Mind The Gap London vs the Rest
jonbwfc
Posts: 18,050 Forum Member
✭✭
I make no observation only the quality of its discussion, but it's amusing noting that the show has been about 95% about London with actually barely a mention of 'the rest' at all..
0
Comments
Probably because there is another programme next week about how this 'problem' can be addressed by the rest of the country.
It don't do the rest of the UK any favours. Made me rather depressed about the rest of the country.
I agree. It wasn't nearly critical enough of our London-centric economy. It's ridiculous to have such an unbalanced situation (as well as affecting the rest of the UK, it could be London's downfall if we're not careful). Other countries have an official/political capital, a financial capital, an entertainment/media capital and so on - so why can't we?
Only the financial capital actually matters though.
They like to spread the jam over the ryvita
What Boris fails to realise is that if you repeatedly plop the jam in one place on the Ryvita, then it'll be in grave danger of breaking.
Obviously, Manchester and Birmingham businesses are more spread out so the graphical towers would be lower and broader in relative terms compared to the City of London. I hope next week redresses the balance somewhat because there are some definite downsides to all this London-centricity but the programme seemed hell-bent on praising it unto high heaven. If ever there was a programme set up to prove a pet theory, this was it.
Actually, no it doesn't only matter. Having a media hub outside London would create tonnes of jobs elsewhere. The BBC moving some of their operations to Salford is a good example of this, but more needs to be done.
That's a good point actually, hadn't thought of that. The irony is that London is a victim of its own success, what with many of its own residents being priced out of the property market, and with the stress of an overburdened infrastructure creaking at the seams.
When I used to be interested in football (not now), was always bleating that the main football stadium for finals etc should be in Birmingham so it is more centralised for football supporters to travel to (now I don't give a toss, passage of time has took care of that little gripe
Because too much money/wealth is tied up in London in general, including ahem...foreign monies.
Why do you think 'we're' at pains not to go to war with Russia, even though they're clearly aggressively invading the Ukraine and we go to war over much less normally?
Not so much that London and the S.E. has got ahead, but that the rest of the country has fallen behind.
London hasn't been a manufacturing, agricultural or mining centre - it specialises in services, commerce, insurance and banking. All "industries" that it's kept going through thick and thin. Whereas the rest of the country has lost most of its manufacturing, closed the mines and has high-cost and uncompetitive farming.
Maybe that's where the imbalance has come from - not from London "stealing" all the best jobs, infrastructure and opportunities, but from everywhere else not managing to keep up with its progress?
Put the way you have so eloquently put it, it makes sense.
Obviously the TV production companies want to or feel that they have to pander to the Lowest Common Denominator, when considering their output.
Ok its a bit crowed but scientists have proved that if people stand close together they become much more creative and productive!
Oh its expensive too - but thats ok 'cos all the ordinary people have moved away and we now have more room for creative rich people from all over the world who generate lots of money to spend on lots of infrastructure to keep them happy and rich!
Very Panglossian I thought, but then maybe I'm just an embittered Londoner exiled in t'North who wasn't quite good enough to make it in Boris' giant jam oozing Ryvita:(
Me too. I'm glad I don't live there.
At least it gave Evan "Tinsel Tits" Davis a chance to wear his camp puffa jacket.
(it's his BBC nickname. If you don't believe me, Google it!)
But London is also the political center and therefore makes all the decisions affecting the rest of the England. I agree that the economies in the North didn't change with the times, but who was in charge? London. If the regions had more control of their economies and taxation, they could "compete" with London via subsidies and tax incentives, but they can't because London keeps it's hands firmly in the cookie jar.
And the rest of the UK to a certain. Just as London isn't the only part of England, England isn't the only part of the UK.
London didn't keep those industries going through thick and thin, the rest of the country did and without anyone asking whether they wanted to or not.
Nobody liked what happened. The simple fact that this had to be an instant decision, and had RBS and HBOS been allowed to collapse, the entire economy would have done likewise.
Don't forget - it was the collapse of Lehman Bros that started the whole thing.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see Goodwin, McKillop and Co behind bars. And I don't mean serving in Wetherspoons ;-)
Irrelevant. The fact is the propping up of the City by the UK exchequer has benefitted London much more than the rest of the UK. Where the collapse started doesn't make a jot of difference to that.
Actually, I think that would be a pretty appropriate sentence. On a zero hours contract with their benefits stopped.
I'm not sure you can anthropomorphise (sp?) it like that. Governments, like private investors, put "their" (or our) money into enterprises they hope will be good investments and keep it away from enterprises that aren't. I reckon thatis what happened with London's Big Bang - which is when things went from being good to being spectacular for the City and the S.E. (although even back in the 1950/60's house prices in London were much greater than in the rest of the UK). The same period also coincided with N. Sea OIl pouring billions in taxes into government coffers and the demise of traditional "smokestack" industries - who's decline was mitigated by the oil & gas revenues - while it lasted.
One would assume that the UK could have done a "Germany" and invested heavily in manufacturing, but for whatever reason (Thatcher? it's a tired old cliche, but may have a grain of truth to it) chose not to. Although since subsequent governments of all colours, creeds, competencies and moralities have followed the same path, one much assume it was due to more than political dogma and had more structural problems that prevented it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-google-tax-britain-idUSBRE98T0L120130930
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/04/google-tax-avoidance-uk-public-pays
Nice to see Even didn't mention that to the Google guy! "So, Mr Rich Google guy, what backhanders have you given the government to relocate to London but which still allow you to pay limited UK corporation tax?"