LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

elbowloh

I'd personally like the whole of UK to stay together. I can see why some parts may want to leave, but I quite like them all to stay, but then again I think we shouldn't have left the EU either. I think we're better together rather than this nonsense identity politics and ever smaller nations.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

tailwindhome said:

England should leave London.

Not sure how you would explain that on the side of a bus.

I would be reasonably happy if we drew a line from the Severn to the Wash and got rid of Cornwall

Is that a ley line or what?

elbowloh

rjsterry

elbowloh said:

That and the attempts to prescribe what can be said at universities - but not loudly or annoyingly as part of a protest - show just how thin Johnson's liberal veneer is.

john80

Jezyboy said:

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

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.

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.

You're aware of Tilbury right?

I am also aware that it is outside the M25 as per the gist of my prior posts.

john80

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

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.

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?

They did that with Sellafield since the 60s and yet the road network and train network is still rubbish so unfortunately the evidence points to decades of spending either in cities or to make travel between cities easier but probably not cheaper. It is a policy decision as there are not enough votes in keeping the rural communities happy and that is the reality of the situation.

john80

rick_chasey said:

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.

For a guy that has been banging on about Brexit for 4 years surely you can allow me to point out the differences in infrastructure spending per head across the country and how this might not be so fair. But whilst I do have a big house I am like much of the rest of the North of England priced out of the South. So short of my next role being the CEO of a FTSE 100 company there would not be much point in moving South for me.

In the wider context as others have pointed out the natural cycle of the rich leaving the South and buying properties in the North also does not help out the North. We end up with old people who don't contribute much tax once moved in general and then we are lumbered with their healthcare costs. On the plus side some of these old people are sufficiently connected and have adequate spare time to make a fuss about it in between winding the local farmer up about why he is spreading shit in the fields and stinking the place up.

kingstongraham

Will crossrail get replaced by hs2 in all calculations and flip the numbers in the next few years?

john80

kingstongraham said:

Will crossrail get replaced by hs2 in all calculations and flip the numbers in the next few years?

I think a lot of people will not class it as a spend in the North until it gets to Manchester. Between Birmingham and London is certainly Southern spend in my eyes. HS2 is also pretty pointless for people that don't live in a city but as has been demonstrated those guys don't matter.

kingstongraham

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

Will crossrail get replaced by hs2 in all calculations and flip the numbers in the next few years?

I think a lot of people will not class it as a spend in the North until it gets to Manchester. Between Birmingham and London is certainly Southern spend in my eyes. HS2 is also pretty pointless for people that don't live in a city but as has been demonstrated those guys don't matter.

Not London though is it

pangolin

What on earth do you mean "you" are lumbered with their healthcare costs.

pangolin

Ask a Bristol resident what they think of the public transport. The grass is always greener on the other side.

elbowloh

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

Will crossrail get replaced by hs2 in all calculations and flip the numbers in the next few years?

I think a lot of people will not class it as a spend in the North until it gets to Manchester. Between Birmingham and London is certainly Southern spend in my eyes. HS2 is also pretty pointless for people that don't live in a city but as has been demonstrated those guys don't matter.

Well no. It has a point for anyone travelling between London and Birmingham who has to go via London or Birmingham. Those cities are the transport hubs for the surrounding towns and villages. E.g anyone in any town or village in say Essex , Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire who needs to go to Birmingham would need to go via London and have benefit from the additional capacity offered.

morstar

Not wanting to get involved in north vs south tribalism but it’s interesting that HS2 is being framed as benefitting the north.
Personally I see it as another London centric policy.
It is designed to make getting to London quicker and easier to facilitate the growth and success of London.
Getting to London from Manchester and even Glasgow is already fast and easy. Getting across the north is horrendous and of far more interest/benefit to those in the north.

Pross

When even the Mail dedicates it's front page to criticising the lack of spending (or mention of it) on social care then there is something wrong.

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

Not wanting to get involved in north vs south tribalism but it’s interesting that HS2 is being framed as benefitting the north.
Personally I see it as another London centric policy.
It is designed to make getting to London quicker and easier to facilitate the growth and success of London.
Getting to London from Manchester and even Glasgow is already fast and easy. Getting across the north is horrendous and of far more interest/benefit to those in the north.

HS2 is about politicians liking big infrastructure projects.

Incremental improvements to improve transport in the North would deliver huge bang per buck but don’t get the juices of politicians flowing

bm5

Pross said:

When even the Mail dedicates it's front page to criticising the lack of spending (or mention of it) on social care then there is something wrong.

Connected to the age of readership?

kingstongraham

morstar said:

Not wanting to get involved in north vs south tribalism but it’s interesting that HS2 is being framed as benefitting the north.
Personally I see it as another London centric policy.
It is designed to make getting to London quicker and easier to facilitate the growth and success of London.
Getting to London from Manchester and even Glasgow is already fast and easy. Getting across the north is horrendous and of far more interest/benefit to those in the north.

This is another reason why spending in London is higher. It's not exclusively used by people who live in London. I have worked with more than one person who commutes from Leicester.

Hs2 is a crazy waste of money if choices are being made and the aim is to make the country less London-centric. If there's unlimited money and there's no opportunity cost, it's fine.

rjsterry

pangolin said:

What on earth do you mean "you" are lumbered with their healthcare costs.

Taxes are not hypothecated on a local area basis. I don't contribute any more towards my local hospital than I do to one in Barrow-in-Furness.

rick_chasey

Certainly not my original thought but going from "will of the people" to "making it more difficult to vote" is classic populist authoritarianism.

pangolin

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

What on earth do you mean "you" are lumbered with their healthcare costs.

Taxes are not hypothecated on a local area basis. I don't contribute any more towards my local hospital than I do to one in Barrow-in-Furness.

Well yes, exactly

pinkbikini

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

What on earth do you mean "you" are lumbered with their healthcare costs.

Taxes are not hypothecated on a local area basis. I don't contribute any more towards my local hospital than I do to one in Barrow-in-Furness.

In the same way that car emissions are not taxed based on whether you’re driving in nice clean country air or horrible dirty city air 😉

TheBigBean

morstar said:

Not wanting to get involved in north vs south tribalism but it’s interesting that HS2 is being framed as benefitting the north.
Personally I see it as another London centric policy.
It is designed to make getting to London quicker and easier to facilitate the growth and success of London.
Getting to London from Manchester and even Glasgow is already fast and easy. Getting across the north is horrendous and of far more interest/benefit to those in the north.

It is largely about London as it is about increasing capacity on the line; however, don't overlook how much work is outsourced from London, and this will only increase when transport is easier. An example of this would be law firms. Using the Manchester office of a law firm is a lot cheaper than using the London one.

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

A more immediate scandal is the Tory plan to make photo ID compulsory to vote.

Roughly 3.5m UK adults don't have appropriate photo ID.

I assume you have been outraged for the past 20 years or so about Northern Ireland, where this has been in operation, no?
Free voter id cards are available, as will be the case under the new proposal.

This thread has just become a parody. "I blame Wiggle! Boris!"

pinkbikini

Compulsory voter photo ID. What do Conservative voters think about this?

Seems to address an issue of voter ** fraud (based on 2019 figures) of approx 1 in 1.7m

Good use of resources?

** investigated voter fraud

kingstongraham

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

A more immediate scandal is the Tory plan to make photo ID compulsory to vote.

Roughly 3.5m UK adults don't have appropriate photo ID.

I assume you have been outraged for the past 20 years or so about Northern Ireland, where this has been in operation, no?
Free voter id cards are available, as will be the case under the new proposal.

This thread has just become a parody. "I blame Wiggle! Boris!"

This is the whole point. Where there is a need for it, use it. Where there is not, don't.

Voting should be as easy as possible.

The argument should not start with "why are you objecting to this new restriction?" - it should start with "why are you imposing this new restriction?".

So - why do you think the rest of the UK needs this new restriction?

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

A more immediate scandal is the Tory plan to make photo ID compulsory to vote.

Roughly 3.5m UK adults don't have appropriate photo ID.

I assume you have been outraged for the past 20 years or so about Northern Ireland, where this has been in operation, no?
Free voter id cards are available, as will be the case under the new proposal.

This thread has just become a parody. "I blame Wiggle! Boris!"

i didn't know it was the case in NI so no, nor do I know the context of it.

Do let me know what problem introducing it is supposed to solve, as I thought the amount of voter fraud is *so small* that it is literally inconsequential.

What is it about introducing an additional hurdle to vote that is so appealing to you, Bally?

shirley_basso

Also why bother rolling out free voter ID cards? What a waste of money.

Jezyboy

If I am ever asked to produce an ID Card... I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it

pblakeney

Jezyboy said:

If I am ever asked to produce an ID Card... I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it

Hope you enjoy that snack at the airport.