LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

1…152153155157158…1136

Comments

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Holland is often a decade or so ahead of the rest of Europe in terms of the political issues that become salient, and there the Labour Party has totally collapsed.
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,295
    He's not even an economically hard left tax and spend, big government politician. He's a spend and hope politician.

    It's also the way he seems to live his life.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,474
    He's a very naughty boy
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,904
    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    This seems a very muddled example. I don't think libraries, museums and youth clubs have ever been provided by the market. I don't think that's got anything to do with businesses and population being drawn to cities beyond the inhabitants of such cities having more spare cash to spend on such things.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    surrey_commuter said:


    yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Isn’t this just reversing austerity?

    It’s a clever trick if you get the other party blamed for your party’s work and you get majorities to undo it
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,904
    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,668
    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    "London gets £419 more per head than north of England"

    Do you think you could live in London for less than £419 more than you're paying now? Do you not think salaries (and thus taxes) are higher there on average?
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,295
    Counterpoint from the same source: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jul/07/london-top-taxpaying-city-uk-report
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    I am intrigued why you think the Govt should give “us” money to buy an electric car.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    as nobody understood my earlier point about economic agglomeration I will concede that is my failing.

    For nearly two decades economic growth in the West has gone hand in hand with the growth of cities. Businesses have gone where the talent is and talent has gone where the jobs are. There are many other factors at play but it is a pretty simple concept that explains why Google set up a EMEA HQ in London and not in a market town in Matlock.

    Previous Govt policy was to create agglomeration of people through better transport links, the most obvious examples being Northern Powerhouse and Varsity train line.

    The Times is trailing the Queens Speech saying that infrastructure spending to promote economic growth is not a priority and that soft infrastructure to improve local amenities will be prioritised.

    My hope is that Labour implode and the Tory Party no longer see him as an electoral necessity and replace him with one of their own.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,904
    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    Tax receipts from London subsidises most of the country, so... that's what I meant by "we do". If you are arguing for even more redistribution to the regions then that's fine, but let's call it what it is.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    I am intrigued why you think the Govt should give “us” money to buy an electric car.
    They give someone in London money to ride on the tube or other public transport provided every day in the form of subsidies.

    https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded

    I live in an area without any public transport so why not give us some money to run our cars so that we can travel for work and personal reasons. Seems fair to me. Or make Londoners pay the full fare rate for not just the cost of running the service but any improvements they make.
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,668
    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    siI am intrigued why you think the Govt should give “us” money to buy an electric car.
    They give someone in London money to ride on the tube or other public transport provided every day in the form of subsidies.

    https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded

    I live in an area without any public transport so why not give us some money to run our cars so that we can travel for work and personal reasons. Seems fair to me. Or make Londoners pay the full fare rate for not just the cost of running the service but any improvements they make.
    If we're continuing to ignore all the tax London generates...

    It's far more efficient to provide transport for the masses in a place where the masses are densely packed. You might be quite dissapointed with the size of a car subsidy if it were spread out across all of rural UK.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    Tax receipts from London subsidises most of the country, so... that's what I meant by "we do". If you are arguing for even more redistribution to the regions then that's fine, but let's call it what it is.
    Personally I think it would be a bit of a laugh to let London become its own region and then let it barter with every other region as to how it gets it food, water, electricity etc. etc. Londoners might find they are a bit worse off when they realise how much of their life relies on those outside the M25.

    I am sure by the time the rest of the UK has fleeced you for access to your essential services and goods your additional tax take will be looking a bit slimmer. This is the problem with saying we deserve more money per head because we get paid more and therefore pay more tax.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    siI am intrigued why you think the Govt should give “us” money to buy an electric car.
    They give someone in London money to ride on the tube or other public transport provided every day in the form of subsidies.

    https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded

    I live in an area without any public transport so why not give us some money to run our cars so that we can travel for work and personal reasons. Seems fair to me. Or make Londoners pay the full fare rate for not just the cost of running the service but any improvements they make.
    If we're continuing to ignore all the tax London generates...

    It's far more efficient to provide transport for the masses in a place where the masses are densely packed. You might be quite dissapointed with the size of a car subsidy if it were spread out across all of rural UK.
    Every little helps:)
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,295
    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    Tax receipts from London subsidises most of the country, so... that's what I meant by "we do". If you are arguing for even more redistribution to the regions then that's fine, but let's call it what it is.
    Personally I think it would be a bit of a laugh to let London become its own region and then let it barter with every other region as to how it gets it food, water, electricity etc. etc. Londoners might find they are a bit worse off when they realise how much of their life relies on those outside the M25.

    I am sure by the time the rest of the UK has fleeced you for access to your essential services and goods your additional tax take will be looking a bit slimmer. This is the problem with saying we deserve more money per head because we get paid more and therefore pay more tax.
    We'd increase trade with the rest of the world, not just our nearest neighbours. That's how it works, right?
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    Tax receipts from London subsidises most of the country, so... that's what I meant by "we do". If you are arguing for even more redistribution to the regions then that's fine, but let's call it what it is.
    Personally I think it would be a bit of a laugh to let London become its own region and then let it barter with every other region as to how it gets it food, water, electricity etc. etc. Londoners might find they are a bit worse off when they realise how much of their life relies on those outside the M25.

    I am sure by the time the rest of the UK has fleeced you for access to your essential services and goods your additional tax take will be looking a bit slimmer. This is the problem with saying we deserve more money per head because we get paid more and therefore pay more tax.
    why would it need to barter? why would it not buy goods and services at a market rate.

    London and the SE subsidise the rest of the country which means they all have a vested interest in it continueing to do well
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,668
    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    Tax receipts from London subsidises most of the country, so... that's what I meant by "we do". If you are arguing for even more redistribution to the regions then that's fine, but let's call it what it is.
    Personally I think it would be a bit of a laugh to let London become its own region and then let it barter with every other region as to how it gets it food, water, electricity etc. etc. Londoners might find they are a bit worse off when they realise how much of their life relies on those outside the M25.

    I am sure by the time the rest of the UK has fleeced you for access to your essential services and goods your additional tax take will be looking a bit slimmer. This is the problem with saying we deserve more money per head because we get paid more and therefore pay more tax.
    Completely agree. Londoners should have to pay for food, water, electricity, services, etc.

    Hold on...
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    Tax receipts from London subsidises most of the country, so... that's what I meant by "we do". If you are arguing for even more redistribution to the regions then that's fine, but let's call it what it is.
    Personally I think it would be a bit of a laugh to let London become its own region and then let it barter with every other region as to how it gets it food, water, electricity etc. etc. Londoners might find they are a bit worse off when they realise how much of their life relies on those outside the M25.

    I am sure by the time the rest of the UK has fleeced you for access to your essential services and goods your additional tax take will be looking a bit slimmer. This is the problem with saying we deserve more money per head because we get paid more and therefore pay more tax.
    why would it need to barter? why would it not buy goods and services at a market rate.

    London and the SE subsidise the rest of the country which means they all have a vested interest in it continueing to do well
    Why would someone in Kent allow goods to get to London on the shortest route without some payment for the service. Its their roads or rail network you are using. They might set a price that is very close to the ferry going up to say Hull and back down by road. That would be nice little earner wouldn't it. After all if they have worse services than wealthy Londoners why should they not tip the balance the other way. Before you know it we will all have our local mayors creating schemes to help their areas. What could go wrong.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    Tax receipts from London subsidises most of the country, so... that's what I meant by "we do". If you are arguing for even more redistribution to the regions then that's fine, but let's call it what it is.
    Personally I think it would be a bit of a laugh to let London become its own region and then let it barter with every other region as to how it gets it food, water, electricity etc. etc. Londoners might find they are a bit worse off when they realise how much of their life relies on those outside the M25.

    I am sure by the time the rest of the UK has fleeced you for access to your essential services and goods your additional tax take will be looking a bit slimmer. This is the problem with saying we deserve more money per head because we get paid more and therefore pay more tax.
    why would it need to barter? why would it not buy goods and services at a market rate.

    London and the SE subsidise the rest of the country which means they all have a vested interest in it continueing to do well
    Why would someone in Kent allow goods to get to London on the shortest route without some payment for the service. Its their roads or rail network you are using. They might set a price that is very close to the ferry going up to say Hull and back down by road. That would be nice little earner wouldn't it. After all if they have worse services than wealthy Londoners why should they not tip the balance the other way. Before you know it we will all have our local mayors creating schemes to help their areas. What could go wrong.
    Kent is in the SE so safe to assume they would leave with London along with Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire and Essex.

    Remove the emotion and imagine Scotland left GB, we would save £10bn a year and if they wanted to charge penal rates for their Whiskey and Salmon to teach us a lesson then we have a choice of if we buy it or not.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,295
    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    Tax receipts from London subsidises most of the country, so... that's what I meant by "we do". If you are arguing for even more redistribution to the regions then that's fine, but let's call it what it is.
    Personally I think it would be a bit of a laugh to let London become its own region and then let it barter with every other region as to how it gets it food, water, electricity etc. etc. Londoners might find they are a bit worse off when they realise how much of their life relies on those outside the M25.

    I am sure by the time the rest of the UK has fleeced you for access to your essential services and goods your additional tax take will be looking a bit slimmer. This is the problem with saying we deserve more money per head because we get paid more and therefore pay more tax.
    why would it need to barter? why would it not buy goods and services at a market rate.

    London and the SE subsidise the rest of the country which means they all have a vested interest in it continueing to do well
    Why would someone in Kent allow goods to get to London on the shortest route without some payment for the service. Its their roads or rail network you are using. They might set a price that is very close to the ferry going up to say Hull and back down by road. That would be nice little earner wouldn't it. After all if they have worse services than wealthy Londoners why should they not tip the balance the other way. Before you know it we will all have our local mayors creating schemes to help their areas. What could go wrong.
    If only London had some way to develop ports of its own rather than using Hull.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    I am intrigued why you think the Govt should give “us” money to buy an electric car.
    They give someone in London money to ride on the tube or other public transport provided every day in the form of subsidies.

    https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded

    I live in an area without any public transport so why not give us some money to run our cars so that we can travel for work and personal reasons. Seems fair to me. Or make Londoners pay the full fare rate for not just the cost of running the service but any improvements they make.
    Local public transport has been in part a casualty of austerity and is an issue labour regularly campaign on to improve.

    Round here the labour leaflets talk about helping the "transport poor" so there's your answer further down the road.
    _
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,674
    I'd guess there are bits of Kent and Essex that feel far removed (culturally and economically) from the big city...

    I do think the other cities and regions could do with help to escape the brain drain effect. But the whole leveling up thing strikes me as a hugely annoying stupid sounding sound bite.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,904
    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    Tax receipts from London subsidises most of the country, so... that's what I meant by "we do". If you are arguing for even more redistribution to the regions then that's fine, but let's call it what it is.
    Personally I think it would be a bit of a laugh to let London become its own region and then let it barter with every other region as to how it gets it food, water, electricity etc. etc. Londoners might find they are a bit worse off when they realise how much of their life relies on those outside the M25.

    I am sure by the time the rest of the UK has fleeced you for access to your essential services and goods your additional tax take will be looking a bit slimmer. This is the problem with saying we deserve more money per head because we get paid more and therefore pay more tax.
    It's got nothing to do with deserving or fairness. Why do you think I moved to London?
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Jezyboy said:

    I'd guess there are bits of Kent and Essex that feel far removed (culturally and economically) from the big city...

    I do think the other cities and regions could do with help to escape the brain drain effect. But the whole leveling up thing strikes me as a hugely annoying stupid sounding sound bite.

    But practically how do you stop the brain drain?

    London is a national, EMEA and global hub for various industries, it is far more accessible for Brits seeking opportunities than "foreigners".
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,295
    Can they add vaccine status to the voter ID cards?
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    rick_chasey said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    So here is a fine example of belief in the state over the market.

    Since Victorian times one of the main drivers of economic growth has been businesses moving to cities because of the deep labour pools there, people have moved to cities because of the Jobs available there.

    So the gravitational economics of agglomeration is well understood and yet Comrade Boris is going to spend his money on soft infrastructure which means libraries, museums youth clubs etc

    Should businesses seeking to make profit out of a city and workers on higher wages in the city not pay for their own infrastructure to continue their path to complete city domination. Cross rail was mega expensive mainly because of the area they were trying to do it in. Should those that benefit from this congested space not pay the price for the financial benefit. I am not convinced a large amount of this leveling up money is going on the schemes you describe.
    We do.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ippr

    No you don't. If we leveled up that money to Cumbria that money could be used for better roads, better electric car charging infrastructure and maybe even give us some money to have electric cars. Instead they spend it on london infrastructure projects primarily. I am not really arsed in how quick it is to get to London on a train or then how quickly I can get across it. I would imagine those outside London are also minded this way. So yeah sure you make the argument that London does not get what it deserves.
    I am intrigued why you think the Govt should give “us” money to buy an electric car.
    They give someone in London money to ride on the tube or other public transport provided every day in the form of subsidies.

    https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded

    I live in an area without any public transport so why not give us some money to run our cars so that we can travel for work and personal reasons. Seems fair to me. Or make Londoners pay the full fare rate for not just the cost of running the service but any improvements they make.
    Local public transport has been in part a casualty of austerity and is an issue labour regularly campaign on to improve.

    Round here the labour leaflets talk about helping the "transport poor" so there's your answer further down the road.
    From what I can see it has been an issue for about 40 years where I live so I am not sure any party has the answer. I was more joking about subsidising my car however the point still remains that if you think something is an essential service in a city then it begs the question why is it not essential in the rural areas. Failure to understand this point leads to resentment. Personally I think the answer is for governments to treat private vehicles in rural areas as essential where no transport exists. When the electric self driving revolution comes then maybe this is the answer.

Categories