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.
Not in law it isn't. A vote in criticism of May would be symbolic and non-binding. It's not at all the same as a vote of no confidence in the Government under the FTPA, even though it sounds like it should be.
The Government does not fall (and, indeed, there is no actual obligation on May herself to resign) if there is a non-binding Parliamentary vote in criticism of her. The Government does fall if it loses a vote held under the terms laid out in the FTPA.
(Edit: I don't know if you saw the rumours circulating on the front page of the Times, but the reason why it is suggested that the DUP might club together with Labour to try to engineer a vote against May is precisely because it would not force the downfall of the Conservative Government. The DUP would be pleased to get rid of May if it killed off the NI backstop and put a harder Brexiteer into Downing St. They do not, however, want to put Jeremy Corbyn into bat if they can possibly help it.)
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.
Yes and Brexit has added to the divide, hence we have Tory MPs in Mansfield, Cannock and Harlow and Nuneaton and Rugby but Labour MPs in Kensington and Cambridge and Bristol North East and LD MPs in Oxford West and Abingdon and Bath
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...
Wages are not rising in the parts of the country without inward migration either.
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?
Because the Prime Minister *is* the Government. If the PM resigns all the ministers by convention resign as well, even though if the party stays in office many if not most will be reappointed.
Please remember, officially parties do not exist in our system. They have no legal standing. Therefore it is a person not a party not a party that forms the government at the request of a sovereign.
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
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.
what was shortsighted was selling off the land and dismantling the infrastructure.
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.
Not true. If you don't own a capital asset you don't have capital accumulation. That would appear to be the situation 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.
Not in law it isn't. A vote in criticism of May would be symbolic and non-binding. It's not at all the same as a vote of no confidence in the Government under the FTPA, even though it sounds like it should be.
The Government does not fall (and, indeed, there is no actual obligation on May herself to resign) if there is a non-binding Parliamentary vote in criticism of her. The Government does fall if it loses a vote held under the terms laid out in the FTPA.
It may be non-binding but a vote to provide (no) confidence in the PM it is a vote that Labour would win where a No confidence vote in the Government would likely be lost..
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.
Norway has an interesting scheme whereby they move bits of the public sector out of Oslo to the counties - particularly those in the north where employment and population density are both a lot lower. This is done as a means of countering the slow depopulation of the north which has in the past been a real issue.
Last year they moved departments such as the National Complaints Board for Health Care Services, the Agricultural Management Agency and the Norwegian language council out to regional towns across the country. They back this up with investment in ultra high speed internet and the promotion of remote meetings etc.
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...
Wages are not rising in the parts of the country without inward migration either.
Which parts of the country don't have inward migration?
what was shortsighted was selling off the land and dismantling the infrastructure.
Think how much easier matters would be if the Great Central trunk line hadn't been cut in three places including Leicester. That would be perfect for restoration now even if it was something of a dinosaur when built.
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.
I had understood that he had given up on the fuel tax increase not simply postponed it. That sounds like more than a tactical retreat. And didn’t he also reverse a wealth tax, which can’t have helped a perception that he is the President for the “haves”. But I may be wrong.
The difficulty is that people want all sorts of good things but are not necessarily prepared to put in the sacrifices needed. And some may be working very hard indeed but still getting nowhere.
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.
Not true. If you don't own a capital asset you don't have capital accumulation. That would appear to be the situation in London.
I do find it very weird that people regard the property they live in as a Capital Asset. After all it's not something you could easily sell without impacting other things...
I do find it very weird that people regard the property they live in as a Capital Asset. After all it's not something you could easily sell without impacting other things...
How can I put this - if you rent, you will not get anything back from it when you leave. The money is gone.
When you are buying, you will be able to transfer the value to another property. So you still have that capital. It's just you are restricted in what you can spend it on without causing impacts elsewhere.
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 eapest 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.
A Cannockite may have less wages coming in but after housing and transport costs probably the same disposable income as the average Londoner and as they are more likely to be a home owner a Cannockite may also be wealthier than the average Londoner who rents.
The real wealth from London is from City and executive and top professional types who work in London but own property in the Home Counties or if they are really wealthy in central London, that is where the real wealth divide is from Cannock, not your average London renter
Speaking of regional challenges - this is a random long shot.
I know someone whose relative has just been laid off from the bus driving job he has been doing for 15 years or so near Southampton. He needs a new job, but the problem is he speaks no English (Panjabi, Hindi, and Urdu only).
If anyone can think of any practical solutions, do let me know. All jobs and minimum wage considered.
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.
Not in law it isn't. A vote in criticism of May would be symbolic and non-binding. It's not at all the same as a vote of no confidence in the Government under the FTPA, even though it sounds like it should be.
The Government does not fall (and, indeed, there is no actual obligation on May herself to resign) if there is a non-binding Parliamentary vote in criticism of her. The Government does fall if it loses a vote held under the terms laid out in the FTPA.
It may be non-binding but a vote to provide (no) confidence in the PM it is a vote that Labour would win where a No confidence vote in the Government would likely be lost..
If the intended effect is to produce May's resignation the the effect is the same. It is semantics. The queen appoints the PM who forms a Government. Ministers owe their positions to the PM. You can't have a Govt without a PM. Regardless of whether it is a "statutory" VoNC or a Prime Ministerial resignation the effect is the same.
I suppose the only possible distinction would be if the idea was to force May to resign, pending a Leadership contest ie. the Tories wouldn't be constrained by the timetable of the FTPA to appoint a new leader.
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...
If they vote on May's Deal on Tuesday, then she is gone by next weekend.
I can still see no benefit to her in having the vote. She will get hammered, losing by well into three figures. But if she feels it is her duty to show the EU the strength of ill-will towards the deal they have all negotiated, she might see it as the right thing to do. Her successor might just get enough material change to her deal to get it through. But she has no credibility - in either Brussels or Westminster - to even try.
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.
I do find it very weird that people regard the property they live in as a Capital Asset. After all it's not something you could easily sell without impacting other things...
How can I put this - if you rent, you will not get anything back from it when you leave. The money is gone.
When you are buying, you will be able to transfer the value to another property. So you still have that capital. It's just you are restricted in what you can spend it on without causing impacts elsewhere.
It's not the fact that there is money tied up in a property it's the amount of money tied up in them - and the cost that means people spend £000s in interest payments that could be far better spent on other things...
High house prices mean that a far too high percentage of income is spent on housing that could be better used on other items - it's remarkable when I eat out how many people eating out are baby boomers rather than my generation who should be in at least an equal position regarding spending money..
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.
Not true. If you don't own a capital asset you don't have capital accumulation. That would appear to be the situation in London.
Hence London is now the safest Labour region of the UK, probably post Brexit even more so than the North
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.
I had understood that he had given up on the fuel tax increase not simply postponed it. That sounds like more than a tactical retreat. And didn’t he also reverse a wealth tax, which can’t have helped a perception that he is the President for the “haves”. But I may be wrong.
The difficulty is that people want all sorts of good things but are not necessarily prepared to put in the sacrifices needed. And some may be working very hard indeed but still getting nowhere.
OK so looking it up the increase is "suspended", and he's saying part of the problem is that the tax rise happened at the same time as world prices went up, and he'll look at other mechanisms and won't necessarily stick with the current plan. There was a load of stuff like this in Britain as well, I can't remember what got adopted and what just got proposed but there's one idea of letting the tax go up when the fuel price goes down and vice versa, etc etc.
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.
Not true. If you don't own a capital asset you don't have capital accumulation. That would appear to be the situation in London.
Hence London is now the safest Labour region of the UK, probably post Brexit even more so than the North
And the reason for that is because house prices are so high unless you purchased before 1999 you have never had the chance to do so..
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.
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.
Not true. If you don't own a capital asset you don't have capital accumulation. That would appear to be the situation in London.
Hence London is now the safest Labour region of the UK, probably post Brexit even more so than the North
Why isn't London a bed of Liberal Democrats rather than Labour?
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.
I've lived in both (I've avoided the Midlands so far, tho' that might change). The sense of entitlement is all around, to be honest.
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.
Not true. If you don't own a capital asset you don't have capital accumulation. That would appear to be the situation in London.
Hence London is now the safest Labour region of the UK, probably post Brexit even more so than the North
Why isn't London a bed of Liberal Democrats rather than Labour?
I wrote my response to David's article before reading the Guardian piece but I see it makes some of the same points. Where I disagree with it is the political spin at the end. It seems to be suggesting that it was Tory policy that drove these unequal distributions. I think that there are many more complex reasons, many of them beyond any government's ability to control or even offset.
Perhaps David, but the Tories are the biggest culprits in the mix.
I think its a real dilemma for governments of all stripes. To take a simple example the money invested in Crossrail makes the transport budget for the rest of the country look a joke. We argue about the extent of subsidy for rural bus services in Scotland or Yorkshire when tens of billions are being invested to help those rich Londoners get even richer. And yet from an economic perspective there is no question Crossrail will be a very good investment generating further investment, jobs and growth. Bus services, not so much.
Clearly there has to be a balance here or a recognition that the social value of keeping rural areas vibrant has worth even if it cannot be measured in pounds and pence. This government, especially since May took over, has not always got that right. Do you invest in success or do you invest to prevent failure or further decline? Both is not really an option.
You show the issue perfectly, spend billions in London ( Scotland pays its share crazily enough ) and create more jobs in London. Wrecks the whole economy, where they should be putting decent infrastructure into north of England , Scotland etc instead of bleeding them dry.
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.
If May were to fall under a bus, there would still be government ministers in office. I can appreciate that Labour would not wish to vote for a motion which says we want May removed as PM but we've got confidence in the rest of the government, but a suitable wording could surely be thrashed out between them and the DUP. If the Speaker accepted a motion of NC in May as PM the fact that he didn't tell Jeremy Corbyn not to be such a silly sausage and that it's FTPA wording or nothing would make it a different motion, would set precedent.
Mr Justice Ouseley of the High Court has said he will give his decision on this nationally important case this Monday or Tuesday. Hopefully this will be before Parliament debates Theresa May's Brexit plan on Tuesday. If the Judge finds for the claimants, Parliament surely will then also have to debate and decide if the June 2016 "advisory" referendum should be voided!
You have made a very good case for Scottish independence. If the Brexiteers wishes are being ignored by a London and South East elite at least they can comfort themselves that the vote was close. In Scotland they are having something foised on them against the wishes of 76% of their population. If anyone's likely to take to the streets it'll be the gilet tartans.
It would only be a good case for Scottish independence if a successful Scottish economy was within our grasp. I am not sure it is but as I have said before the Scottish government has been given a range of powers including taxation powers which gives them an opportunity to prove me wrong. The road to independence is economic success.So far, the evidence is mixed at best with much more emphasis on economic populism and "free" stuff.
David, once again, they have been given the dregs , all main powers retained at Westminster. Taking more tax off the small amount of people who are high rate taxpayers will never fix the issues. What is needed is a Scottish government controlling all the tax options, until then it will never work and we will decline as we have to pay UK borrowing with none of the benefits as they burn it up down south.
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.
England has too high a population for an English Parliament to be useful. I see no reason why we are restricted to the options on your list when a federal structure clearly works in other countries.
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.
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.
Where in the “entitled north” did you come from?
It's all entitled up there Ms Cyclefree. This is the Internet age. No need for the rapier when you can just daub the world with lazy stereotypes.
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.
If May were to fall under a bus, there would still be government ministers in office. I can appreciate that Labour would not wish to vote for a motion which says we want May removed as PM but we've got confidence in the rest of the government, but a suitable wording could surely be thrashed out between them and the DUP. If the Speaker accepted a motion of NC in May as PM the fact that he didn't tell Jeremy Corbyn not to be such a silly sausage and that it's FTPA wording or nothing would make it a different motion, would set precedent.
If May fell under a bus, the government would technically fall under a bus too.
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 .
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.
What a pompous stuck up fatuous pair of arseholes you and your wife are, the north is well shot of the pair of you , just unfortunate some poor blighters down south have to suffer you.
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.
Norway has an interesting scheme whereby they move bits of the public sector out of Oslo to the counties - particularly those in the north where employment and population density are both a lot lower. This is done as a means of countering the slow depopulation of the north which has in the past been a real issue.
Last year they moved departments such as the National Complaints Board for Health Care Services, the Agricultural Management Agency and the Norwegian language council out to regional towns across the country. They back this up with investment in ultra high speed internet and the promotion of remote meetings etc.
I do think that there should be a strategy whereby this is thought about and targeted and things like Quangos follow.
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.
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.
If May were to fall under a bus, there would still be government ministers in office. I can appreciate that Labour would not wish to vote for a motion which says we want May removed as PM but we've got confidence in the rest of the government, but a suitable wording could surely be thrashed out between them and the DUP. If the Speaker accepted a motion of NC in May as PM the fact that he didn't tell Jeremy Corbyn not to be such a silly sausage and that it's FTPA wording or nothing would make it a different motion, would set precedent.
If May fell under a bus, the government would technically fall under a bus too.
I'm not sure that's true. The PM forms the government, hires and fires ministers and chairs cabinet meetings (and other stuff), but the government would survive her absence until a new one is formed by a new PM. I should imagine it's not something you'd want to drag on, but the PM is not synonymous with HMG, she just puts it together.
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 .
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.
What a pompous stuck up fatuous pair of arseholes you and your wife are, the north is well shot of the pair of you , just unfortunate some poor blighters down south have to suffer you.
Sorry MalcolmG - I forgot no-one was allowed a different view to you. My wife is from the South and doesn’t share my views but I will pass on your contempt - she didn’t have to put up with the same people whinging when she was growing up.
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.
If May were to fall under a bus, there would still be government ministers in office. I can appreciate that Labour would not wish to vote for a motion which says we want May removed as PM but we've got confidence in the rest of the government, but a suitable wording could surely be thrashed out between them and the DUP. If the Speaker accepted a motion of NC in May as PM the fact that he didn't tell Jeremy Corbyn not to be such a silly sausage and that it's FTPA wording or nothing would make it a different motion, would set precedent.
If May fell under a bus, the government would technically fall under a bus too.
I don't think that follows. Aren't there policies in place for if the PM dies in office either as a result of war or terrorism etc that ensures in a national emergency that the government survives?
Had the IRA succeeded in killing Thatcher there would have still been a government.
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.
Leeds' problem is that you can't easily get further north without spending 30-40 minutes travelling east or west to York or Manchester. It's why, even though I'm on the East, I would be moving Parliament to Manchester...
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.
Norway has an interesting scheme whereby they move bits of the public sector out of Oslo to the counties - particularly those in the north where employment and population density are both a lot lower. This is done as a means of countering the slow depopulation of the north which has in the past been a real issue.
Last year they moved departments such as the National Complaints Board for Health Care Services, the Agricultural Management Agency and the Norwegian language council out to regional towns across the country. They back this up with investment in ultra high speed internet and the promotion of remote meetings etc.
I do think that there should be a strategy whereby this is thought about and targeted and things like Quangos follow.
The BBC was forced up to Media City in Salford. I remember the screams...
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.
I like the North, Malc: there are some parts I am very fond of. I was referring to ease of travel. Bear in mind that a putative English Parliament has to be accessible from Cornwall, Cumbria, Newcastle, Kent and Norwich.
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.
Norway has an interesting scheme whereby they move bits of the public sector out of Oslo to the counties - particularly those in the north where employment and population density are both a lot lower. This is done as a means of countering the slow depopulation of the north which has in the past been a real issue.
Last year they moved departments such as the National Complaints Board for Health Care Services, the Agricultural Management Agency and the Norwegian language council out to regional towns across the country. They back this up with investment in ultra high speed internet and the promotion of remote meetings etc.
I do think that there should be a strategy whereby this is thought about and targeted and things like Quangos follow.
The BBC was forced up to Media City in Salford. I remember the screams...
DVLA in Cardiff
HMRC in Cumbernauld and Newcastle
Dept of Sporrans and Haggis in Colonsay...
DWP everywhere around the country but Newcastle if you actually want anything done (that's a critical mass issue as much as anything else)..
I do find it very weird that people regard the property they live in as a Capital Asset. After all it's not something you could easily sell without impacting other things...
How can I put this - if you rent, you will not get anything back from it when you leave. The money is gone.
When you are buying, you will be able to transfer the value to another property. So you still have that capital. It's just you are restricted in what you can spend it on without causing impacts elsewhere.
It's not the fact that there is money tied up in a property it's the amount of money tied up in them - and the cost that means people spend £000s in interest payments that could be far better spent on other things...
High house prices mean that a far too high percentage of income is spent on housing that could be better used on other items - it's remarkable when I eat out how many people eating out are baby boomers rather than my generation who should be in at least an equal position regarding spending money..
It costs around 55% less to pay a mortgage rather than rent in Cannock (365 a month against 750 for an identical house). So I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Um, hold on a minute. Corbyn has aides who do focus groups and private polling? I thought he just made shit up. Is this actually true, and if so who the hell are they? What are their names?
Adding to the complexity twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1071338643892129792
Which is why I suspect that an Executive decision just to cancel Brexit on the basis that the Govt tried and failed.
It stops the electorate from being bothered (since the apparently do not like the idea - see tweet above) and Corbyn should let his MPs "rebel" so he can remain ideologically pure
There is going to be a row no matter what happens. It might as well be one with a predictable and controllable outcome.
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.
Leeds' problem is that you can't easily get further north without spending 30-40 minutes travelling east or west to York or Manchester. It's why, even though I'm on the East, I would be moving Parliament to Manchester...
Which highlights the horlicks they have made of transport around the country with the exception of London where cash is no object. In Europe they seem to manage great transport systems that are all interlinked, rail , trams , buses etc and are very reasonably priced.
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.
England has too high a population for an English Parliament to be useful. I see no reason why we are restricted to the options on your list when a federal structure clearly works in other countries.
Most other countries are not made up of 3 separate countries as the UK is.
Plus England is not that much bigger population wise than say California or Texas which both have their own Assemblies for the entire state and are multiple times bigger than the smallest US states
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 e 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.
Not true. If you don't own a capital asset you don't have capital accumulation. That would appear to be the situation in London.
Hence London is now the safest Labour region of the UK, probably post Brexit even more so than the North
Why isn't London a bed of Liberal Democrats rather than Labour?
As most Londoners despite being Remainers do not own property but Rent, LDs do best in areas full of owner occupier Remainers like Bath or Oxford
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.
I like the North, Malc: there are some parts I am very fond of. I was referring to ease of travel. Bear in mind that a putative English Parliament has to be accessible from Cornwall, Cumbria, Newcastle, Kent and Norwich.
I know , but transport in the north , England and Scotland is dire apart from a few major cities. It takes you forever to get anywhere. There seems to be no planning of infrastructure unless it is London centric.
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 .
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.
What a pompous stuck up fatuous pair of arseholes you and your wife are, the north is well shot of the pair of you , just unfortunate some poor blighters down south have to suffer you.
Sorry MalcolmG - I forgot no-one was allowed a different view to you. My wife is from the South and doesn’t share my views but I will pass on your contempt - she didn’t have to put up with the same people whinging when she was growing up.
You will come out with stupid statements denigrating 2/3 of the UK which are so obviously bollox. Loads of people in the north , as you put it, work their socks off for their families.
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.
I like the North, Malc: there are some parts I am very fond of. I was referring to ease of travel. Bear in mind that a putative English Parliament has to be accessible from Cornwall, Cumbria, Newcastle, Kent and Norwich.
I know , but transport in the north , England and Scotland is dire apart from a few major cities. It takes you forever to get anywhere. There seems to be no planning of infrastructure unless it is London centric.
THE NORTH IS COLD.. BEST AVOIDED TILL ABOUT AD2050
I do find it very weird that people regard the property they live in as a Capital Asset. After all it's not something you could easily sell without impacting other things...
How can I put this - if you rent, you will not get anything back from it when you leave. The money is gone.
When you are buying, you will be able to transfer the value to another property. So you still have that capital. It's just you are restricted in what you can spend it on without causing impacts elsewhere.
It's not the fact that there is money tied up in a property it's the amount of money tied up in them - and the cost that means people spend £000s in interest payments that could be far better spent on other things...
High house prices mean that a far too high percentage of income is spent on housing that could be better used on other items - it's remarkable when I eat out how many people eating out are baby boomers rather than my generation who should be in at least an equal position regarding spending money..
It costs around 55% less to pay a mortgage rather than rent in Cannock (365 a month against 750 for an identical house). So I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Tried getting a mortgage in this day and age? Most people are trapped in renting due to house prices being far higher than the amount a bank will lend them.
So Cannock average house price £154,832 (from rightmove) - Average wage £23,600 (from ons). So your average house in Cannock is a mere 6.5* the average wage yet bank's won't lend more than 4x earnings.
There is a continual argument that the mortgage affordability rules are far too strict as they assume you don't have the spare cash to afford a £800 mortgage payment when paying £1200 in rent (1 recent example I saw) but until things change nothing is going to solve generation rent..
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.
What arrogance and tosh this is.
Call it arrogance if you want but It was my experience. I have lived on both sides of the Pennines. And in the people I know and met the attitude to work was completely different to that I have experienced and I see in the South. I come from a completely working class family, the family tree is an uninteresting mix of short lives in mining and agriculture. We had no accumulated wealth, and I was the first in my family to go to University. I stand by my assessment that Government departments need to be moved out of Landon strategically so that related industries can grow up around this.
I do find it very weird that people regard the property they live in as a Capital Asset. After all it's not something you could easily sell without impacting other things...
How can I put this - if you rent, you will not get anything back from it when you leave. The money is gone.
When you are buying, you will be able to transfer the value to another property. So you still have that capital. It's just you are restricted in what you can spend it on without causing impacts elsewhere.
It's not the fact that there is money tied up in a property it's the amount of money tied up in them - and the cost that means people spend £000s in interest payments that could be far better spent on other things...
High house prices mean that a far too high percentage of income is spent on housing that could be better used on other items - it's remarkable when I eat out how many people eating out are baby boomers rather than my generation who should be in at least an equal position regarding spending money..
It costs around 55% less to pay a mortgage rather than rent in Cannock (365 a month against 750 for an identical house). So I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Tried getting a mortgage in this day and age?
Yes. My point is that it is less cost efficient to rent than to buy, whereas your post implied the opposite.
I don't disagree that the deposit is the key problem and in fact I made the point upthread.
I do find it very weird that people regard the property they live in as a Capital Asset. After all it's not something you could easily sell without impacting other things...
How can I put this - if you rent, you will not get anything back from it when you leave. The money is gone.
When you are buying, you will be able to transfer the value to another property. So you still have that capital. It's just you are restricted in what you can spend it on without causing impacts elsewhere.
It's not the fact that there is money tied up in a property it's the amount of money tied up in them - and the cost that means people spend £000s in interest payments that could be far better spent on other things...
High house prices mean that a far too high percentage of income is spent on housing that could be better used on other items - it's remarkable when I eat out how many people eating out are baby boomers rather than my generation who should be in at least an equal position regarding spending money..
It costs around 55% less to pay a mortgage rather than rent in Cannock (365 a month against 750 for an identical house). So I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Tried getting a mortgage in this day and age? Most people are trapped in renting due to house prices being far higher than the amount a bank will lend them.
So Cannock average house price £154,832 (from rightmove) - Average wage £23,600 (from ons). So your average house in Cannock is a mere 6.5* the average wage yet bank's won't lend more than 4x earnings.
There is a continual argument that the mortgage affordability rules are far too strict as they assume you don't have the spare cash to afford a £800 mortgage payment when paying £1200 in rent (1 recent example I saw) but until things change nothing is going to solve generation rent..
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.
I like the North, Malc: there are some parts I am very fond of. I was referring to ease of travel. Bear in mind that a putative English Parliament has to be accessible from Cornwall, Cumbria, Newcastle, Kent and Norwich.
I know , but transport in the north , England and Scotland is dire apart from a few major cities. It takes you forever to get anywhere. There seems to be no planning of infrastructure unless it is London centric.
THE NORTH IS COLD.. BEST AVOIDED TILL ABOUT AD2050
I do find it very weird that people regard the property they live in as a Capital Asset. After all it's not something you could easily sell without impacting other things...
How can I put this - if you rent, you will not get anything back from it when you leave. The money is gone.
When you are buying, you will be able to transfer the value to another property. So you still have that capital. It's just you are restricted in what you can spend it on without causing impacts elsewhere.
It's not the fact that there is money tied up in a property it's the amount of money tied up in them - and the cost that means people spend £000s in interest payments that could be far better spent on other things...
High house prices mean that a far too high percentage of income is spent on housing that could be better used on other items - it's remarkable when I eat out how many people eating out are baby boomers rather than my generation who should be in at least an equal position regarding spending money..
It costs around 55% less to pay a mortgage rather than rent in Cannock (365 a month against 750 for an identical house). So I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Tried getting a mortgage in this day and age?
Yes. My point is that it is less cost efficient to rent than to buy, whereas your post implied the opposite.
I don't disagree that the deposit is the key problem and in fact I made the point upthread.
And mine is that house prices are so high that escaping renting is virtually impossible for most people. In Cannock and other places it's probably possible for people to buy - in the South East it would be impossible...
I do find it very weird that people regard the property they live in as a Capital Asset. After all it's not something you could easily sell without impacting other things...
How can I put this - if you rent, you will not get anything back from it when you leave. The money is gone.
When you are buying, you will be able to transfer the value to another property. So you still have that capital. It's just you are restricted in what you can spend it on without causing impacts elsewhere.
It's not the fact that there is money tied up in a property it's the amount of money tied up in them - and the cost that means people spend £000s in interest payments that could be far better spent on other things...
High house prices mean that a far too high percentage of income is spent on housing that could be better used on other items - it's remarkable when I eat out how many people eating out are baby boomers rather than my generation who should be in at least an equal position regarding spending money..
It costs around 55% less to pay a mortgage rather than rent in Cannock (365 a month against 750 for an identical house). So I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Tried getting a mortgage in this day and age?
Yes. My point is that it is less cost efficient to rent than to buy, whereas your post implied the opposite.
I don't disagree that the deposit is the key problem and in fact I made the point upthread.
And mine is that house prices are so high that escaping renting is virtually impossible for most people. In Cannock and other places it's probably possible for people to buy - in the South East it would be impossible...
Yes, that I can agree with. That is also where Hyufd's rather stark figures come from.
(Also please remember my price is for a three bed semi with garage and front and rear gardens. There are plenty of cheaper properties about in Cannock that people can start in, accumulate capital and then trade up.)
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.
I like the North, Malc: there are some parts I am very fond of. I was referring to ease of travel. Bear in mind that a putative English Parliament has to be accessible from Cornwall, Cumbria, Newcastle, Kent and Norwich.
I know , but transport in the north , England and Scotland is dire apart from a few major cities. It takes you forever to get anywhere. There seems to be no planning of infrastructure unless it is London centric.
THE NORTH IS COLD.. BEST AVOIDED TILL ABOUT AD2050
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.
What arrogance and tosh this is.
Call it arrogance if you want but It was my experience. I have lived on both sides of the Pennines. And in the people I know and met the attitude to work was completely different to that I have experienced and I see in the South. I come from a completely working class family, the family tree is an uninteresting mix of short lives in mining and agriculture. We had no accumulated wealth, and I was the first in my family to go to University. I stand by my assessment that Government departments need to be moved out of Landon strategically so that related industries can grow up around this.
I have lived in Scotland and many parts of southern England , including Little Gaddesden , Hemel Hempstead, Winchester, Chandler's Ford and Alresford. I have to say I found no difference other than accents , there was the same mix of good , bad , scroungers and grafters in all of them , except perhaps Little Gaddesden where they were all seriously loaded.
I do find it very weird that people regard the property they live in as a Capital Asset. After all it's not something you could easily sell without impacting other things...
How can I put this - if you rent, you will not get anything back from it when you leave. The money is gone.
When you are buying, you will be able to transfer the value to another property. So you still have that capital. It's just you are restricted in what you can spend it on without causing impacts elsewhere.
It's not the fact that there is money tied up in a property it's the amount of money tied up in them - and the cost that means people spend £000s in interest payments that could be far better spent on other things...
High house prices mean that a far too high percentage of income is spent on housing that could be better used on other items - it's remarkable when I eat out how many people eating out are baby boomers rather than my generation who should be in at least an equal position regarding spending money..
It costs around 55% less to pay a mortgage rather than rent in Cannock (365 a month against 750 for an identical house). So I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Tried getting a mortgage in this day and age?
Yes. My point is that it is less cost efficient to rent than to buy, whereas your post implied the opposite.
I don't disagree that the deposit is the key problem and in fact I made the point upthread.
And mine is that house prices are so high that escaping renting is virtually impossible for most people. In Cannock and other places it's probably possible for people to buy - in the South East it would be impossible...
No not in the South East where most still own as property prices while above the UK average are still cheaper than London and plenty of London commuters live in the South East where they get bigger houses for their money
I do find it very weird that people regard the property they live in as a Capital Asset. After all it's not something you could easily sell without impacting other things...
How can I put this - if you rent, you will not get anything back from it when you leave. The money is gone.
When you are buying, you will be able to transfer the value to another property. So you still have that capital. It's just you are restricted in what you can spend it on without causing impacts elsewhere.
It's not the fact that there is money tied up in a property it's the amount of money tied up in them - and the cost that means people spend £000s in interest payments that could be far better spent on other things...
High house prices mean that a far too high percentage of income is spent on housing that could be better used on other items - it's remarkable when I eat out how many people eating out are baby boomers rather than my generation who should be in at least an equal position regarding spending money..
It costs around 55% less to pay a mortgage rather than rent in Cannock (365 a month against 750 for an identical house). So I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Tried getting a mortgage in this day and age? Most people are trapped in renting due to house prices being far higher than the amount a bank will lend them.
So Cannock average house price £154,832 (from rightmove) - Average wage £23,600 (from ons). So your average house in Cannock is a mere 6.5* the average wage yet bank's won't lend more than 4x earnings.
There is a continual argument that the mortgage affordability rules are far too strict as they assume you don't have the spare cash to afford a £800 mortgage payment when paying £1200 in rent (1 recent example I saw) but until things change nothing is going to solve generation rent..
Banks take into account 2 incomes.
Exactly, hence 68% of Cannock households are property owners. Banks can also lend up to 4.5x earnings
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.
I like the North, Malc: there are some parts I am very fond of. I was referring to ease of travel. Bear in mind that a putative English Parliament has to be accessible from Cornwall, Cumbria, Newcastle, Kent and Norwich.
I know , but transport in the north , England and Scotland is dire apart from a few major cities. It takes you forever to get anywhere. There seems to be no planning of infrastructure unless it is London centric.
THE NORTH IS COLD.. BEST AVOIDED TILL ABOUT AD2050
I do find it very weird that people regard the property they live in as a Capital Asset. After all it's not something you could easily sell without impacting other things...
How can I put this - if you rent, you will not get anything back from it when you leave. The money is gone.
When you are buying, you will be able to transfer the value to another property. So you still have that capital. It's just you are restricted in what you can spend it on without causing impacts elsewhere.
It's not the fact that there is money tied up in a property it's the amount of money tied up in them - and the cost that means people spend £000s in interest payments that could be far better spent on other things...
High house prices mean that a far too high percentage of income is spent on housing that could be better used on other items - it's remarkable when I eat out how many people eating out are baby boomers rather than my generation who should be in at least an equal position regarding spending money..
It costs around 55% less to pay a mortgage rather than rent in Cannock (365 a month against 750 for an identical house). So I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Tried getting a mortgage in this day and age?
Yes. My point is that it is less cost efficient to rent than to buy, whereas your post implied the opposite.
I don't disagree that the deposit is the key problem and in fact I made the point upthread.
And mine is that house prices are so high that escaping renting is virtually impossible for most people. In Cannock and other places it's probably possible for people to buy - in the South East it would be impossible...
Yes, that I can agree with. That is also where Hyufd's rather stark figures come from.
(Also please remember my price is for a three bed semi with garage and front and rear gardens. There are plenty of cheaper properties about in Cannock that people can start in, accumulate capital and then trade up.
In a world of low inflation (and probably little changes to house prices) how do you accumulate capital except by paying off your borrowings. The housing ladder from 1970-90's was based on inflation reducing mortgages to nothing over 10-15years allowing you to move from a 2 bed to 3 bed as inflation (across both goods, assets and wages) reduced your initial mortgage to nothing. That hasn't been true for the past 15 years for either housing assets or wages across large parts of the country...
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.
No - people can have multiple loyalties
It is only in a forced choice (say war) it becomes tricky
I do find it very weird that people regard the property they live in as a Capital Asset. After all it's not something you could easily sell without impacting other things...
How can I put this - if you rent, you will not get anything back from it when you leave. The money is gone.
When you are buying, you will be able to transfer the value to another property. So you still have that capital. It's just you are restricted in what you can spend it on without causing impacts elsewhere.
It's not the fact that there is money tied up in a property it's the amount of money tied up in them - and the cost that means people spend £000s in interest payments that could be far better spent on other things...
High house prices mean that a far too high percentage of income is spent on housing that could be better used on other items - it's remarkable when I eat out how many people eating out are baby boomers rather than my generation who should be in at least an equal position regarding spending money..
It costs around 55% less to pay a mortgage rather than rent in Cannock (365 a month against 750 for an identical house). So I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Tried getting a mortgage in this day and age?
Yes. My point is that it is less cost efficient to rent than to buy, whereas your post implied the opposite.
I don't disagree that the deposit is the key problem and in fact I made the point upthread.
And mine is that house prices are so high that escaping renting is virtually impossible for most people. In Cannock and other places it's probably possible for people to buy - in the South East it would be impossible...
Yes, that I can agree with. That is also where Hyufd's rather stark figures come from.
(Also please remember my price is for a three bed semi with garage and front and rear gardens. There are plenty of cheaper properties about in Cannock that people can start in, accumulate capital and then trade up.
In a world of low inflation (and probably little changes to house prices) how do you accumulate capital except by paying off your borrowings. The housing ladder from 1970-90's was based on inflation reducing mortgages to nothing over 10-15years allowing you to move from a 2 bed to 3 bed as inflation (across both goods, assets and wages) reduced your initial mortgage to nothing. That hasn't been true for the past 15 years for either housing assets or wages across large parts of the country...
I do find it very weird that people regard the property they live in as a Capital Asset. After all it's not something you could easily sell without impacting other things...
How can I put this - if you rent, you will not get anything back from it when you leave. The money is gone.
When you are buying, you will be able to transfer the value to another property. So you still have that capital. It's just you are restricted in what you can spend it on without causing impacts elsewhere.
It's not the fact that there is money tied up in a property it's the amount of money tied up in them - and the cost that means people spend £000s in interest payments that could be far better spent on other things...
High house prices mean that a far too high percentage of income is spent on housing that could be better used on other items - it's remarkable when I eat out how many people eating out are baby boomers rather than my generation who should be in at least an equal position regarding spending money..
It costs around 55% less to pay a mortgage rather than rent in Cannock (365 a month against 750 for an identical house). So I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Tried getting a mortgage in this day and age? Most people are trapped in renting due to house prices being far higher than the amount a bank will lend them.
So Cannock average house price £154,832 (from rightmove) - Average wage £23,600 (from ons). So your average house in Cannock is a mere 6.5* the average wage yet bank's won't lend more than 4x earnings.
There is a continual argument that the mortgage affordability rules are far too strict as they assume you don't have the spare cash to afford a £800 mortgage payment when paying £1200 in rent (1 recent example I saw) but until things change nothing is going to solve generation rent..
If they relax mortgage rules then house prices will just increase further as people outbid each other borrowing ever more money.
What they need to do is relax planning permission so people can buy land and have a house built on it for a reasonable price. The difference between identical pieces of land with and without planning permission is massive.
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
In a world of low inflation (and probably little changes to house prices) how do you accumulate capital except by paying off your borrowings. The housing ladder from 1970-90's was based on inflation reducing mortgages to nothing over 10-15years allowing you to move from a 2 bed to 3 bed as inflation (across both goods, assets and wages) reduced your initial mortgage to nothing. That hasn't been true for the past 15 years for either housing assets or wages across large parts of the country...
That's it. By paying off your borrowings.
So the time you can afford a 3 bedroom semi is after you've paid off most of your 25 year mortgage on the 2 bedroom terrace you first bought - so probably just before your children head to University...
As I stated before the old housing ladder that everyone imagined disappeared as inflation disappeared.
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
In a world of low inflation (and probably little changes to house prices) how do you accumulate capital except by paying off your borrowings. The housing ladder from 1970-90's was based on inflation reducing mortgages to nothing over 10-15years allowing you to move from a 2 bed to 3 bed as inflation (across both goods, assets and wages) reduced your initial mortgage to nothing. That hasn't been true for the past 15 years for either housing assets or wages across large parts of the country...
That's it. By paying off your borrowings.
So the time you can afford a 3 bedroom semi is after you've paid off most of your 25 year mortgage on the 2 bedroom terrace you first bought - so probably just before your children head to University...
As I stated before the old housing ladder that everyone imagined disappeared as inflation disappeared.
The point is that becuase there is a difference between rent and mortgage payments overpayments are feasible. You don't have to wait 25 years to clear a mortgage. When the overall numbers are low it is possible to substantially reduce it in four or five, then extend again and trade up to a new property, particularly if salary increases in that time through e.g. promotion.
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.
I like the North, Malc: there are some parts I am very fond of. I was referring to ease of travel. Bear in mind that a putative English Parliament has to be accessible from Cornwall, Cumbria, Newcastle, Kent and Norwich.
I know , but transport in the north , England and Scotland is dire apart from a few major cities. It takes you forever to get anywhere. There seems to be no planning of infrastructure unless it is London centric.
THE NORTH IS COLD.. BEST AVOIDED TILL ABOUT AD2050
Theresa May will probably fall this year and here is why.
I
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.
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.
If May were to fall under a bus, there would still be government ministers in office. I can appreciate that Labour would not wish to vote for a motion which says we want May removed as PM but we've got confidence in the rest of the government, but a suitable wording could surely be thrashed out between them and the DUP. If the Speaker accepted a motion of NC in May as PM the fact that he didn't tell Jeremy Corbyn not to be such a silly sausage and that it's FTPA wording or nothing would make it a different motion, would set precedent.
If May fell under a bus, the government would technically fall under a bus too.
I'm not sure that's true. The PM forms the government, hires and fires ministers and chairs cabinet meetings (and other stuff), but the government would survive her absence until a new one is formed by a new PM. I should imagine it's not something you'd want to drag on, but the PM is not synonymous with HMG, she just puts it together.
Happy to be corrected on this if wrong.
When Eden became ill in late 1956 R A Butler became de facto Acting PM until Macmillan was appointed to form a new administration. Butler was again de facto Acting PM in October 1963 when Macmillan entered hospital and made known his intention to resign. On neither occasion,however, was Butler formally appointed PM.
Comments
The Government does not fall (and, indeed, there is no actual obligation on May herself to resign) if there is a non-binding Parliamentary vote in criticism of her. The Government does fall if it loses a vote held under the terms laid out in the FTPA.
(Edit: I don't know if you saw the rumours circulating on the front page of the Times, but the reason why it is suggested that the DUP might club together with Labour to try to engineer a vote against May is precisely because it would not force the downfall of the Conservative Government. The DUP would be pleased to get rid of May if it killed off the NI backstop and put a harder Brexiteer into Downing St. They do not, however, want to put Jeremy Corbyn into bat if they can possibly help it.)
Please remember, officially parties do not exist in our system. They have no legal standing. Therefore it is a person not a party not a party that forms the government at the request of a sovereign.
Last year they moved departments such as the National Complaints Board for Health Care Services, the Agricultural Management Agency and the Norwegian language council out to regional towns across the country. They back this up with investment in ultra high speed internet and the promotion of remote meetings etc.
The difficulty is that people want all sorts of good things but are not necessarily prepared to put in the sacrifices needed. And some may be working very hard indeed but still getting nowhere.
When you are buying, you will be able to transfer the value to another property. So you still have that capital. It's just you are restricted in what you can spend it on without causing impacts elsewhere.
The real wealth from London is from City and executive and top professional types who work in London but own property in the Home Counties or if they are really wealthy in central London, that is where the real wealth divide is from Cannock, not your average London renter
I know someone whose relative has just been laid off from the bus driving job he has been doing for 15 years or so near Southampton. He needs a new job, but the problem is he speaks no English (Panjabi, Hindi, and Urdu only).
If anyone can think of any practical solutions, do let me know. All jobs and minimum wage considered.
I suppose the only possible distinction would be if the idea was to force May to resign, pending a Leadership contest ie. the Tories wouldn't be constrained by the timetable of the FTPA to appoint a new leader.
I can still see no benefit to her in having the vote. She will get hammered, losing by well into three figures. But if she feels it is her duty to show the EU the strength of ill-will towards the deal they have all negotiated, she might see it as the right thing to do. Her successor might just get enough material change to her deal to get it through. But she has no credibility - in either Brussels or Westminster - to even try.
High house prices mean that a far too high percentage of income is spent on housing that could be better used on other items - it's remarkable when I eat out how many people eating out are baby boomers rather than my generation who should be in at least an equal position regarding spending money..
https://twitter.com/pamfoundation/status/1071336970788503552?s=21
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/corrupt-vote-leave-campaign-undermines-brexit-vote-court-told
Happy to be corrected on this if wrong.
Had the IRA succeeded in killing Thatcher there would have still been a government.
DVLA in Cardiff
HMRC in Cumbernauld and Newcastle
Dept of Sporrans and Haggis in Colonsay...
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1071338643892129792
It stops the electorate from being bothered (since the apparently do not like the idea - see tweet above) and Corbyn should let his MPs "rebel" so he can remain ideologically pure
There is going to be a row no matter what happens. It might as well be one with a predictable and controllable outcome.
Plus England is not that much bigger population wise than say California or Texas which both have their own Assemblies for the entire state and are multiple times bigger than the smallest US states
THE NORTH IS COLD.. BEST AVOIDED TILL ABOUT AD2050
So Cannock average house price £154,832 (from rightmove) - Average wage £23,600 (from ons). So your average house in Cannock is a mere 6.5* the average wage yet bank's won't lend more than 4x earnings.
There is a continual argument that the mortgage affordability rules are far too strict as they assume you don't have the spare cash to afford a £800 mortgage payment when paying £1200 in rent (1 recent example I saw) but until things change nothing is going to solve generation rent..
I don't disagree that the deposit is the key problem and in fact I made the point upthread.
(Also please remember my price is for a three bed semi with garage and front and rear gardens. There are plenty of cheaper properties about in Cannock that people can start in, accumulate capital and then trade up.)
Only England, Wales and Scotland are countries
It is only in a forced choice (say war) it becomes tricky
City of Westminster is the first
City of London is the second
What they need to do is relax planning permission so people can buy land and have a house built on it for a reasonable price. The difference between identical pieces of land with and without planning permission is massive.
As I stated before the old housing ladder that everyone imagined disappeared as inflation disappeared.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1071382401954267136
f***ing Antisemite