LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
The point is more of a joke pointing to the fact that many of those inside the M25 have little awareness as to how much of their lifestyle they owe to those outside the M25. Sure they have some cash but that is not everything.kingstongraham said:
If only London had some way to develop ports of its own rather than using Hull.john80 said:
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 said:
why would it need to barter? why would it not buy goods and services at a market rate.john80 said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.john80 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ipprrjsterry said:
We do.john80 said:
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.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
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 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.
London and the SE subsidise the rest of the country which means they all have a vested interest in it continueing to do well0 -
Move to a city.john80 said:
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.rick_chasey said:
Local public transport has been in part a casualty of austerity and is an issue labour regularly campaign on to improve.john80 said:
They give someone in London money to ride on the tube or other public transport provided every day in the form of subsidies.surrey_commuter said:
I am intrigued why you think the Govt should give “us” money to buy an electric car.john80 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ipprrjsterry said:
We do.john80 said:
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.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
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.
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.
Round here the labour leaflets talk about helping the "transport poor" so there's your answer further down the road.0 -
I can imagine the manifesto pledges that go with this stellar idea. In the form of three word slogans is it "fuck the country". Aspirational man.kingstongraham said:
Move to a city.john80 said:
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.rick_chasey said:
Local public transport has been in part a casualty of austerity and is an issue labour regularly campaign on to improve.john80 said:
They give someone in London money to ride on the tube or other public transport provided every day in the form of subsidies.surrey_commuter said:
I am intrigued why you think the Govt should give “us” money to buy an electric car.john80 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ipprrjsterry said:
We do.john80 said:
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.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
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.
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.
Round here the labour leaflets talk about helping the "transport poor" so there's your answer further down the road.0 -
I wonder if those outside the M25 realise how much of their lifestyle they owe to those within it?john80 said:
The point is more of a joke pointing to the fact that many of those inside the M25 have little awareness as to how much of their lifestyle they owe to those outside the M25. Sure they have some cash but that is not everything.kingstongraham said:
If only London had some way to develop ports of its own rather than using Hull.john80 said:
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 said:
why would it need to barter? why would it not buy goods and services at a market rate.john80 said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.john80 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ipprrjsterry said:
We do.john80 said:
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.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
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 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.
London and the SE subsidise the rest of the country which means they all have a vested interest in it continueing to do well- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
You get yourself out there and start dredging. You will have the shipping channels for panamax vessels in no time. It a wonder they have not done this already.kingstongraham said:
If only London had some way to develop ports of its own rather than using Hull.john80 said:
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 said:
why would it need to barter? why would it not buy goods and services at a market rate.john80 said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.john80 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ipprrjsterry said:
We do.john80 said:
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.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
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 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.
London and the SE subsidise the rest of the country which means they all have a vested interest in it continueing to do well0 -
You seem to be miserable living outside a city, so it just makes sense.john80 said:
I can imagine the manifesto pledges that go with this stellar idea. In the form of three word slogans is it "censored the country". Aspirational man.kingstongraham said:
Move to a city.john80 said:
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.rick_chasey said:
Local public transport has been in part a casualty of austerity and is an issue labour regularly campaign on to improve.john80 said:
They give someone in London money to ride on the tube or other public transport provided every day in the form of subsidies.surrey_commuter said:
I am intrigued why you think the Govt should give “us” money to buy an electric car.john80 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ipprrjsterry said:
We do.john80 said:
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.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
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.
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.
Round here the labour leaflets talk about helping the "transport poor" so there's your answer further down the road.
It's not for everyone, plenty would like to go the other way without moaning about how hard done to they are.0 -
Well that is the democratic way. Find minority and then see how far you can push them till they revolt. If only we were more like the French. There would be tractors on the M25 everyday.kingstongraham said:
You seem to be miserable living outside a city, so it just makes sense.john80 said:
I can imagine the manifesto pledges that go with this stellar idea. In the form of three word slogans is it "censored the country". Aspirational man.kingstongraham said:
Move to a city.john80 said:
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.rick_chasey said:
Local public transport has been in part a casualty of austerity and is an issue labour regularly campaign on to improve.john80 said:
They give someone in London money to ride on the tube or other public transport provided every day in the form of subsidies.surrey_commuter said:
I am intrigued why you think the Govt should give “us” money to buy an electric car.john80 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ipprrjsterry said:
We do.john80 said:
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.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
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.
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.
Round here the labour leaflets talk about helping the "transport poor" so there's your answer further down the road.
It's not for everyone, plenty would like to go the other way without moaning about how hard done to they are.0 -
No, I'm not saying it's a policy decision, it's just you might be happier.john80 said:
Well that is the democratic way. Find minority and then see how far you can push them till they revolt. If only we were more like the French. There would be tractors on the M25 everyday.kingstongraham said:
You seem to be miserable living outside a city, so it just makes sense.john80 said:
I can imagine the manifesto pledges that go with this stellar idea. In the form of three word slogans is it "censored the country". Aspirational man.kingstongraham said:
Move to a city.john80 said:
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.rick_chasey said:
Local public transport has been in part a casualty of austerity and is an issue labour regularly campaign on to improve.john80 said:
They give someone in London money to ride on the tube or other public transport provided every day in the form of subsidies.surrey_commuter said:
I am intrigued why you think the Govt should give “us” money to buy an electric car.john80 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ipprrjsterry said:
We do.john80 said:
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.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
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.
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.
Round here the labour leaflets talk about helping the "transport poor" so there's your answer further down the road.
It's not for everyone, plenty would like to go the other way without moaning about how hard done to they are.0 -
The main appeal of being out in the country is the quietness, both noise and traffic. This is mostly because being out in the country is unattractive for a great many. Make it attractive and you lose the quietness. Careful what you wish for.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
They must have introduced a lot of toll roads since I last went to the countryside.0
-
You're aware of Tilbury right?john80 said:
You get yourself out there and start dredging. You will have the shipping channels for panamax vessels in no time. It a wonder they have not done this already.kingstongraham said:
If only London had some way to develop ports of its own rather than using Hull.john80 said:
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 said:
why would it need to barter? why would it not buy goods and services at a market rate.john80 said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.john80 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ipprrjsterry said:
We do.john80 said:
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.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
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 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.
London and the SE subsidise the rest of the country which means they all have a vested interest in it continueing to do well0 -
I have said this before, but my farming relatives find it odd that farm workers can't afford to live near farms, because houses are popular with people who work in cities. They then then complain about farm stuff. This leads to commuters going to both directions.
I appreciate things are different in rural Cumbria.0 -
I have this faint recollection of John making out how great it is to be able to afford to live in a big house etc, and you're moronic living in Cities in shoe boxes, but that may be my mind playing tricks on me.0
-
I don't think you understand the scale of London, 110,000 people work in Canary Wharf and relatively speaking it is in the sticks. If somebody suggested building something in Cumbria that would provide jobs for 10,000 people do you not think the Govt would help out with the transport infrastructure so that it happened?john80 said:
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.rick_chasey said:
Local public transport has been in part a casualty of austerity and is an issue labour regularly campaign on to improve.john80 said:
They give someone in London money to ride on the tube or other public transport provided every day in the form of subsidies.surrey_commuter said:
I am intrigued why you think the Govt should give “us” money to buy an electric car.john80 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/transport-spending-gap-london-north-of-england-ipprrjsterry said:
We do.john80 said:
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.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
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.
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.
Round here the labour leaflets talk about helping the "transport poor" so there's your answer further down the road.0 -
Isn't that more a function of the growing gap between farming income and the rest of the economy?TheBigBean said:I have said this before, but my farming relatives find it odd that farm workers can't afford to live near farms, because houses are popular with people who work in cities. They then then complain about farm stuff. This leads to commuters going to both directions.
I appreciate things are different in rural Cumbria.0 -
With the planning changes, it might become easier to put more people in homes in the countryside.0
-
-
Go on!!! tell us about his libertarian instinctsrick_chasey said:
0 -
but will they celebrate becuase more people = more services?kingstongraham said:With the planning changes, it might become easier to put more people in homes in the countryside.
0 -
I guess this is where I have my get out clause of saying I'm not a politician so don't have to come up with a practical solution!surrey_commuter said:
But practically how do you stop the brain drain?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.
London is a national, EMEA and global hub for various industries, it is far more accessible for Brits seeking opportunities than "foreigners".
As a start, I'd say its interesting that Derby had managed to increase its tax take, what is it doing compared to, say, Nottingham.
If the answer is Rolls-Royce, then perhaps it's a good example of a govt picking winners.
0 -
No, because it doesn't just affect farm workers, it affect most people in normal jobs. Property prices are distorted badly in rural areas by people selling up their London properties for comparatively vast sums and buying up rural properties at way above what locals can pay. The Londoner then still has a big wedge in the bank too.rick_chasey said:
Isn't that more a function of the growing gap between farming income and the rest of the economy?TheBigBean said:I have said this before, but my farming relatives find it odd that farm workers can't afford to live near farms, because houses are popular with people who work in cities. They then then complain about farm stuff. This leads to commuters going to both directions.
I appreciate things are different in rural Cumbria.0 -
I would argue it is nothing to do with being a politician and if there was any solution you would be aware of it.Jezyboy said:
I guess this is where I have my get out clause of saying I'm not a politician so don't have to come up with a practical solution!surrey_commuter said:
But practically how do you stop the brain drain?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.
London is a national, EMEA and global hub for various industries, it is far more accessible for Brits seeking opportunities than "foreigners".
As a start, I'd say its interesting that Derby had managed to increase its tax take, what is it doing compared to, say, Nottingham.
If the answer is Rolls-Royce, then perhaps it's a good example of a govt picking winners.
The previous idea (scrapped for HS2) of improving interconnectivity to dramatically increase the opportunities and talent pool was a good start.0 -
This is a very SE centric view and bluntly, doesn't disagree with my statement.Dorset_Boy said:
No, because it doesn't just affect farm workers, it affect most people in normal jobs. Property prices are distorted badly in rural areas by people selling up their London properties for comparatively vast sums and buying up rural properties at way above what locals can pay. The Londoner then still has a big wedge in the bank too.rick_chasey said:
Isn't that more a function of the growing gap between farming income and the rest of the economy?TheBigBean said:I have said this before, but my farming relatives find it odd that farm workers can't afford to live near farms, because houses are popular with people who work in cities. They then then complain about farm stuff. This leads to commuters going to both directions.
I appreciate things are different in rural Cumbria.0 -
Seems a bit harsh to blame The Londoner, I blame the locals for taking the 30 pieces of silver.Dorset_Boy said:
No, because it doesn't just affect farm workers, it affect most people in normal jobs. Property prices are distorted badly in rural areas by people selling up their London properties for comparatively vast sums and buying up rural properties at way above what locals can pay. The Londoner then still has a big wedge in the bank too.rick_chasey said:
Isn't that more a function of the growing gap between farming income and the rest of the economy?TheBigBean said:I have said this before, but my farming relatives find it odd that farm workers can't afford to live near farms, because houses are popular with people who work in cities. They then then complain about farm stuff. This leads to commuters going to both directions.
I appreciate things are different in rural Cumbria.1 -
Where are the locals living after this transaction?surrey_commuter said:
Seems a bit harsh to blame The Londoner, I blame the locals for taking the 30 pieces of silver.Dorset_Boy said:
No, because it doesn't just affect farm workers, it affect most people in normal jobs. Property prices are distorted badly in rural areas by people selling up their London properties for comparatively vast sums and buying up rural properties at way above what locals can pay. The Londoner then still has a big wedge in the bank too.rick_chasey said:
Isn't that more a function of the growing gap between farming income and the rest of the economy?TheBigBean said:I have said this before, but my farming relatives find it odd that farm workers can't afford to live near farms, because houses are popular with people who work in cities. They then then complain about farm stuff. This leads to commuters going to both directions.
I appreciate things are different in rural Cumbria.0 -
the ones who sold could afford to move to London as the streets are paved with goldkingstongraham said:
Where are the locals living after this transaction?surrey_commuter said:
Seems a bit harsh to blame The Londoner, I blame the locals for taking the 30 pieces of silver.Dorset_Boy said:
No, because it doesn't just affect farm workers, it affect most people in normal jobs. Property prices are distorted badly in rural areas by people selling up their London properties for comparatively vast sums and buying up rural properties at way above what locals can pay. The Londoner then still has a big wedge in the bank too.rick_chasey said:
Isn't that more a function of the growing gap between farming income and the rest of the economy?TheBigBean said:I have said this before, but my farming relatives find it odd that farm workers can't afford to live near farms, because houses are popular with people who work in cities. They then then complain about farm stuff. This leads to commuters going to both directions.
I appreciate things are different in rural Cumbria.0 -
-
England should leave London.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
This voter fraud thing is very similar to the benefits fraud focus also, it's relatively small beer, but panders to the crowd. Why do they tackle the big issues like social care?
As for planning changes, again it's bollocks. There are 1.1 million approved planning applications awaiting the developer to actually do the work. They just want the build on the cheap greenfield sites, which incidentally, don't have the local infrastructure to support the increase in population.
Tories just promising the world again and distracting everyone from the real issues.0 -
Not sure how you would explain that on the side of a bus.tailwindhome said:England should leave London.
I would be reasonably happy if we drew a line from the Severn to the Wash and got rid of Cornwall0
