new clinic in Bradford once.
Bashing the very rich - especially widely loathed figures like Philip Green - is easy and earns cheap points, but it's a distraction from the the real nub of the problem, which is, as ever, Black Rook's First Law of Politics: every voter wants a pony, but they expect someone else to pay for it.
Thus, old people love higher taxes (provided that they don't apply to property,) because they don't have to pay them, and it means everyone else is shelling out for their inflation-busting pensions and to have someone feed them and mop up their wee when they get decrepit. Young people loathe higher taxes (unless they apply to a remote cohort of "rich" people and companies, however defined,) because most of them already feel financially distressed and they're desperate to save for the deposit on a shoebox flat to get out of renting. Many of them also don't want the property wealth of the old taxed, because they are hoping to inherit a fat wad of cash when their ancestors kick the bucket.
And thus we have the extraordinary (and, in the long term, completely unsustainable) situation in which the state finds itself. Old people vote Conservative as a means to tax the crap out of the young to pay for their care and pensions; young people vote for Corbynite Labour in - irony of ironies - a desperate search for relief from being taxed more. Of course, if Labour does come to power and tries to square the circle by taxing the crap out of business instead, then that won't work: if businesses struggle to make a profit then they will just sack people, go bankrupt, or move operations abroad. And in the meantime, Governments of all stripes put difficult choices off until a never-arrived-at tomorrow through deficit spending and piling more money onto the national debt.
If we are serious about both inequality and sustainable public finances then there is only one programme that will do the trick: build houses like there's no tomorrow, tax businesses and incomes liberally but tax the absolute shit out of property wealth, get people of means to subsidise the public services they receive (fees to see your GP, contributions towards your own social care, and so on,) and obsess a bit more over skills and education and a bit less over the NHS.
Of course, this would require the electorate to grow up and make sacrifices themselves, rather than expect everybody else to look after them. The First Law applies: one is not hopeful, to put it mildly.
I think, although my French is awful, it's a comment on the 'yellow jacket movement' spreading throughout Europe and indeed beyond with startling rapidity.
Whether this is true, or partially true, or just a video peddling fake news I wouldn't know.
Yes, but I don't think that's bad news. It's good news that the people are doing something that works against interest the liberal elites.
The French are revolting but that is a pretty normal state of affairs.
The French revolting is normal.
Lots of people channeling their inner Blackadder today!
True , well the French after the revolution giving each male some land to live on and be independent. Sure had an effect on birth control as the eldest son usually did not want to split the land up he had been given. One can see how their small landowners, are so defensive of their way of life.
In contrast the British aristocracy preferred enclosure acts.
Which is one reason, admittedly among a number, why we industrialised much more rapidly than they did.
In "hooray for brexit" news. We're moving from Upper Thames Street to a new European HQ in Liverpool Street, should mean around 400 new jobs on London.
Pity it isn't Liverpool rather than Liverpool Street.
In "hooray for brexit" news. We're moving from Upper Thames Street to a new European HQ in Liverpool Street, should mean around 400 new jobs on London.
Pity it isn't Liverpool rather than Liverpool Street.
In "hooray for brexit" news. We're moving from Upper Thames Street to a new European HQ in Liverpool Street, should mean around 400 new jobs on London.
Pity it isn't Liverpool rather than Liverpool Street.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against their European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
It also has the very damaging effect that most people in London simply don't understand how life functions outside it (and the other way around, for the matter of that). It still worries me that two years ago on this very forum I spoke to somebody who thought three-bed ex council semis in Cannock would be worth around £450,000 (the actual figure is £130,000). And that's not the cheapest of areas.
Yes, surely.
Britain has very high regional inequality (London vs Cannock) and very high wealth inequality (Primrose Hill v Barking).
The two stem from different causes but are often conflated.
There are, perhaps, not “Two Nations” but three or four, and little dialogue between them.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against their European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
It also has the very damaging effect that most people in London simply don't understand how life functions outside it (and the other way around, for the matter of that). It still worries me that two years ago on this very forum I spoke to somebody who thought three-bed ex council semis in Cannock would be worth around £450,000 (the actual figure is £130,000). And that's not the cheapest of areas.
Yes, surely.
Britain has very high regional inequality (London vs Cannock) and very high wealth inequality (Primrose Hill v Barking).
The two stem from different causes but are often conflated.
There are, perhaps, not “Two Nations” but three or four, and little dialogue between them.
More like 10. One of the interesting (or damaging) features of the UK is how regional and parochial it remains despite bei so centralised. The culture of Staffordshire is totally different from that of Gloucestershire even though they're only fifty miles apart. Even within regions there are massive variations and rivalries (Salisbury vs Swindon, Rangers v Celtic...)
One of the big failures of our political system is that there is no forum where these people can meet and discuss these differences and find a way round them. The Commons was meant to do it but for a number of practical reasons doesn't. How many big national organisations with a truly regional slant are there? Once I get past the Roman Catholic Church I'm struggling.
But there again, most of the others are no better - look at the US where the Senate is meant to fulfil that function.
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive than the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
Birmingham is quite unique in a lot of ways - for reasons I've never quite grasped it almost seems to have given up being England (let alone the UK's) second city and let Manchester get on with it...
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
Insofar as all of Corbyn's policies are very London-centric as is his Shadow Cabinet (all four top roles are held by London MPs) he'd almost certainly be worse.
The devolutionary experiment could have been an interesting start, but the inequalities, the funding gaps and the determination to subordinate the regional governments outside Northern Ireland to the will of the Labour Party through a rigged electoral system (which amusingly came back to haunt them in Scotland in 2011) and f course the further emphasis on London was a very serious mistake that set proper devolution not just back but pretty well off the table.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive than the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
Oh absolutely. The UK would benefit first from federalisation (with the English Government moved somewhere up North,) and second from a redistribution of power from these national units from localities. Obviously some baby steps have been made in this direction with the metro mayors, but in most of England local government is micromanaged to the extent that the only decisions it has left to make are how frequently to collect the bins and which potholes to fill in first. I don't know if things are that bad in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they were.
London - as both a sinkhole of public investment and an over-mighty nexus of political power - desperately needs cutting down to size.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive than the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
Birmingham is quite unique in a lot of ways - for reasons I've never quite grasped it almost seems to have given up being England (let alone the UK's) second city and let Manchester get on with it...
It falls between two stools. It's just too close to London to really assert its independence and just too far away to be a proper satellite in the way Brighton or Oxford are.
But as it marks the dividing line (because it is around Birmingham that all road, rail and water transport converges and is buggered) between London focussed and not London focussed. This helpfully leaves the likes of Manchester and to a lesser extent Leeds free to be more independent.
There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.
Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.
Really, it's about distrust of experts.
But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.
The reason that Britain and other places have seen slowing growth is not because the elites are out of touch, but because demographic drag means slowing economic growth, and the rise of technology means that highly skilled workers produce so much more than the average.
Populism - to me - is claiming there are simple answers to complex problems.
If you want to solve the UK's problems, you need to take Germany or Switzerland's education systems (with their strong emphasis on apprenticeships and on preparing all for the world of work), you need to change the benefits system so it encourages work, you need to raise the retirement age, and you need to move away from a taxation system that discourages saving. These are long term solutions to the UK's problems. But they are not "populist". Quite the opposite.
Our globalised economy is very good at creating wealth. The issue is how it is distributed, not just in monetary terms, but also in terms of opportunities, health outcomes, the environment and so on. If you’re well-off and you’re not a social democrat you’re a fool. Either you accept redistribution (ie, paying more tax) within the framework of a managed, wealth-creating, capitalist economy, or you end up losing everything when it’s all swept away. Your choice, my friends!!
If only there were a social democratic party to vote for.
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
Insofar as all of Corbyn's policies are very London-centric as is his Shadow Cabinet (all four top roles are held by London MPs) he'd almost certainly be worse.
The devolutionary experiment could have been an interesting start, but the inequalities, the funding gaps and the determination to subordinate the regional governments outside Northern Ireland to the will of the Labour Party through a rigged electoral system (which amusingly came back to haunt them in Scotland in 2011) and f course the further emphasis on London was a very serious mistake that set proper devolution not just back but pretty well off the table.
To give credit where it’s due, I think Prescott almost got it with his regional assemblies idea. The problem was he wasn’t radical enough (given that at that point New Labour had become drunk on centralised power). What he proposed was essentially another layer of local government, another expensive talking shop. The powers that would have been given didn’t go far enough to justify their establishment. Metro mayors are just the same beast in a different guise.
Local government in this country is effectively neutered. They are administrators having to pass out whatever (increasingly) meagre pot they’re handed by national government to distribute in the best way they can to keep their cities and regions basically running day-to-day. Their policy making powers are miniscule at best. They are no longer fit for purpose.
The tweet rather presupposes that there is a mind in the Shadow Cabinet capable of being made up.
Corbyn wants out, as do many of his inner circle. They truly believe that the EU will be a brake on their plans for mass nationalisation, capital controls, state aid interventions, regional banks etc etc
How much of this is really restricted by the EU is a debating point.
There are also plenty of people telling the inner team that Leave voters in the North will sit on their hands in the next GE if Corbyn comes out for Remain/BINO.
Well Edmond, it appears that Charles himself agrees with me on this occasion. Not that I disagree with your general point. Many, probably most, people thankfully recognise the need to contribute to the society where they earn their living. Those that don't (Amazon comes to mind) are indeed parasites as someone suggested well down thread.
I don't mean it's offensive to Charles to make that connection, I mean it's offensive to citizens of everywhere, who have no connection with the tax-evading scumbags he's talking about, who (admittedly anecdotally) seem to be the biggest nationalistic tub-thumpers out there.
I think you are reading too much it to it.
I am explicitly refering to the tax evading scumbags
An expat, who pays their taxes in a different jurisdiction, is not one of those. They clearly retain links to there home country but are making a life elsewhere. That’s totally fine - it will mean they have 2 sets of loyalties not no loyalties.
He who is loyal to two countries is a traitor twice.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive than the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
Birmingham is quite unique in a lot of ways - for reasons I've never quite grasped it almost seems to have given up being England (let alone the UK's) second city and let Manchester get on with it...
When the first phase of HS2 is finished Birmingham will start morphing into a suburb of London - at least insofar as it will become a dormitory for lots of high wage earners who are nonetheless priced out of buying anything bigger than a broom cupboard in the ludicrous London housing market.
I sometimes wonder if that wasn't the entire reason why Cameron and Osborne were so keen on the project. They hoped that gentrifying Birmingham would flip a load of seats into the Tory column, because wealthy metro-liberal Millenial Londoners would show their gratitude by voting Conservative. Yeah right.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive than the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
Birmingham is quite unique in a lot of ways - for reasons I've never quite grasped it almost seems to have given up being England (let alone the UK's) second city and let Manchester get on with it...
It falls between two stools. It's just too close to London to really assert its independence and just too far away to be a proper satellite in the way Brighton or Oxford are.
But as it marks the dividing line (because it is around Birmingham that all road, rail and water transport converges and is buggered) between London focussed and not London focussed. This helpfully leaves the likes of Manchester and to a lesser extent Leeds free to be more independent.
It’s not location, nor even agglomeration per se.
The only city that comes close to matching London’s economic performance since the millennium is Cambridge, just an hour or so from Liverpool Street. It’s not a satellite, but has a role in the global economy selling advanced manufacturing (computer chips).
Modern growth is understood as an ability to export value to the global economy.
Economists are still trying to figure out what the magic formula is, but it seems to be something like: good commuter transport network (widening the talent pool) + research university (smartening the talent pool) + devolutionary policies allowing city-wide strategic investments.
Agglomeration then acts as a multiplier.
There’s a good book about the relative fates of LA vs SF since the 80s if anyone is interested.
However as I said, most people in this country are *not* interested and we seem to have accepted that Cannock (which NEEDS Birmingham to prosper) et al will continue in relative decline.
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
Insofar as all of Corbyn's policies are very London-centric as is his Shadow Cabinet (all four top roles are held by London MPs) he'd almost certainly be worse.
The devolutionary experiment could have been an interesting start, but the inequalities, the funding gaps and the determination to subordinate the regional governments outside Northern Ireland to the will of the Labour Party through a rigged electoral system (which amusingly came back to haunt them in Scotland in 2011) and f course the further emphasis on London was a very serious mistake that set proper devolution not just back but pretty well off the table.
To give credit where it’s due, I think Prescott almost got it with his regional assemblies idea. The problem was he wasn’t radical enough (given that at that point New Labour had become drunk on centralised power). What he proposed was essentially another layer of local government, another expensive talking shop. The powers that would have been given didn’t go far enough to justify their establishment. Metro mayors are just the same beast in a different guise.
Local government in this country is effectively neutered. They are administrators having to pass out whatever (increasingly) meagre pot they’re handed by national government to distribute in the best way they can to keep their cities and regions basically running day-to-day. Their policy making powers are miniscule at best. They are no longer fit for purpose.
That I agree with. And with the move to tiny single tier councils it's actually going to get worse, not better.
Well Edmond, it appears that Charles himself agrees with me on this occasion. Not that I disagree with your general point. Many, probably most, people thankfully recognise the need to contribute to the society where they earn their living. Those that don't (Amazon comes to mind) are indeed parasites as someone suggested well down thread.
I don't mean it's offensive to Charles to make that connection, I mean it's offensive to citizens of everywhere, who have no connection with the tax-evading scumbags he's talking about, who (admittedly anecdotally) seem to be the biggest nationalistic tub-thumpers out there.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive than the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
Oh absolutely. The UK would benefit first from federalisation (with the English Government moved somewhere up North,) and second from a redistribution of power from these national units from localities. Obviously some baby steps have been made in this direction with the metro mayors, but in most of England local government is micromanaged to the extent that the only decisions it has left to make are how frequently to collect the bins and which potholes to fill in first. I don't know if things are that bad in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they were.
London - as both a sinkhole of public investment and an over-mighty nexus of political power - desperately needs cutting down to size.
Interestingly, the federalisation argument was often torpedoed by the now Brexiteers who were suspicious the regionalisation of the UK (England in particular) was part of some vast EU conspiracy to create administrative units for the eventual federalisation of Europe.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive than the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
Oh absolutely. The UK would benefit first from federalisation (with the English Government moved somewhere up North,) and second from a redistribution of power from these national units from localities. Obviously some baby steps have been made in this direction with the metro mayors, but in most of England local government is micromanaged to the extent that the only decisions it has left to make are how frequently to collect the bins and which potholes to fill in first. I don't know if things are that bad in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they were.
London - as both a sinkhole of public investment and an over-mighty nexus of political power - desperately needs cutting down to size.
Interestingly, the federalisation argument was often torpedoed by the now Brexiteers who were suspicious the regionalisation of the UK (England in particular) was part of some vast EU conspiracy to create administrative units for the eventual federalisation of Europe.
Brexit is about doing all the wrong things for perhaps the right reasons.
In "hooray for brexit" news. We're moving from Upper Thames Street to a new European HQ in Liverpool Street, should mean around 400 new jobs on London.
Pity it isn't Liverpool rather than Liverpool Street.
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
I’d be interested in understanding what you mean at a practical level by “investment in jobs...”.
London is Britain’s and Europe’s only truly global city. It reservoir of employment opportunities mean that it’s only logical for global businesses to have their focus there.
The problems with redistribution as a means of producing a fairer society are many, but probably the worst is that it makes the Government the benefactor, and a section of society the recipient, entrenching inequality not solving it. It gives Governments, which are deeply flawed organisations consisting as they do of deeply flawed individuals, far too much power.
The solution isn't 'giving people a bit back', it is creating a situation where it's more possible to get out of poverty by hard work and application. By the same token, rather than bemoaning big companies not paying any tax (I agree they should be chased for what they owe if possible) we should be creating a situation whereby there are new companies constantly rising up that can disrupt multinational cartels.
The Government needs to get out of the way in most areas, and be aggressively effective in those areas where action is required. But instead, it gorges itself on public money, encroaches into every area of our lives, and fails on basics.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive than the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
Oh absolutely. The UK would benefit first from federalisation (with the English Government moved somewhere up North,) and second from a redistribution of power from these national units from localities. Obviously some baby steps have been made in this direction with the metro mayors, but in most of England local government is micromanaged to the extent that the only decisions it has left to make are how frequently to collect the bins and which potholes to fill in first. I don't know if things are that bad in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they were.
London - as both a sinkhole of public investment and an over-mighty nexus of political power - desperately needs cutting down to size.
Interestingly, the federalisation argument was often torpedoed by the now Brexiteers who were suspicious the regionalisation of the UK (England in particular) was part of some vast EU conspiracy to create administrative units for the eventual federalisation of Europe.
As Alexander Hamilton states in Hamilton - giving Manchester (say) Parliament (and given that it needs to be rebuilt at a cost of £bns it makes sense to rebuild or move it) doesn't move where the Money is...
Our globalised economy is very good at creating wealth. The issue is how it is distributed, not just in monetary terms, but also in terms of opportunities, health outcomes, the environment and so on. If you’re well-off and you’re not a social democrat you’re a fool. Either you accept redistribution (ie, paying more tax) within the framework of a managed, wealth-creating, capitalist economy, or you end up losing everything when it’s all swept away. Your choice, my friends!!
Catching up with the thread, and saw this, which I 100% agree with. When globalisation swept away most trade barriers, I thought at the time that the global inequalities were going to prove unsustainable and some painful adjustments in the West were coming as jobs migrated to the developing world (or people from the developing world would come to us and accept low pay). What I'd not foreseen is how differently the effect was on different classes - the highly-educated and the financial experts float effortlessly on the tide, while everyone vulnerable to competition from the developing world at best stagnates. Redistributing from the very wealthy to the viuctims of the process is simply a sensible precaution, as Southam observes.
Not just a sensible precaution but the morally right thing to do.
But there is no social democratic party to vote for. Alas.
There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.
Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.
Really, it's about distrust of experts.
But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.
The reason that Britain and other places have seen slowing growth is not because the elites are out of touch, but because demographic drag means slowing economic growth, and the rise of technology means that highly skilled workers produce so much more than the average.
Populism - to me - is claiming there are simple answers to complex problems.
If you want to solve the UK's problems, you need to take Germany or Switzerland's education systems (with their strong emphasis on apprenticeships and on preparing all for the world of work), you need to change the benefits system so it encourages work, you need to raise the retirement age, and you need to move away from a taxation system that discourages saving. These are long term solutions to the UK's problems. But they are not "populist". Quite the opposite.
Our globalised economy is very good at creating wealth. The issue is how it is distributed, not just in monetary terms, but also in terms of opportunities, health outcomes, the environment and so on. If you’re well-off and you’re not a social democrat you’re a fool. Either you accept redistribution (ie, paying more tax) within the framework of a managed, wealth-creating, capitalist economy, or you end up losing everything when it’s all swept away. Your choice, my friends!!
If only there were a social democratic party to vote for.
I was more amused by the preening virtue in, “If you’re well-off and you’re not a social democrat, you’re a fool.” A magnificent exercise in look how clever and right I am.
The French are revolting but that is a pretty normal state of affairs. Whether it is farmers burning livestock, air traffic controllers screwing up peoples' holidays, the banlieues of Paris becoming no go areas and exporting their violence from their slums into the centre, it is something that happens pretty much every year, several times.
We in the UK don't really do that sort of thing. We tried it in 2011 but didn't get a taste for it. Why not? I think, until recently, we had a much more cohesive society where strands of the disaffected still thought that the establishment got their problems and were trying to address them, no matter how ineffectually and incompetently. In France if you wanted attention you really had to burn something.
I fear that we may move closer to the French example for a number of reasons. Firstly, the arrogance and hypocrisy of those who want to overturn the Brexit decision simply because they know best and are so happy to conclude that the great unwashed were deceived or simply ignorant. That is a very French attitude. If millions of our fellow citizens feel that the system no longer respects their views we have a situation where they may need to try something else.
Secondly, the much slower growth since the GFC has made the inequality of distribution of that growth more stark. When the economy was burbling along at 3-4% a year some of that growth bled out to the provinces even if the majority was in London and the south east. Now, for several years, much of the country has a seemingly unending recession.
Thirdly, that perception of recession has been increased by the loss of many semi skilled jobs and better paid jobs outside of London. This has had many iniquitous effects. Local economies are depressed by lack of demand, shops close and High Streets are boarded up, the more ambitious youth head to the big smoke leaving behind the less capable, it is a vicious circle.
As my second and third points show this is a complex and difficult problem which may well be as beyond the capability of our government to fix (even if they had the will) as that of France. I believe that we risk undermining the cohesiveness of our society at our peril.
The French revolting is normal. So is the Conservative response when they see their permanent hold on power threatened in any way.
For example when Blair had his large majority , the blockade of refineries by farmers , lorry drivers , etc egged on by many in the Conservative Party.This brought the country to a near stand still. The Police took no action in direct contrast to the miners strike twenty years earlier.
The same type of action , will happen if Corbyn ever gains power.
Remind me about Labour and flying pickets again
Plus who was it that cheered on the muppets lobbing fire extinguishers etc off a building they were trashing?
The problems with redistribution as a means of producing a fairer society are many, but probably the worst is that it makes the Government the benefactor, and a section of society the recipient, entrenching inequality not solving it. It gives Governments, which are deeply flawed organisations consisting as they do of deeply flawed individuals, far too much power.
The solution isn't 'giving people a bit back', it is creating a situation where it's more possible to get out of poverty by hard work and application. By the same token, rather than bemoaning big companies not paying any tax (I agree they should be chased for what they owe if possible) we should be creating a situation whereby there are new companies constantly rising up that can disrupt multinational cartels.
The Government needs to get out of the way in most areas, and be aggressively effective in those areas where action is required. But instead, it gorges itself on public money, encroaches into every area of our lives, and fails on basics.
Mr. Twelve, in or out of the EU, carving England up is unacceptable. All that's required is an English Parliament with powers equal to Holyrood.
I would agree if I felt a pan-English government would succesfully manage the disparities in each region. However I fear it would just be Westminster MK II.
Perhaps the problem is twofold. Both the structure of our government and the people who run it. After all, in the Industrial Age the central government effectively and efficiently managed the country by making it one big production line. With the Empire gone and industry exported, that has broken down.
Mr. B, it's true there are two uses of 'quite', but also true that increasing numbers of people use the incorrect version and similar terms ('very unique' etc).
Grammar Nazis didn't win the war against the l33t by being soft.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive than the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
Oh absolutely. The UK would benefit first from federalisation (with the English Government moved somewhere up North,) and second from a redistribution of power from these national units from localities. Obviously some baby steps have been made in this direction with the metro mayors, but in most of England local government is micromanaged to the extent that the only decisions it has left to make are how frequently to collect the bins and which potholes to fill in first. I don't know if things are that bad in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they were.
London - as both a sinkhole of public investment and an over-mighty nexus of political power - desperately needs cutting down to size.
Interestingly, the federalisation argument was often torpedoed by the now Brexiteers who were suspicious the regionalisation of the UK (England in particular) was part of some vast EU conspiracy to create administrative units for the eventual federalisation of Europe.
My concept of federalisation for the UK would involve the creation of a single English Parliament. The objection to creating regions in England - as distinct from strong local government - is that most of the regions would be artificial (only Greater London and Yorkshire constitute natural units of an appropriate size,) that they would create too many layers of Government, and that they would be talking shops. You can't create proper law-making Parliaments for all the English regions, because England itself is actually a thing, it is unnecessary and undesirable to try to split it into (mainly artificial) cantons, and nobody wants nine or ten separate Governments and legal systems operating within it. This is not, lovely as it is, Belgium. Or Bosnia.
The European Commission has made some really daft proposals in the past. I distinctly remember that it tried to create some kind of strategic regional development plan lumping together the south coast of England with the north coast of France - until both the French and British Governments told it where to stick that idea.
There's an interesting article on Quilette about Brexit and the rise of populism, that I think misses the point.
Essentially, it makes the case that Brexit and the like are really all about how "the elites" are out of touch, and make decisions for their own benefits rather than the population as a whole, and that "national populism" is the correct response to this.
Really, it's about distrust of experts.
But here's the thing I think it misses. You see, the most successful economies in the last two decades have actually been the ones with the technocratic and out of touch leaders: China and Singapore, being the most obvious examples.
The reason that Britain and other places have seen slowing growth is not because the elites are out of touch, but because demographic drag means slowing economic growth, and the rise of technology means that highly skilled workers produce so much more than the average.
Populism - to me - is claiming there are simple answers to complex problems.
If you want to solve the UK's problems, you need to take Germany or Switzerland's education systems (with their strong emphasis on apprenticeships and on preparing all for the world of work), you need to change the benefits system so it encourages work, you need to raise the retirement age, and you need to move away from a taxation system that discourages saving. These are long term solutions to the UK's problems. But they are not "populist". Quite the opposite.
Our globalised economy is very good at creating wealth. The issue is how it is distributed, not just in monetary terms, but also in terms of opportunities, health outcomes, the environment and so on. If you’re well-off and you’re not a social democrat you’re a fool. Either you accept redistribution (ie, paying more tax) within the framework of a managed, wealth-creating, capitalist economy, or you end up losing everything when it’s all swept away. Your choice, my friends!!
If only there were a social democratic party to vote for.
I was more amused by the preening virtue in, “If you’re well-off and you’re not a social democrat, you’re a fool.” A magnificent exercise in look how clever and right I am.
Mr. P, people have already seen the original 'Project Fear' prophecies of doom proved false. You'd be better off blaming those who claimed immediate catastrophe with overblown predictions, which were (correctly) disbelieved, than the electorate for not believing them then or believing forecasts of the Apocalypse now.
You encapsulate the Remain problem. "They refuse to listen to reason, or facts." Exactly. There are people who don't share your views, so they are obviously wrong. Populism is something popular with which you disagree. But you only disagree because you know better.
It must be awful to live among such ignorant people. You have my sympathies.
Oh dear. This is exactly the point.
Before the vote there were predictions that we would suffer economically as a result. Which is what happened. That is objective fact.
Because the scale of the hit does not match the most apocalyptic predictions, Leave voters dismiss ALL the predictions, even the ones that were objectively correct.
Now we are facing disruption in medical supplies. The Government is buying fridges like it's Black Friday. That is objective fact.
But leavers insist there is no risk to medical supplies. Not that the scale of the risk is exaggerated, that there is zero risk, that any risk is Fake News.
That is not true, and those sort of lies are dangerous.
Until we actually experience flights grounded and medication stranded in Calais Brexiteers have every right to claim 'fake news' and 'project fear'. Anything other than full blown cliff edge Brexit too can be excused by the Brexiteers as a sell out or a dilution of the dream.
The Brexiteers may well be right and the reality of no deal really is no big deal. However if it does turn out that the fake news or project fear were in fact true, Johnson and Mogg, Davis and Raab will have some explaining to do.
Johnson and friends will either all be shown up as the political geniuses and saviours of the nation they claim or more likely as scoundrels and charlatans.
Mr. Twelve, in or out of the EU, carving England up is unacceptable. All that's required is an English Parliament with powers equal to Holyrood.
Why not? Some arbritrary boundaries drawn in mediaeval times are no basis to deny people proper local governance in the 21st Century. We should adopt the German system and split England in 4 or 5 regions with a federal Westminster handljng naitonal level matters for the regions plus Scotland, Wales and NI.
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
To give credit where it’s due, I think Prescott almost got it with his regional assemblies idea. The problem was he wasn’t radical enough (given that at that point New Labour had become drunk on centralised power). What he proposed was essentially another layer of local government, another expensive talking shop. The powers that would have been given didn’t go far enough to justify their establishment. Metro mayors are just the same beast in a different guise.
Local government in this country is effectively neutered. They are administrators having to pass out whatever (increasingly) meagre pot they’re handed by national government to distribute in the best way they can to keep their cities and regions basically running day-to-day. Their policy making powers are miniscule at best. They are no longer fit for purpose.
I moved South as it was too depressing living in the entitled north. People expect a living to be given to them, whereas in the South people tend to work hard for it. Both my wife and I could do our jobs in the North and be much better off, but I would prefer to raise my kids somewhere with a better attitude to work.
With regards to regions what is needed is a strategy not influenced by Civil Service who can’t see past London oxbridge triangle. I think some of what I am saying is reflected in the BBC move to Salford, and the development of Media in Manchester. The Government has other levers to move governmental departments to other parts of the country, but not in a piecemeal way but a strategic one - transport to south wales, science and engineering in Birmingham, enough to develop groups of supporting industries.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against their European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
It also has the very damaging effect that most people in London simply don't understand how life functions outside it (and the other way around, for the matter of that). It still worries me that two years ago on this very forum I spoke to somebody who thought three-bed ex council semis in Cannock would be worth around £450,000 (the actual figure is £130,000). And that's not the cheapest of areas.
Yes but significantly more people are property owners in Cannock than in London, Cannock even has a Tory MP now
In "hooray for brexit" news. We're moving from Upper Thames Street to a new European HQ in Liverpool Street, should mean around 400 new jobs on London.
Pity it isn't Liverpool rather than Liverpool Street.
I think I'd quit and find a job in Paris!
Try visiting Liverpool. A more interesting city than you might imagine with some beautiful architecture, good galleries and beautiful countryside.
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
I’d be interested in understanding what you mean at a practical level by “investment in jobs...”.
London is Britain’s and Europe’s only truly global city. It reservoir of employment opportunities mean that it’s only logical for global businesses to have their focus there.
There will always be a place for London. It is in many ways the First City of the world. But just because it is a success story doesnt mean that there’s a need for everything to be centralised there. If we had better links and infrastructure to help connect the UK (which is after all a small island) there is less need for such a London focus. HS2 is an idea in that vein, although it doesn’t go far enough.
Our globalised economy is very good at creating wealth. The issue is how it is distributed, not just in monetary terms, but also in terms of opportunities, health outcomes, the environment and so on. If you’re well-off and you’re not a social democrat you’re a fool. Either you accept redistribution (ie, paying more tax) within the framework of a managed, wealth-creating, capitalist economy, or you end up losing everything when it’s all swept away. Your choice, my friends!!
Catching up with the thread, and saw this, which I 100% agree with. When globalisation swept away most trade barriers, I thought at the time that the global inequalities were going to prove unsustainable and some painful adjustments in the West were coming as jobs migrated to the developing world (or people from the developing world would come to us and accept low pay). What I'd not foreseen is how differently the effect was on different classes - the highly-educated and the financial experts float effortlessly on the tide, while everyone vulnerable to competition from the developing world at best stagnates. Redistributing from the very wealthy to the viuctims of the process is simply a sensible precaution, as Southam observes.
Not just a sensible precaution but the morally right thing to do.
But there is no social democratic party to vote for. Alas.
The SNP are social democratic as are most LDs still just about.
I notice RT live stream are calling todays protests in Paris "Round 4" as if it was some boxing match. To be honest, I think we should offer Tyson Fury to go over and sought them out, not matter how many bricks are lobbed at him, he is a bit like the terminator.
Don't know about anywhere else, but my small town suffers from the myopia of local politicians. Born and raised in the area, they have generally done well in comparison to their peers. Their mission now seems to be keep everything the way they have always known it. They turned down a Sainsburys about a decade ago as it would "harm small shops." Result, the next town over got a huge Morrisons. McDonalds, TK Maxx, etc followed, along with dozens of smaller concerns. The small shops here continued to decline. This week, they turned down an Aldi and KFC for the same reason. There are no chain fast food, coffee shops here. Why would there be? Not worth the hassle. Only the co-op as a supermarket, just like 50 years ago. Which appears to be just how they like it.
Mr. Twelve, in or out of the EU, carving England up is unacceptable. All that's required is an English Parliament with powers equal to Holyrood.
I would agree if I felt a pan-English government would succesfully manage the disparities in each region. However I fear it would just be Westminster MK II.
Parliaments do rather have this tendency to try to accrue as much power to themselves as possible, We would be rather reliant on this one obeying a self-denying ordnance and actually passing significant authority down to local Government.
Relocating it well away from London (Leeds might be a good bet) ought also to help.
Of course, none of this will happen. Short of London getting obliterated by an asteroid, it will continue to suck more and more life out of the rest of the country. And one suspects that a great many MPs only take any interest in life beyond the M25 when they're forced to do their constituency surgeries, and would much rather they didn't have to bother even with those.
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
To give credit where it’s due, I think Prescott almost got it with his regional assemblies idea. The problem was he wasn’t radical enough (given that at that point New Labour had become drunk on centralised power). What he proposed was essentially another layer of local government, another expensive talking shop. The powers that would have been given didn’t go far enough to justify their establishment. Metro mayors are just the same beast in a different guise.
Local government in this country is effectively neutered. They are administrators having to pass out whatever (increasingly) meagre pot they’re handed by national government to distribute in the best way they can to keep their cities and regions basically running day-to-day. Their policy making powers are miniscule at best. They are no longer fit for purpose.
I moved South as it was too depressing living in the entitled north. People expect a living to be given to them, whereas in the South people tend to work hard for it. Both my wife and I could do our jobs in the North and be much better off, but I would prefer to raise my kids somewhere with a better attitude to work.
With regards to regions what is needed is a strategy not influenced by Civil Service who can’t see past London oxbridge triangle. I think some of what I am saying is reflected in the BBC move to Salford, and the development of Media in Manchester. The Government has other levers to move governmental departments to other parts of the country, but not in a piecemeal way but a strategic one - transport to south wales, science and engineering in Birmingham, enough to develop groups of supporting industries.
I agree completely with what you say in the second paragraph.
Mr. Twelve, perhaps, but carving England into pieces just creates discord and permanently embeds it in the body politic whilst at the same either denying powers equal to Holyrood or creating different rates of tax, policies of education etc within England, which is nuts.
An English Parliament located further north would stand a better chance either than the London-centric Westminster or slicing England up into pieces of addressing problems.
Mr. Fire, the Anglo-Welsh border more or less dates to the 8th or 9th century and was based on Anglo-Saxons on one side and Welsh on the other. That's not arbitrary, the difference in cultures was significant (particularly on inheritance law which is why the Welsh never managed to pose a threat, later, to Norman England). The Scottish border has moved about a bit, and the Scots are more recent arrivals, but there is a different sense of identity and legal system there.
Not to mention Wales and Scotland already have devolution, so an English Parliament wouldn't want to and couldn't in practice extend beyond the borders of England.
Mr. Nakht, it's worth noting broadcasters do seem to be covering parts of the north, including Leeds, more than they did a year or two ago.
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
I’d be interested in understanding what you mean at a practical level by “investment in jobs...”.
London is Britain’s and Europe’s only truly global city. It reservoir of employment opportunities mean that it’s only logical for global businesses to have their focus there.
There will always be a place for London. It is in many ways the First City of the world. But just because it is a success story doesnt mean that there’s a need for everything to be centralised there. If we had better links and infrastructure to help connect the UK (which is after all a small island) there is less need for such a London focus. HS2 is an idea in that vein, although it doesn’t go far enough.
The issue is transport *within* cities, not connecting to London. Our rail infrastructure might be creaky, but we are densely populated. No one is that far from London. That’s one advantage we have over, say, France.
Transport investment needs to be focused on widening the effective talent pool of Birmingham et al. Proper commuter systems for our our top 10 or 12 cities.
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
I’d be interested in understanding what you mean at a practical level by “investment in jobs...”.
London is Britain’s and Europe’s only truly global city. It reservoir of employment opportunities mean that it’s only logical for global businesses to have their focus there.
But quite a lot of those global businesses based in London are moving their jobs to the regions, precisely because London’s success makes it so expensive to have those jobs located in London. And the reality is that very few jobs actually need to be based at a company’s head office.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against their European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
It also has the very damaging effect that most people in London simply don't understand how life functions outside it (and the other way around, for the matter of that). It still worries me that two years ago on this very forum I spoke to somebody who thought three-bed ex council semis in Cannock would be worth around £450,000 (the actual figure is £130,000). And that's not the cheapest of areas.
Yes but significantly more people are property owners in Cannock than in London, Cannock even has a Tory MP now
If I'm honest that surprises me. Do you have the figures to hand?
It's no good having cheap house prices if wages are so low you can't scrape together a deposit.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive than the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
Oh absolutely. The UK would benefit first from federalisation (with the English Government moved somewhere up North,) and second from a redistribution of power from these national units from localities. Obviously some baby steps have been made in this direction with the metro mayors, but in most of England local government is micromanaged to the extent that the only decisions it has left to make are how frequently to collect the bins and which potholes to fill in first. I don't know if things are that bad in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they were.
London - as both a sinkhole of public investment and an over-mighty nexus of political power - desperately needs cutting down to size.
We also need a written constitution that gives local government rights (and obligations), ending central government's ability to meddle, re-organise and override at will.
Why not? Some arbritrary boundaries drawn in mediaeval times are no basis to deny people proper local governance in the 21st Century. We should adopt the German system and split England in 4 or 5 regions with a federal Westminster handljng naitonal level matters for the regions plus Scotland, Wales and NI.
Ideally we would try to follow a basic principle of all power and authority deriving from the lowest practical point.
So individuals/families are responsible for everything that they can do.
Anything they can't do is delegated up to local communities (parishes or districts depending on how detailed you want to be)
Anything they can't do is delegated up to Counties/metropolitan authorities/cities
Anything they can't do is delegated up to regions (if necessary)
Only those things which cannot be done at any of the lower tiers ends up as the remit for national Government.
Unfortunately the current system is that national Government takes everything and then hands out scraps of authority to the lower tiers.
Of course, none of this will happen. Short of London getting obliterated by an asteroid, it will continue to suck more and more life out of the rest of the country. And one suspects that a great many MPs only take any interest in life beyond the M25 when they're forced to do their constituency surgeries, and would much rather they didn't have to bother even with those.
York would be the perfect place with good transport links. It's also still technically legal to use a longbow to kill a Scotsman within the confines of its city walls.
Macron strikes me as an example of what Lampedusa wrote in The Leopard: “For things to remain the same , everything must change”.
He gave the illusion of change (young, new party etc) but was not really that different to his predecessors and has been depressingly similar to them in his caving in to the demonstrators’ demands.
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
I’d be interested in understanding what you mean at a practical level by “investment in jobs...”.
London is Britain’s and Europe’s only truly global city. It reservoir of employment opportunities mean that it’s only logical for global businesses to have their focus there.
But quite a lot of those global businesses based in London are moving their jobs to the regions, precisely because London’s success makes it so expensive to have those jobs located in London. And the reality is that very few jobs actually need to be based at a company’s head office.
That's not true for the tech sector though where many companies are moving offices into London. Microsoft is a prime example they have development centres in London (Paddington) and Cambridge but almost zero development in Reading (it's sales, marketing and support there). Likewise Amazon (Shoreditch ) and Google & Facebook (both Kings Cross)..
On topic, this seems to be a protest movement with all kinds of totally contradictory goals, brought together by a Facebook algorithm change. I think Macron just needs to sit it out and see what happens when people notice the people they're protesting with have exactly opposed goals to them. He's not up for election until 2022, a lot can happen between now and then.
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
I’d be interested in understanding what you mean at a practical level by “investment in jobs...”.
London is Britain’s and Europe’s only truly global city. It reservoir of employment opportunities mean that it’s only logical for global businesses to have their focus there.
There will always be a place for London. It is in many ways the First City of the world. But just because it is a success story doesnt mean that there’s a need for everything to be centralised there. If we had better links and infrastructure to help connect the UK (which is after all a small island) there is less need for such a London focus. HS2 is an idea in that vein, although it doesn’t go far enough.
The issue is transport *within* cities, not connecting to London. Our rail infrastructure might be creaky, but we are densely populated. No one is that far from London. That’s one advantage we have over, say, France.
Transport investment needs to be focused on widening the effective talent pool of Birmingham et al. Proper commuter systems for our our top 10 or 12 cities.
But we're very bad at it. The Chase Line from Walsall to Rugeley via Cannock has just had overhead cables put in. It's two years late and 30% over budget. The trains were due to run from last Christmas - as matters stand they are not going in at the imminent timetable change and may not be running until May.
Was three years of disruption and £115 million really worth it to electrify thirty miles of track?
And just look at the shambles on the Great Western Main Line.
Theresa May will probably fall this year and here is why.
Instead of a VONC in the government or a VONC in the Tory leader, a third VONC is possible on Tuesday, namely a VONC in Theresa May as prime minister.
The most recent occasion when the opposition tabled a motion of no confidence in a particular government minister was in June this year, in respect of transport secretary Chris Grayling. The procedure has nothing to do with the FTPA and if the minister loses the vote they are out. They don't get two weeks' grace as the government would.
The reason Labour might take this route is because they would have the DUP on board, who have indicated that they still have confidence in the government but have lost it in the prime minister.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against their European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
It also has the very damaging effect that most people in London simply don't understand how life functions outside it (and the other way around, for the matter of that). It still worries me that two years ago on this very forum I spoke to somebody who thought three-bed ex council semis in Cannock would be worth around £450,000 (the actual figure is £130,000). And that's not the cheapest of areas.
Yes but significantly more people are property owners in Cannock than in London, Cannock even has a Tory MP now
Yes London is voting more for Labour. They probably are ignorant to the fact that when Labour talk about the Rich it is them. it I probably more than London but typified by London. If you draw a line from Cambridge to Cheltenham and down to Bristol a large amount of housing wealth sits below this line - it is like a different country. In these areas rural areas used to not vote Labour but Libdem. Labour are concentrated in the cities, and tend to be the liberal arts Labour not working class labour. People who can afford to have a conscience. It is very different to the Labour Party whee I grew up in the north - that was a Tories closed our factory working class labour.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against their European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
It also has the very damaging effect that most people in London simply don't understand how life functions outside it (and the other way around, for the matter of that). It still worries me that two years ago on this very forum I spoke to somebody who thought three-bed ex council semis in Cannock would be worth around £450,000 (the actual figure is £130,000). And that's not the cheapest of areas.
Yes but significantly more people are property owners in Cannock than in London, Cannock even has a Tory MP now
If I'm honest that surprises me. Do you have the figures to hand?
It's no good having cheap house prices if wages are so low you can't scrape together a deposit.
68% of those in Cannock Chase District are home owners outright or with a mortgage, in London renters overtook owners in 2016 for the first time with 898, 000 privately rented households and 883, 000 home owners, add in social housing renters in London and the gap is even bigger.
Wages in Cannock are at most half those in London but house prices in London are over 4 times those in Cannock
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
To give credit where it’s due, I think Prescott almost got it with his regional assemblies idea. The problem was he wasn’t radical enough (given that at that point New Labour had become drunk on centralised power). What he proposed was essentially another layer of local government, another expensive talking shop. The powers that would have been given didn’t go far enough to justify their establishment. Metro mayors are just the same beast in a different guise.
Local government in this country is effectively neutered. They are administrators having to pass out whatever (increasingly) meagre pot they’re handed by national government to distribute in the best way they can to keep their cities and regions basically running day-to-day. Their policy making powers are miniscule at best. They are no longer fit for purpose.
I moved South as it was too depressing living in the entitled north. People expect a living to be given to them, whereas in the South people tend to work hard for it. Both my wife and I could do our jobs in the North and be much better off, but I would prefer to raise my kids somewhere with a better attitude to work.
With regards to regions what is needed is a strategy not influenced by Civil Service who can’t see past London oxbridge triangle. I think some of what I am saying is reflected in the BBC move to Salford, and the development of Media in Manchester. The Government has other levers to move governmental departments to other parts of the country, but not in a piecemeal way but a strategic one - transport to south wales, science and engineering in Birmingham, enough to develop groups of supporting industries.
Macron strikes me as an example of what Lampedusa wrote in The Leopard: “For things to remain the same , everything must change”.
He gave the illusion of change (young, new party etc) but was not really that different to his predecessors and has been depressingly similar to them in his caving in to the demonstrators’ demands.
For somebody who isn't French, putting aside the fuel tax, all the other stuff that has caused widespread discontent seems so incredibly minor.
What, you think they should use academic performance to determine who should get into massively oversubscribed university places...outrageous.
What, you think it should be possible to dismiss somebody from a job during a probationary period if they are shown to be utter shit...disgraceful..
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
I’d be interested in understanding what you mean at a practical level by “investment in jobs...”.
London is Britain’s and Europe’s only truly global city. It reservoir of employment opportunities mean that it’s only logical for global businesses to have their focus there.
But quite a lot of those global businesses based in London are moving their jobs to the regions, precisely because London’s success makes it so expensive to have those jobs located in London. And the reality is that very few jobs actually need to be based at a company’s head office.
It is an infuriating thing in the Oil and Gas industry.
All of the expertise, all the service companies, all of the infrastructure for offshore oil and gas is in Aberdeen. It is a global not just a national centre.
And yet many - perhaps most - companies insist on having a sizeable office in London. Then to justify that they move random sections of operations (Exploration always being a favourite) down to London. This means that anyone working on those projects has to be flying up and down to Aberdeen for meetings with contractors or for offshore visits which costs a fortune in both money and, more importantly, time.
And all because the directors of these companies want to have their head office in London.
Theresa May will probably fall this year and here is why.
Instead of a VONC in the government or a VONC in the Tory leader, a third VONC is possible on Tuesday, namely a VONC in Theresa May as prime minister.
The most recent occasion when the opposition tabled a motion of no confidence in a particular government minister was in June this year, in respect of transport secretary Chris Grayling. The procedure has nothing to do with the FTPA and if the minister loses the vote they are out. They don't get two weeks' grace as the government would.
The reason Labour might take this route is because they would have the DUP on board, who have indicated that they still have confidence in the government but have lost it in the prime minister.
Welcome.
A vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister *is* by definition a vote of no confidence in the government. It is telling the Queen to commission somebody else.
Mr. Twelve, perhaps, but carving England into pieces just creates discord and permanently embeds it in the body politic whilst at the same either denying powers equal to Holyrood or creating different rates of tax, policies of education etc within England, which is nuts.
An English Parliament located further north would stand a better chance either than the London-centric Westminster or slicing England up into pieces of addressing problems.
Mr. Fire, the Anglo-Welsh border more or less dates to the 8th or 9th century and was based on Anglo-Saxons on one side and Welsh on the other. That's not arbitrary, the difference in cultures was significant (particularly on inheritance law which is why the Welsh never managed to pose a threat, later, to Norman England). The Scottish border has moved about a bit, and the Scots are more recent arrivals, but there is a different sense of identity and legal system there.
Not to mention Wales and Scotland already have devolution, so an English Parliament wouldn't want to and couldn't in practice extend beyond the borders of England.
Mr. Nakht, it's worth noting broadcasters do seem to be covering parts of the north, including Leeds, more than they did a year or two ago.
Although we do have differing opinions on the point, I do think that if an English government were ever to be established, locating its seat in a different part of the country to the South East would certainly be a positive.
This is not me being anti-London or having a chip on my shoulder by the way. I appreciate what it does for the country and why it is so important. The problem is that when everything is so heavily concentrated in one place it is obvious that the focus of those based there is going to be on that place. The UK can be proud of London, but it deserves to be more than London.
Mr. eek, 'quite unique' is an oxymoron. Unique means one of a kind. Something is either unique or not.
An oxymoron requires opposed meaning. "Quite unique" is a pleonasm.
If "quite" is used to mean to the utmost or most absolute extent or degree, then surely that would just be reinforcing that said uniqueness is without question?
Theresa May will probably fall this year and here is why.
Instead of a VONC in the government or a VONC in the Tory leader, a third VONC is possible on Tuesday, namely a VONC in Theresa May as prime minister.
The most recent occasion when the opposition tabled a motion of no confidence in a particular government minister was in June this year, in respect of transport secretary Chris Grayling. The procedure has nothing to do with the FTPA and if the minister loses the vote they are out. They don't get two weeks' grace as the government would.
The reason Labour might take this route is because they would have the DUP on board, who have indicated that they still have confidence in the government but have lost it in the prime minister.
I wonder how many people in Labour have noticed that yet. And to be honest I do expect May to have to leave immediately after Tuesday vote - the £2000 I will collect as Lidington becomes PM by default (he is deputy PM and has zero interest in becoming leader) just shows how bad people are at thinking through the steps...
Of course, none of this will happen. Short of London getting obliterated by an asteroid, it will continue to suck more and more life out of the rest of the country. And one suspects that a great many MPs only take any interest in life beyond the M25 when they're forced to do their constituency surgeries, and would much rather they didn't have to bother even with those.
York would be the perfect place with good transport links. It's also still technically legal to use a longbow to kill a Scotsman within the confines of its city walls.
Macron strikes me as an example of what Lampedusa wrote in The Leopard: “For things to remain the same , everything must change”.
He gave the illusion of change (young, new party etc) but was not really that different to his predecessors and has been depressingly similar to them in his caving in to the demonstrators’ demands.
TBF it's a 6-month postponement of a single tax increase, triggered by a form of protest that came out of nowhere (or more specifically, Palo Alto) and understandably knocked everyone on their arse.
There's a lot to be said for a tactical retreat in a situation like that; With a normal protest movement there's a risk that giving way on one thing encourages people to force you to give way on another, but since these people have such wildly conflicting aims they may not come out well from being asked, "what do you want next?". Thatcher also made tactical retreats before taking on the miners; If you're not prepared to fight, you need to play for time until you are.
Mr. Twelve, perhaps, but carving England into pieces just creates discord and permanently embeds it in the body politic whilst at the same either denying powers equal to Holyrood or creating different rates of tax, policies of education etc within England, which is nuts.
An English Parliament located further north would stand a better chance either than the London-centric Westminster or slicing England up into pieces of addressing problems.
Mr. Fire, the Anglo-Welsh border more or less dates to the 8th or 9th century and was based on Anglo-Saxons on one side and Welsh on the other. That's not arbitrary, the difference in cultures was significant (particularly on inheritance law which is why the Welsh never managed to pose a threat, later, to Norman England). The Scottish border has moved about a bit, and the Scots are more recent arrivals, but there is a different sense of identity and legal system there.
Not to mention Wales and Scotland already have devolution, so an English Parliament wouldn't want to and couldn't in practice extend beyond the borders of England.
Mr. Nakht, it's worth noting broadcasters do seem to be covering parts of the north, including Leeds, more than they did a year or two ago.
There are also a very significant identity and cultural differences between Cornwall and Tyneside (not to mention the 600 mile distance), yet you insist both should governed under the same umbrella?
With regards to regions what is needed is a strategy not influenced by Civil Service who can’t see past London oxbridge triangle. I think some of what I am saying is reflected in the BBC move to Salford, and the development of Media in Manchester. The Government has other levers to move governmental departments to other parts of the country, but not in a piecemeal way but a strategic one - transport to south wales, science and engineering in Birmingham, enough to develop groups of supporting industries.
Tick. The only good reason for any Government department other than the Treasury, the Foreign Office, and (possibly) Justice to stay in London is inertia, coupled with archaic working practices.
There's no good reason why, for example, the Department of Work and Pensions could not relocate to Newcastle. It would be a pain in the arse for ministers, who might end up having to travel up there and stay for three days a week for work, but is that any worse than life for millions of night and shift workers who may only see their families at the weekend, and are paid a fraction of the money? Much greater use can also be made of virtual conferencing, and MPs absent on essential business should be able to cast their votes in Parliament remotely.
Theresa May will probably fall this year and here is why.
Instead of a VONC in the government or a VONC in the Tory leader, a third VONC is possible on Tuesday, namely a VONC in Theresa May as prime minister.
The most recent occasion when the opposition tabled a motion of no confidence in a particular government minister was in June this year, in respect of transport secretary Chris Grayling. The procedure has nothing to do with the FTPA and if the minister loses the vote they are out. They don't get two weeks' grace as the government would.
The reason Labour might take this route is because they would have the DUP on board, who have indicated that they still have confidence in the government but have lost it in the prime minister.
Welcome.
A vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister *is* by definition a vote of no confidence in the government. It is telling the Queen to commission somebody else.
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
I’d be interested in understanding what you mean at a practical level by “investment in jobs...”.
London is Britain’s and Europe’s only truly global city. It reservoir of employment opportunities mean that it’s only logical for global businesses to have their focus there.
There will always be a place for London. It is in many ways the First City of the world. But just because it is a success story doesnt mean that there’s a need for everything to be centralised there. If we had better links and infrastructure to help connect the UK (which is after all a small island) there is less need for such a London focus. HS2 is an idea in that vein, although it doesn’t go far enough.
The issue is transport *within* cities, not connecting to London. Our rail infrastructure might be creaky, but we are densely populated. No one is that far from London. That’s one advantage we have over, say, France.
Transport investment needs to be focused on widening the effective talent pool of Birmingham et al. Proper commuter systems for our our top 10 or 12 cities.
But we're very bad at it. The Chase Line from Walsall to Rugeley via Cannock has just had overhead cables put in. It's two years late and 30% over budget. The trains were due to run from last Christmas - as matters stand they are not going in at the imminent timetable change and may not be running until May.
Was three years of disruption and £115 million really worth it to electrify thirty miles of track?
And just look at the shambles on the Great Western Main Line.
The Beeching cuts were the most short-sighted piece of economic vandalism ever to hit this country. I understand the reasoning behind it at the time, but it has decimated regional links.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against their European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
It also has the very damaging effect that most people in London simply don't understand how life functions outside it (and the other way around, for the matter of that). It still worries me that two years ago on this very forum I spoke to somebody who thought three-bed ex council semis in Cannock would be worth around £450,000 (the actual figure is £130,000). And that's not the cheapest of areas.
Yes but significantly more people are property owners in Cannock than in London, Cannock even has a Tory MP now
If I'm honest that surprises me. Do you have the figures to hand?
It's no good having cheap house prices if wages are so low you can't scrape together a deposit.
68% of those in Cannock Chase District are home owners outright or with a mortgage, in London renters overtook owners in 2016 for the first time with 893, 000 rented households and 885, 000 home owners.
Wages in Cannock are at most half those in London but house prices in London are almost 4 times those in Cannock
Mr. Ace, negative. The excess of words does not convey the same meaning, and something being 'quite' a one-off is a contradiction in terms.
Again, your pedantry is leading you into absurd certainties.
It is, of course, possible for things to be unique in different ways, if one considers their various characteristics. Entirely unique is perfectly acceptable grammatically.
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against their European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
It also has the very damaging effect that most people in London simply don't understand how life functions outside it (and the other way around, for the matter of that). It still worries me that two years ago on this very forum I spoke to somebody who thought three-bed ex council semis in Cannock would be worth around £450,000 (the actual figure is £130,000). And that's not the cheapest of areas.
Yes but significantly more people are property owners in Cannock than in London, Cannock even has a Tory MP now
If I'm honest that surprises me. Do you have the figures to hand?
It's no good having cheap house prices if wages are so low you can't scrape together a deposit.
House prices are the market raw in tooth and claw. Prices are cheap in less desirable places economically. So despite Leicester having a growing population (over 16% increase in 2001-11) house prices are as low as Cannock. It is because Leicester has the second lowest Gross Household Disposeable Income in the UK. Prices are low, despite continued immigration, because people are skint.
Theresa May will probably fall this year and here is why.
Instead of a VONC in the government or a VONC in the Tory leader, a third VONC is possible on Tuesday, namely a VONC in Theresa May as prime minister.
The most recent occasion when the opposition tabled a motion of no confidence in a particular government minister was in June this year, in respect of transport secretary Chris Grayling. The procedure has nothing to do with the FTPA and if the minister loses the vote they are out. They don't get two weeks' grace as the government would.
The reason Labour might take this route is because they would have the DUP on board, who have indicated that they still have confidence in the government but have lost it in the prime minister.
Welcome.
A vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister *is* by definition a vote of no confidence in the government. It is telling the Queen to commission somebody else.
Would the Speaker not accept a motion that refers only to the prime minister? Formally it is the monarch who appoints every government minister - it's her government, not May's - so if the Commons can single out Grayling why can they not single out May?
Successive governments have had incredibly awful policies as far as the regions go. New Labour could have gotten it, but they became fixated on the cult of London like all governments do, and where they did invest in the regions it was disproportionately in favour of ‘success stories’ like Manchester or other big cities. Which is fine if you live in one of those places, less great if you’re not. Cameron made the same mistake to some extent with perhaps even more of an emphasis on London again. May just seems to have given up.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
I’d be interested in understanding what you mean at a practical level by “investment in jobs...”.
London is Britain’s and Europe’s only truly global city. It reservoir of employment opportunities mean that it’s only logical for global businesses to have their focus there.
The issue is transport *within* cities, not connecting to London. Our rail infrastructure might be creaky, but we are densely populated. No one is that far from London. That’s one advantage we have over, say, France.
Transport investment needs to be focused on widening the effective talent pool of Birmingham et al. Proper commuter systems for our our top 10 or 12 cities.
But we're very bad at it. The Chase Line from Walsall to Rugeley via Cannock has just had overhead cables put in. It's two years late and 30% over budget. The trains were due to run from last Christmas - as matters stand they are not going in at the imminent timetable change and may not be running until May.
Was three years of disruption and £115 million really worth it to electrify thirty miles of track?
And just look at the shambles on the Great Western Main Line.
The Beeching cuts were the most short-sighted piece of economic vandalism ever to hit this country. I understand the reasoning behind it at the time, but it has decimated regional links.
That’s a bit simplistic. Some of the closures were clearly wrong, but a great many where to lines whose purpose had disappeared with the advent of mass car ownership.
Equally, some lines that ran through marginal constituencies that were clear cases for closure survived, and now require significant subsidy.
Theresa May will probably fall this year and here is why.
Instead of a VONC in the government or a VONC in the Tory leader, a third VONC is possible on Tuesday, namely a VONC in Theresa May as prime minister.
The most recent occasion when the opposition tabled a motion of no confidence in a particular government minister was in June this year, in respect of transport secretary Chris Grayling. The procedure has nothing to do with the FTPA and if the minister loses the vote they are out. They don't get two weeks' grace as the government would.
The reason Labour might take this route is because they would have the DUP on board, who have indicated that they still have confidence in the government but have lost it in the prime minister.
I wonder how many people in Labour have noticed that yet. And to be honest I do expect May to have to leave immediately after Tuesday vote - the £2000 I will collect as Lidington becomes PM by default (he is deputy PM and has zero interest in becoming leader) just shows how bad people are at thinking through the steps...
There is no post of 'deputy prime minister' in the UK. When a Prime Minister resigns they advise the queen on their successor, the only criteria for which is they must command the confidence of Parliament. If there is no obvious successor and for whatever reason the outgoing PM cannot give advice the Cabinet collectively advise the Queen, under the leadership of the a senior figure who may be the Second Lord of the Treasury, the Lord Privy Seal or the Lord Chancellor, as to who would be suitable, but that would not make Lidington acting PM. In previous scenarios such as you outline, the usual successor would be the leader in the other house, in this case Natalie Evans.
Mr. Twelve, yeah. A year or so ago I saw a stat that all 10 of bigwig transport commissioners (I forget the technical job title) were in the south, and about 8-9 were in London. Even if they're trying to be as even-handed as possible they're likely to have a better understanding of the needs, opportunities and problems in London and big cities than elsewhere.
Mr. Fire, the only alternatives are no extra devolution, having one of those, or both, join separate pre-existing devolutionary bodies, or carving England into pieces. All of which are worse than having an English Parliament.
Theresa May will probably fall this year and here is why.
Instead of a VONC in the government or a VONC in the Tory leader, a third VONC is possible on Tuesday, namely a VONC in Theresa May as prime minister.
The most recent occasion when the opposition tabled a motion of no confidence in a particular government minister was in June this year, in respect of transport secretary Chris Grayling. The procedure has nothing to do with the FTPA and if the minister loses the vote they are out. They don't get two weeks' grace as the government would.
The reason Labour might take this route is because they would have the DUP on board, who have indicated that they still have confidence in the government but have lost it in the prime minister.
Welcome.
A vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister *is* by definition a vote of no confidence in the government. It is telling the Queen to commission somebody else.
Would the Speaker not accept a motion that refers only to the prime minister? Formally it is the monarch who appoints every government minister, so if the Commons can single out Grayling why can they not single out May?
May leads the government. Hence if she goes so does the government. When HMQ appoints a prime minister, she appoints then to form a government in her name. The PM is the lynchpin in which the government lives or dies. No PM, no government.
A government minister is a different kettle of fish, that’s just rejecting one part of the government. So long as the PM survives, they have the power to reshape their government.
House prices are the market raw in tooth and claw. Prices are cheap in less desirable places economically. So despite Leicester having a growing population (over 16% increase in 2001-11) house prices are as low as Cannock. It is because Leicester has the second lowest Gross Household Disposeable Income in the UK. Prices are low, despite continued immigration, because people are skint.
But the continual supply of fresh labour means that wages don't need to rise as there is always someone else available to do the job...
The British state is grossly over centralised. The real Brexit should be to free the regions from the dead man’s grip of Treasury. Such investment as there is is concentrated in London.
Second tier cities perform appallingly against their European and US counterparts. Birmingham may be unique in that rather than promote productivity (as metros are supposed to), the city is LESS productive the surrounding countryside.
However, having lived in the U.K. for twenty years, I know no one really gives a shit, and many actively deny the facts above.
It also has the very damaging effect that most people in London simply don't understand how life functions outside it (and the other way around, for the matter of that). It still worries me that two years ago on this very forum I spoke to somebody who thought three-bed ex council semis in Cannock would be worth around £450,000 (the actual figure is £130,000). And that's not the cheapest of areas.
Yes but significantly more people are property owners in Cannock than in London, Cannock even has a Tory MP now
If I'm honest that surprises me. Do you have the figures to hand?
It's no good having cheap house prices if wages are so low you can't scrape together a deposit.
68% of those in Cannock Chase District are home owners outright or with a mortgage, in London renters overtook owners in 2016 for the first time with 893, 000 rented households and 885, 000 home owners.
Wages in Cannock are at most half those in London but house prices in London are almost 4 times those in Cannock
Fair enough, I stand corrected. Clearly I am a victim of my own criticisms insofar as I don't understand London!
Yes, but we all need disposeable income to eat and live, and that is not so different between Cannock annd London. It is quite likely that a Cannockite has no better standard of living from that spare money, and also has lesscapital accummulation.
Comments
Whether this is true, or partially true, or just a video peddling fake news I wouldn't know.
Sure had an effect on birth control as the eldest son usually did not want to split the land up he had been given.
One can see how their small landowners, are so defensive of their way of life.
In contrast the British aristocracy preferred enclosure acts.
I am explicitly refering to the tax evading scumbags
An expat, who pays their taxes in a different jurisdiction, is not one of those. They clearly retain links to there home country but are making a life elsewhere. That’s totally fine - it will mean they have 2 sets of loyalties not no loyalties.
Bashing the very rich - especially widely loathed figures like Philip Green - is easy and earns cheap points, but it's a distraction from the the real nub of the problem, which is, as ever, Black Rook's First Law of Politics: every voter wants a pony, but they expect someone else to pay for it.
Thus, old people love higher taxes (provided that they don't apply to property,) because they don't have to pay them, and it means everyone else is shelling out for their inflation-busting pensions and to have someone feed them and mop up their wee when they get decrepit. Young people loathe higher taxes (unless they apply to a remote cohort of "rich" people and companies, however defined,) because most of them already feel financially distressed and they're desperate to save for the deposit on a shoebox flat to get out of renting. Many of them also don't want the property wealth of the old taxed, because they are hoping to inherit a fat wad of cash when their ancestors kick the bucket.
And thus we have the extraordinary (and, in the long term, completely unsustainable) situation in which the state finds itself. Old people vote Conservative as a means to tax the crap out of the young to pay for their care and pensions; young people vote for Corbynite Labour in - irony of ironies - a desperate search for relief from being taxed more. Of course, if Labour does come to power and tries to square the circle by taxing the crap out of business instead, then that won't work: if businesses struggle to make a profit then they will just sack people, go bankrupt, or move operations abroad. And in the meantime, Governments of all stripes put difficult choices off until a never-arrived-at tomorrow through deficit spending and piling more money onto the national debt.
If we are serious about both inequality and sustainable public finances then there is only one programme that will do the trick: build houses like there's no tomorrow, tax businesses and incomes liberally but tax the absolute shit out of property wealth, get people of means to subsidise the public services they receive (fees to see your GP, contributions towards your own social care, and so on,) and obsess a bit more over skills and education and a bit less over the NHS.
Of course, this would require the electorate to grow up and make sacrifices themselves, rather than expect everybody else to look after them. The First Law applies: one is not hopeful, to put it mildly.
Britain has very high regional inequality (London vs Cannock) and very high wealth inequality (Primrose Hill v Barking).
The two stem from different causes but are often conflated.
There are, perhaps, not “Two Nations” but three or four, and little dialogue between them.
'China Uighurs: One million held in political camps, UN told'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-45147972
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1071358509780996096
One of the big failures of our political system is that there is no forum where these people can meet and discuss these differences and find a way round them. The Commons was meant to do it but for a number of practical reasons doesn't. How many big national organisations with a truly regional slant are there? Once I get past the Roman Catholic Church I'm struggling.
But there again, most of the others are no better - look at the US where the Senate is meant to fulfil that function.
It’s one area I’m more in tune with Labour. I think a lot of our regions have been badly neglected and are crying out for investment in jobs and infrastructure. The problem is it’s a long term project and no one is willing to counternance it politically when you can easily throw a few baubles at the South East and see results much faster. I’m doubtful Corbyn would be any different.
The devolutionary experiment could have been an interesting start, but the inequalities, the funding gaps and the determination to subordinate the regional governments outside Northern Ireland to the will of the Labour Party through a rigged electoral system (which amusingly came back to haunt them in Scotland in 2011) and f course the further emphasis on London was a very serious mistake that set proper devolution not just back but pretty well off the table.
London - as both a sinkhole of public investment and an over-mighty nexus of political power - desperately needs cutting down to size.
But as it marks the dividing line (because it is around Birmingham that all road, rail and water transport converges and is buggered) between London focussed and not London focussed. This helpfully leaves the likes of Manchester and to a lesser extent Leeds free to be more independent.
Local government in this country is effectively neutered. They are administrators having to pass out whatever (increasingly) meagre pot they’re handed by national government to distribute in the best way they can to keep their cities and regions basically running day-to-day. Their policy making powers are miniscule at best. They are no longer fit for purpose.
How much of this is really restricted by the EU is a debating point.
There are also plenty of people telling the inner team that Leave voters in the North will sit on their hands in the next GE if Corbyn comes out for Remain/BINO.
I sometimes wonder if that wasn't the entire reason why Cameron and Osborne were so keen on the project. They hoped that gentrifying Birmingham would flip a load of seats into the Tory column, because wealthy metro-liberal Millenial Londoners would show their gratitude by voting Conservative. Yeah right.
The only city that comes close to matching London’s economic performance since the millennium is Cambridge, just an hour or so from Liverpool Street. It’s not a satellite, but has a role in the global economy selling advanced manufacturing (computer chips).
Modern growth is understood as an ability to export value to the global economy.
Economists are still trying to figure out what the magic formula is, but it seems to be something like: good commuter transport network (widening the talent pool) + research university (smartening the talent pool) + devolutionary policies allowing city-wide strategic investments.
Agglomeration then acts as a multiplier.
There’s a good book about the relative fates of LA vs SF since the 80s if anyone is interested.
However as I said, most people in this country are *not* interested and we seem to have accepted that Cannock (which NEEDS Birmingham to prosper) et al will continue in relative decline.
I’d be interested in understanding what you mean at a practical level by “investment in jobs...”.
London is Britain’s and Europe’s only truly global city. It reservoir of employment opportunities mean that it’s only logical for global businesses to have their focus there.
The solution isn't 'giving people a bit back', it is creating a situation where it's more possible to get out of poverty by hard work and application. By the same token, rather than bemoaning big companies not paying any tax (I agree they should be chased for what they owe if possible) we should be creating a situation whereby there are new companies constantly rising up that can disrupt multinational cartels.
The Government needs to get out of the way in most areas, and be aggressively effective in those areas where action is required. But instead, it gorges itself on public money, encroaches into every area of our lives, and fails on basics.
But there is no social democratic party to vote for. Alas.
Plus who was it that cheered on the muppets lobbing fire extinguishers etc off a building they were trashing?
Perhaps the problem is twofold. Both the structure of our government and the people who run it. After all, in the Industrial Age the central government effectively and efficiently managed the country by making it one big production line. With the Empire gone and industry exported, that has broken down.
Grammar Nazis didn't win the war against the l33t by being soft.
The European Commission has made some really daft proposals in the past. I distinctly remember that it tried to create some kind of strategic regional development plan lumping together the south coast of England with the north coast of France - until both the French and British Governments told it where to stick that idea.
https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming?language=en
With regards to regions what is needed is a strategy not influenced by Civil Service who can’t see past London oxbridge triangle. I think some of what I am saying is reflected in the BBC move to Salford, and the development of Media in Manchester. The Government has other levers to move governmental departments to other parts of the country, but not in a piecemeal way but a strategic one - transport to south wales, science and engineering in Birmingham, enough to develop groups of supporting industries.
The Labour Party now is socialist
They turned down a Sainsburys about a decade ago as it would "harm small shops." Result, the next town over got a huge Morrisons. McDonalds, TK Maxx, etc followed, along with dozens of smaller concerns. The small shops here continued to decline.
This week, they turned down an Aldi and KFC for the same reason.
There are no chain fast food, coffee shops here. Why would there be? Not worth the hassle. Only the co-op as a supermarket, just like 50 years ago.
Which appears to be just how they like it.
Relocating it well away from London (Leeds might be a good bet) ought also to help.
Of course, none of this will happen. Short of London getting obliterated by an asteroid, it will continue to suck more and more life out of the rest of the country. And one suspects that a great many MPs only take any interest in life beyond the M25 when they're forced to do their constituency surgeries, and would much rather they didn't have to bother even with those.
Mr. Twelve, perhaps, but carving England into pieces just creates discord and permanently embeds it in the body politic whilst at the same either denying powers equal to Holyrood or creating different rates of tax, policies of education etc within England, which is nuts.
An English Parliament located further north would stand a better chance either than the London-centric Westminster or slicing England up into pieces of addressing problems.
Mr. Fire, the Anglo-Welsh border more or less dates to the 8th or 9th century and was based on Anglo-Saxons on one side and Welsh on the other. That's not arbitrary, the difference in cultures was significant (particularly on inheritance law which is why the Welsh never managed to pose a threat, later, to Norman England). The Scottish border has moved about a bit, and the Scots are more recent arrivals, but there is a different sense of identity and legal system there.
Not to mention Wales and Scotland already have devolution, so an English Parliament wouldn't want to and couldn't in practice extend beyond the borders of England.
Mr. Nakht, it's worth noting broadcasters do seem to be covering parts of the north, including Leeds, more than they did a year or two ago.
Transport investment needs to be focused on widening the effective talent pool of Birmingham et al. Proper commuter systems for our our top 10 or 12 cities.
It's no good having cheap house prices if wages are so low you can't scrape together a deposit.
So individuals/families are responsible for everything that they can do.
Anything they can't do is delegated up to local communities (parishes or districts depending on how detailed you want to be)
Anything they can't do is delegated up to Counties/metropolitan authorities/cities
Anything they can't do is delegated up to regions (if necessary)
Only those things which cannot be done at any of the lower tiers ends up as the remit for national Government.
Unfortunately the current system is that national Government takes everything and then hands out scraps of authority to the lower tiers.
He gave the illusion of change (young, new party etc) but was not really that different to his predecessors and has been depressingly similar to them in his caving in to the demonstrators’ demands.
Was three years of disruption and £115 million really worth it to electrify thirty miles of track?
And just look at the shambles on the Great Western Main Line.
Instead of a VONC in the government or a VONC in the Tory leader, a third VONC is possible on Tuesday, namely a VONC in Theresa May as prime minister.
The most recent occasion when the opposition tabled a motion of no confidence in a particular government minister was in June this year, in respect of transport secretary Chris Grayling. The procedure has nothing to do with the FTPA and if the minister loses the vote they are out. They don't get two weeks' grace as the government would.
The reason Labour might take this route is because they would have the DUP on board, who have indicated that they still have confidence in the government but have lost it in the prime minister.
Wages in Cannock are at most half those in London but house prices in London are over 4 times those in Cannock
https://www.cannockchasedc.gov.uk/council/about-council/cannock-chase-population
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/02/londons-renters-now-outnumber-homeowners/470946/
What, you think they should use academic performance to determine who should get into massively oversubscribed university places...outrageous.
What, you think it should be possible to dismiss somebody from a job during a probationary period if they are shown to be utter shit...disgraceful..
All of the expertise, all the service companies, all of the infrastructure for offshore oil and gas is in Aberdeen. It is a global not just a national centre.
And yet many - perhaps most - companies insist on having a sizeable office in London. Then to justify that they move random sections of operations (Exploration always being a favourite) down to London. This means that anyone working on those projects has to be flying up and down to Aberdeen for meetings with contractors or for offshore visits which costs a fortune in both money and, more importantly, time.
And all because the directors of these companies want to have their head office in London.
A vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister *is* by definition a vote of no confidence in the government. It is telling the Queen to commission somebody else.
This is not me being anti-London or having a chip on my shoulder by the way. I appreciate what it does for the country and why it is so important. The problem is that when everything is so heavily concentrated in one place it is obvious that the focus of those based there is going to be on that place. The UK can be proud of London, but it deserves to be more than London.
https://twitter.com/ToriaCFMum/status/1069358452303163392
There's a lot to be said for a tactical retreat in a situation like that; With a normal protest movement there's a risk that giving way on one thing encourages people to force you to give way on another, but since these people have such wildly conflicting aims they may not come out well from being asked, "what do you want next?". Thatcher also made tactical retreats before taking on the miners; If you're not prepared to fight, you need to play for time until you are.
There's no good reason why, for example, the Department of Work and Pensions could not relocate to Newcastle. It would be a pain in the arse for ministers, who might end up having to travel up there and stay for three days a week for work, but is that any worse than life for millions of night and shift workers who may only see their families at the weekend, and are paid a fraction of the money? Much greater use can also be made of virtual conferencing, and MPs absent on essential business should be able to cast their votes in Parliament remotely.
It is, of course, possible for things to be unique in different ways, if one considers their various characteristics. Entirely unique is perfectly acceptable grammatically.
Equally, some lines that ran through marginal constituencies that were clear cases for closure survived, and now require significant subsidy.
Mr. Twelve, yeah. A year or so ago I saw a stat that all 10 of bigwig transport commissioners (I forget the technical job title) were in the south, and about 8-9 were in London. Even if they're trying to be as even-handed as possible they're likely to have a better understanding of the needs, opportunities and problems in London and big cities than elsewhere.
Mr. Fire, the only alternatives are no extra devolution, having one of those, or both, join separate pre-existing devolutionary bodies, or carving England into pieces. All of which are worse than having an English Parliament.
A government minister is a different kettle of fish, that’s just rejecting one part of the government. So long as the PM survives, they have the power to reshape their government.