Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Paddington Bear]

This latest idiotic spat with the Greeks is just the latest fail that will come back to haunt the UK. What do we now think will the negotiations where say, a new Labour Government agrees to harmonizing on veterinarian checks with the EU, to reduce trade friction ?, do the UK expect the Greeks to just nod thru the new deal, or will the return of a set of looted Greek art treasures be the difference between a deal, & no deal ?

Maybe, but it looks unlikely. Starmer met the Greek PM, and there's some deal to share the statues in the works. Can't see EU members being happy about a veto always coming in from Greece, when statues aren't life or death and agreeing something could benefit EU members (no idea if reducing checks on imports into the EU meets that criteria). Where I could see it maybe becoming an issue is if attempts to loan/share the statues fail because a UK government doesn't want bad headlines in the tabloids ("WEAK STARMER CAVES TO THE GREEKS ON ENGLISH STATUES BECAUSE HE'S A TRAITOR WHO HATES BRITAIN!!"), and the same UK government then tries to get better EU market access for its creative/cultural industries, the Greek position then looks a bit stronger if they want make some demands.

What it shows is that this lot cannot do diplomacy. Qatar’s PM brokered the ceasefire in the latest Israel-Palestine conflict, he met the Israel/US/Iran/Hamas. He also helped the withdrawal from Kabul go more smoothly than it could've by meeting with the Taliban, the Taliban had achieved a total military victory but didn't attack retreating Western forces. You don't need to see much of the current media climate (right wing billionaire owned, Murdoch, etc) in the UK to know that a UK PM meeting with the likes of Hamas/Iran/Taliban in a venture which could fail, is going to take an absolutely beating from that same media after which their political opponents will wade in too, even if they succeed in their diplomatic venture. It's in the criticism of Sunak too, quite often the criticism goes "this is no way to treat an ally" as if this is WW2 or something and it's okay to not meet non-allies (and who is deciding who is an ally and who isn't?).

Aussies get the hard chairs + refuse to meet Greek PM = media love it.
Meet with bad actors + diplomacy which could fail but worth it if it succeeds = end of political career.

Not sure how the UK plays any meaningful role in real world conflicts (not culture wars stupidity) with this outlook, outside of something the tabloids love like providing troops/weapons for US foreign policy.

I suppose our role in real world conflict has been providing the Ukrainian armed forces with masses of materiel, up to and including tanks, vast training and a major diplomatic effort to maintain support for them and pressure on Russia. Seems meaningful enough

[Insane_Homer]

[SaintK]

What a weapons grade cretin she is.

[Raggs]

That is just fantastic. I did notice that she at least managed to not say it was stolen when the presenter led her down that route.

[_Os_]

I suppose our role in real world conflict has been providing the Ukrainian armed forces with masses of materiel, up to and including tanks, vast training and a major diplomatic effort to maintain support for them and pressure on Russia. Seems meaningful enough

That goes into the backing the US foreign policy with troops/weapons pile. Thing with backing the US, is they can always just do it alone but the reverse isn't always true. It was there in the UK's reaction to the US leaving Afghanistan, the mission was mostly a failure by the end (by which time the mission seemed to have become to build a functioning democratic state over multiple generations of occupation), the speed of the Taliban advance showed how likely success was. The UK's role was to provide troops/weapons for US foreign policy but in the Commons debate there was talk of basically being betrayed by the US and needing to continue the mission somehow, and even that the Taliban were being defeated.

There's a bit of an inflated view of what the UK is doing when it sends troops/weapons. Campbell probably has it about right when people bring up Iraq, his standard reply is the UK provided 5% of troops and it would've happened anyway without the UK. He's trying to downplay Labour's role in a failure, but no one before that war (or now after it has ended) was saying France was showing at least as much clout by not providing troops/weapons. The UK not being involved in Vietnam looks like an aberration now.

A media/political environment which makes it impossible to meet bad actors (and is okay with treating friends badly over minor disagreements as in this case), limits the UK. Sticking with your example of Ukraine, it's obvious Ukraine needs more of everything to get the best outcome, but the UK has done all it can as you say, so that's not something the UK controls. If Trump is elected and cuts Ukraine off (which would be shameful Ukraine isn't anything like Afghanistan), does the UK sit at the table in the Trump arranged talks? Does Trump allow the UK to do so? How is a UK PM treated in the UK if the deal isn't great (which it wouldn't be)? Cameron ducked out last time, because he knew it would be reported in the UK as him being weak (rather than the UK's strength or lack of being shown), it was Obama and Merkel that talked with Putin. The safe option for any UK PM is provide troops/weapons for US foreign policy (the stage Ukraine is at), avoid talking to non-allies thereby avoiding the risk of being seen as weak etc, then somewhat complain about/regret the final outcome the UK had not much input into.

UK diplomacy is obviously going to be limited if the PM can only meet with people he's in total agreement with.

[Biffer]

Meanwhile seeing this shitstain being bundled away like a little dolly made my day

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67545868

I am sure there are very good reasons why this happened (the arrest) but it does seem somewhat worrying that individuals can now get detained based on request?

To be clear, I'm not directly addressing this at you or saying this is what you did, I've just quoted you as an example of the question.

The key thing about Yaxley Lennon's arrest for me is, if you're asking questions about it, were you asking the same questions when the legislation was brought in? Or given the way it was brought forward as a response to things like the BLM protests, were you OK with it as you thought it would just be used on those guys?

More than anything else this highlights how bad the legislation is and how it removes our freedoms as a society. We seem to have forgotten that we protect all of us by protecting the least of us. We're all a minority in some way or another, so we can all be targeted by bigots of some description.

[yermum]

I suppose our role in real world conflict has been providing the Ukrainian armed forces with masses of materiel, up to and including tanks, vast training and a major diplomatic effort to maintain support for them and pressure on Russia. Seems meaningful enough

That goes into the backing the US foreign policy with troops/weapons pile. Thing with backing the US, is they can always just do it alone but the reverse isn't always true. It was there in the UK's reaction to the US leaving Afghanistan, the mission was mostly a failure by the end (by which time the mission seemed to have become to build a functioning democratic state over multiple generations of occupation), the speed of the Taliban advance showed how likely success was. The UK's role was to provide troops/weapons for US foreign policy but in the Commons debate there was talk of basically being betrayed by the US and needing to continue the mission somehow, and even that the Taliban were being defeated.

There's a bit of an inflated view of what the UK is doing when it sends troops/weapons. Campbell probably has it about right when people bring up Iraq, his standard reply is the UK provided 5% of troops and it would've happened anyway without the UK. He's trying to downplay Labour's role in a failure, but no one before that war (or now after it has ended) was saying France was showing at least as much clout by not providing troops/weapons. The UK not being involved in Vietnam looks like an aberration now.

A media/political environment which makes it impossible to meet bad actors (and is okay with treating friends badly over minor disagreements as in this case), limits the UK. Sticking with your example of Ukraine, it's obvious Ukraine needs more of everything to get the best outcome, but the UK has done all it can as you say, so that's not something the UK controls. If Trump is elected and cuts Ukraine off (which would be shameful Ukraine isn't anything like Afghanistan), does the UK sit at the table in the Trump arranged talks? Does Trump allow the UK to do so? How is a UK PM treated in the UK if the deal isn't great (which it wouldn't be)? Cameron ducked out last time, because he knew it would be reported in the UK as him being weak (rather than the UK's strength or lack of being shown), it was Obama and Merkel that talked with Putin. The safe option for any UK PM is provide troops/weapons for US foreign policy (the stage Ukraine is at), avoid talking to non-allies thereby avoiding the risk of being seen as weak etc, then somewhat complain about/regret the final outcome the UK had not much input into.

UK diplomacy is obviously going to be limited if the PM can only meet with people he's in total agreement with.

The amount of political capital that the uk has expended on Ukraine will make it very uncomfortable for the government if the US drops support.

But given the meek tail tucking that went on after Afghanistan where British soldiers died I can’t imagine a robust response from our government

[Hal Jordan]

The microphone summed up Sunak's abilities at PMQs today when, just after he said "Britain's not listening", it turned off.

Starmer absolutely put.the boot in and gave him the line "He's the man with the reverse Midas touch, everything he touches turns to...maybe the Home Secretary could help me out?"

[shaggy]

Meanwhile seeing this shitstain being bundled away like a little dolly made my day

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67545868

I am sure there are very good reasons why this happened (the arrest) but it does seem somewhat worrying that individuals can now get detained based on request?

To be clear, I'm not directly addressing this at you or saying this is what you did, I've just quoted you as an example of the question.

The key thing about Yaxley Lennon's arrest for me is, if you're asking questions about it, were you asking the same questions when the legislation was brought in? Or given the way it was brought forward as a response to things like the BLM protests, were you OK with it as you thought it would just be used on those guys?

More than anything else this highlights how bad the legislation is and how it removes our freedoms as a society. We seem to have forgotten that we protect all of us by protecting the least of us. We're all a minority in some way or another, so we can all be targeted by bigots of some description.

Are you really expecting me to respond to that with the veiled ‘racist’ accusation in there?

[Biffer]

I am sure there are very good reasons why this happened (the arrest) but it does seem somewhat worrying that individuals can now get detained based on request?

To be clear, I'm not directly addressing this at you or saying this is what you did, I've just quoted you as an example of the question.

The key thing about Yaxley Lennon's arrest for me is, if you're asking questions about it, were you asking the same questions when the legislation was brought in? Or given the way it was brought forward as a response to things like the BLM protests, were you OK with it as you thought it would just be used on those guys?

More than anything else this highlights how bad the legislation is and how it removes our freedoms as a society. We seem to have forgotten that we protect all of us by protecting the least of us. We're all a minority in some way or another, so we can all be targeted by bigots of some description.

Are you really expecting me to respond to that with the veiled ‘racist’ accusation in there?

Like I said at the top, it wasn't addressed at you personally, it's more a general point about the legislation and how people viewed it when it was introduced

[Slick]

The microphone summed up Sunak's abilities at PMQs today when, just after he said "Britain's not listening", it turned off.

Starmer absolutely put.the boot in and gave him the line "He's the man with the reverse Midas touch, everything he touches turns to...maybe the Home Secretary could help me out?"

Did he? That's very good

[Hal Jordan]

Nottingham City Council issues a s. 114 notice, meaning it's effectively bankrupt.

Labour run, but the funding of Local Authorities, and lack thereof, runs way deeper - 4 Labour, 3 Tory and 1 Lib Dem basically up the shitter to date, and I wouldn't wager against many more existing hand to mouth, sadly.

[Paddington Bear]

I spend a fair amount of working time in Nottingham. The city feels on the edge anyway, could have some serious crime and deprivation issues in the years to come

[Slick]

I spend a fair amount of working time in Nottingham. The city feels on the edge anyway, could have some serious crime and deprivation issues in the years to come

The whole UK just feels shit at the moment.

[Paddington Bear]

I spend a fair amount of working time in Nottingham. The city feels on the edge anyway, could have some serious crime and deprivation issues in the years to come

The whole UK just feels shit at the moment.

Urban areas definitely. Suburbia at least round here feels pretty good. I worry a little we’re becoming a bit American in that respect

[Biffer]

I spend a fair amount of working time in Nottingham. The city feels on the edge anyway, could have some serious crime and deprivation issues in the years to come

I lived there for a while and my work has led me to visit Sunderland, Coventry and numerous other places. When you get to some of the smaller towns you understand why people voted for Brexit. There's so little going for them that anything different would have seemed attractive.

The pitiful spending on levelling up will make no difference at a macroeconomic scale - for that it needs levels similar to those spent on East Germany over three decades.

[David in Gwent]

I spend a fair amount of working time in Nottingham. The city feels on the edge anyway, could have some serious crime and deprivation issues in the years to come

Urban areas definitely. Suburbia at least round here feels pretty good. I worry a little we’re becoming a bit American in that respect

Seriously, enjoy it while you can. You cannot imagine the shit that is coming down the line.

Most of it enabled by middle class, liberal, morons.

[_Os_]

Nottingham City Council issues a s. 114 notice, meaning it's effectively bankrupt.

Labour run, but the funding of Local Authorities, and lack thereof, runs way deeper - 4 Labour, 3 Tory and 1 Lib Dem basically up the shitter to date, and I wouldn't wager against many more existing hand to mouth, sadly.

I made some posts on council debt a few months back. The "borrowing and investment" table has good data on debt:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... nt-finance

Nottingham is the 16th most indebted local authority, £850m of external debt in the hole. Googling the total debt is around £1.3bn (about £500m on a tram network and commercial property), they're spending £1m a week servicing their debt. They are getting the debt down but not fast.

Woking remain the kings, Nottingham would have to dig £700m deeper to stand a chance of beating them.

[fishfoodie]

I spend a fair amount of working time in Nottingham. The city feels on the edge anyway, could have some serious crime and deprivation issues in the years to come

Urban areas definitely. Suburbia at least round here feels pretty good. I worry a little we’re becoming a bit American in that respect

Seriously, enjoy it while you can. You cannot imagine the shit that is coming down the line.

Most of it enabled by middle class, liberal, morons.

I don't think you can point the finger at any political or social group; local Councillors are all the bloody same, regardless of party !

The slow decimation of cities started with the fixation on constructing hyper-markets etc, on ring roads, & this has for the most part resulted in center of those cities being hollowed out, & being left with fast food outlets, charity shops, & "Express" stores. The plan was usually to gentrify areas, & turn them into trendy apartments, but no one had done the sums, & worked out the loss of rates, & what that meant to the balance sheet.

The Councillors then eventually realized they'd fucked up, a couple of decades too late, & spend a half a billion pounds on building a monorail to try & entice people back into town.

[Paddington Bear]

I spend a fair amount of working time in Nottingham. The city feels on the edge anyway, could have some serious crime and deprivation issues in the years to come

I lived there for a while and my work has led me to visit Sunderland, Coventry and numerous other places. When you get to some of the smaller towns you understand why people voted for Brexit. There's so little going for them that anything different would have seemed attractive.

The pitiful spending on levelling up will make no difference at a macroeconomic scale - for that it needs levels similar to those spent on East Germany over three decades.

Totally agree on the wider point.

Nottingham though has reasonable links to London (about to get better with ECML style trains), a pedestrianised city centre with public art, a tram system, a good bus network, a well regarded uni and proximity to somewhere like Derby which laugh all you like is a pretty economically active place. Not quite sure what’s gone so wrong for the place

[Biffer]

I spend a fair amount of working time in Nottingham. The city feels on the edge anyway, could have some serious crime and deprivation issues in the years to come

I lived there for a while and my work has led me to visit Sunderland, Coventry and numerous other places. When you get to some of the smaller towns you understand why people voted for Brexit. There's so little going for them that anything different would have seemed attractive.

The pitiful spending on levelling up will make no difference at a macroeconomic scale - for that it needs levels similar to those spent on East Germany over three decades.

Totally agree on the wider point.

Nottingham though has reasonable links to London (about to get better with ECML style trains), a pedestrianised city centre with public art, a tram system, a good bus network, a well regarded uni and proximity to somewhere like Derby which laugh all you like is a pretty economically active place. Not quite sure what’s gone so wrong for the place

To me though, that's part of the problem. People think good links to London is the answer (not saying this is what you think, but it's a very common question mmom approach). It's links to the rest of the country are shite. Nottingham to Manchester takes two hours on the train. It's only about seventy miles. Birmingham an hour twenty for fifty miles. There isn't a direct train to Scotland.

Nottingham is better than some of its neighbours (Derby, Leicester I'm looking at you) but fundamentally it's more difficult to trade there because the infrastructure isn't great. It's not just transport, it's all the other things you need as well around tech, people etc as well. But the investment there is only on a scale that really counts in microeconomics. It creates some jobs and has a bit of impact, but it doesn't shift the needle, as it were. That investment is needed in every town and city, on an ongoing basis, for a couple of decades, to really change the economy.

[Paddington Bear]

I lived there for a while and my work has led me to visit Sunderland, Coventry and numerous other places. When you get to some of the smaller towns you understand why people voted for Brexit. There's so little going for them that anything different would have seemed attractive.

The pitiful spending on levelling up will make no difference at a macroeconomic scale - for that it needs levels similar to those spent on East Germany over three decades.

Totally agree on the wider point.

Nottingham though has reasonable links to London (about to get better with ECML style trains), a pedestrianised city centre with public art, a tram system, a good bus network, a well regarded uni and proximity to somewhere like Derby which laugh all you like is a pretty economically active place. Not quite sure what’s gone so wrong for the place

To me though, that's part of the problem. People think good links to London is the answer (not saying this is what you think, but it's a very common question mmom approach). It's links to the rest of the country are shite. Nottingham to Manchester takes two hours on the train. It's only about seventy miles. Birmingham an hour twenty for fifty miles. There isn't a direct train to Scotland.

Nottingham is better than some of its neighbours (Derby, Leicester I'm looking at you) but fundamentally it's more difficult to trade there because the infrastructure isn't great. It's not just transport, it's all the other things you need as well around tech, people etc as well. But the investment there is only on a scale that really counts in microeconomics. It creates some jobs and has a bit of impact, but it doesn't shift the needle, as it were. That investment is needed in every town and city, on an ongoing basis, for a couple of decades, to really change the economy.

It’s a fair point. Fairly recently I needed to head up to Glasgow, worked out it was quicker to come home first rather than go from Nottingham after work

[Biffer]

Totally agree on the wider point.

Nottingham though has reasonable links to London (about to get better with ECML style trains), a pedestrianised city centre with public art, a tram system, a good bus network, a well regarded uni and proximity to somewhere like Derby which laugh all you like is a pretty economically active place. Not quite sure what’s gone so wrong for the place

To me though, that's part of the problem. People think good links to London is the answer (not saying this is what you think, but it's a very common question mmom approach). It's links to the rest of the country are shite. Nottingham to Manchester takes two hours on the train. It's only about seventy miles. Birmingham an hour twenty for fifty miles. There isn't a direct train to Scotland.

Nottingham is better than some of its neighbours (Derby, Leicester I'm looking at you) but fundamentally it's more difficult to trade there because the infrastructure isn't great. It's not just transport, it's all the other things you need as well around tech, people etc as well. But the investment there is only on a scale that really counts in microeconomics. It creates some jobs and has a bit of impact, but it doesn't shift the needle, as it were. That investment is needed in every town and city, on an ongoing basis, for a couple of decades, to really change the economy.

It’s a fair point. Fairly recently I needed to head up to Glasgow, worked out it was quicker to come home first rather than go from Nottingham after work

Yeah, makes it easier for people to do Business with people in London, rather than with other cities closer to Nottingham. Extracts economic activity from those areas and sucks it into London.

[C69]

Totally agree on the wider point.

Nottingham though has reasonable links to London (about to get better with ECML style trains), a pedestrianised city centre with public art, a tram system, a good bus network, a well regarded uni and proximity to somewhere like Derby which laugh all you like is a pretty economically active place. Not quite sure what’s gone so wrong for the place

To me though, that's part of the problem. People think good links to London is the answer (not saying this is what you think, but it's a very common question mmom approach). It's links to the rest of the country are shite. Nottingham to Manchester takes two hours on the train. It's only about seventy miles. Birmingham an hour twenty for fifty miles. There isn't a direct train to Scotland.

Nottingham is better than some of its neighbours (Derby, Leicester I'm looking at you) but fundamentally it's more difficult to trade there because the infrastructure isn't great. It's not just transport, it's all the other things you need as well around tech, people etc as well. But the investment there is only on a scale that really counts in microeconomics. It creates some jobs and has a bit of impact, but it doesn't shift the needle, as it were. That investment is needed in every town and city, on an ongoing basis, for a couple of decades, to really change the economy.

It’s a fair point. Fairly recently I needed to head up to Glasgow, worked out it was quicker to come home first rather than go from Nottingham after work

With Nottingham City Council declaring itself effectively bankrupt yesterday.I sets the scene for lots more to follow before March apparently.
What a sorry state the UK has become.
In other news the recent possibility of a senior doctors pay deal has gone down like a shit sandwich with the Nursing Unions.
I suspect that a new round of strikes will be called around March when the PRB announces it's recommendations.
Given that AFC staff including nurses had one of lowest pay settlements in the public sector last year its going to get spicy before a proposed election.
Further capacity issues this winter and loads of hospitals failing CQC inspections will further compound Tory woes.

[Biffer]

To me though, that's part of the problem. People think good links to London is the answer (not saying this is what you think, but it's a very common question mmom approach). It's links to the rest of the country are shite. Nottingham to Manchester takes two hours on the train. It's only about seventy miles. Birmingham an hour twenty for fifty miles. There isn't a direct train to Scotland.

Nottingham is better than some of its neighbours (Derby, Leicester I'm looking at you) but fundamentally it's more difficult to trade there because the infrastructure isn't great. It's not just transport, it's all the other things you need as well around tech, people etc as well. But the investment there is only on a scale that really counts in microeconomics. It creates some jobs and has a bit of impact, but it doesn't shift the needle, as it were. That investment is needed in every town and city, on an ongoing basis, for a couple of decades, to really change the economy.

It’s a fair point. Fairly recently I needed to head up to Glasgow, worked out it was quicker to come home first rather than go from Nottingham after work

With Nottingham City Council declaring itself effectively bankrupt yesterday.I sets the scene for lots more to follow before March apparently.
What a sorry state the UK has become.
In other news the recent possibility of a senior doctors pay deal has gone down like a shit sandwich with the Nursing Unions.
I suspect that a new round of strikes will be called around March when the PRB announces it's recommendations.
Given that AFC staff including nurses had one of lowest pay settlements in the public sector last year its going to get spicy before a proposed election.
Further capacity issues this winter and loads of hospitals failing CQC inspections will further compound Tory woes.

I’m in the public sector. I got 2%.

[_Os_]

I lived there for a while and my work has led me to visit Sunderland, Coventry and numerous other places. When you get to some of the smaller towns you understand why people voted for Brexit. There's so little going for them that anything different would have seemed attractive.

The pitiful spending on levelling up will make no difference at a macroeconomic scale - for that it needs levels similar to those spent on East Germany over three decades.

Totally agree on the wider point.

Nottingham though has reasonable links to London (about to get better with ECML style trains), a pedestrianised city centre with public art, a tram system, a good bus network, a well regarded uni and proximity to somewhere like Derby which laugh all you like is a pretty economically active place. Not quite sure what’s gone so wrong for the place

To me though, that's part of the problem. People think good links to London is the answer (not saying this is what you think, but it's a very common question mmom approach). It's links to the rest of the country are shite. Nottingham to Manchester takes two hours on the train. It's only about seventy miles. Birmingham an hour twenty for fifty miles. There isn't a direct train to Scotland.

Nottingham is better than some of its neighbours (Derby, Leicester I'm looking at you) but fundamentally it's more difficult to trade there because the infrastructure isn't great. It's not just transport, it's all the other things you need as well around tech, people etc as well. But the investment there is only on a scale that really counts in microeconomics. It creates some jobs and has a bit of impact, but it doesn't shift the needle, as it were. That investment is needed in every town and city, on an ongoing basis, for a couple of decades, to really change the economy.

Agree with this, if you're using public transport and not travelling towards London at standard commuter hours things get quite shit. Wherever you are in England it's usually far easier to get to London than places which are geographically closer (this is true in the south too).

Even travelling to London gets expensive, which removes London as an option for a lot of the labour market. Looking at National Rail enquiries, it's two hours from Nottingham to St Pancras making it possible to commute, the cheapest fares are £41-£49 to London between 5am and 6am, the return is shit though the £41-£49 fares are all after 7pm the decent times from 5.30pm-6.30pm are £81-£94. A month pass for £1k becomes the only rail option. The cost and the wake up time will end any interest among most. Those still interested and not on a salary over £30k will then look at coaches, National Express leaves Nottingham at 4am arriving at 8am (£17) and leaves London at 6pm arriving at 9pm (£17), which would be cheaper with a month/year pass. Basically their entire life will be commuting and working. Some will do it though, the longest commute I've heard of is Swansea to central London, that guy spent 7 hours a day on trains.

There isn't any political will to unmake London the hub of the UK's economy. So all this just gets worse. Essentially anyone outside London wastes shitloads of money and time accessing the economy (this still being cheaper for them than living in London). Then people wonder why there's a productivity issue, and if those people are Tories their answer is to make everyone work more hours somehow.

[dpedin]

Hancock getting a doing and tying himself in knots with his dodgy answers as the KC forensically tears him a new one! This is only going one way and it looks like he is going to take Johnson and the Cab Office crew down with him. He is getting angry now as the KC forces him to answer the question and not waffle on. What is clear is that the rats in the sack are now eating each other and Hancock is aware he will be the first to be consumed but won't go without going for everyone else!

[Biffer]

I don’t think anyone really wants to unmake London (ok, a few loonies maybe), but neither does anyone want to continue a situation of the rest of the country being fully dependent on London to pay the bills. London’s GDP per capita is about $80k. The North East is $32k. We want to take that up to mid forties across the country. UK’s average GDP per capita is about $45k, which is pretty good globally for a reasonably sized country. But we should be aiming to get the whole country nearer to that, and try to keep London at around the level of Singapore, which it currently is. The South East is dragged up by London but the rest of the country is lower. The only other high spot in the UK is Edinburgh at just under $60k per capita.

Edit - gdp numbers nominal not ppp.

And actually I’ve just noticed Manchester has achieved significant growth in the last ten years or so. It’s around the same level as Edinburgh. One might link that to the regeneration of the city centre after it was bombed by the IRA, development of Salford Quays and the Trafford Centre area, the build of MediaCity, investment in multiple tram lines, £1billion investment in the airport (and that airport now serving hundreds of overseas destinations), the redevelopment of Manchester Piccadilly, redevelopment of the canal side area, and other stuff too including a number of unis that have different focusses.

[Lobby]

Danny Dorling, the Halford Mackinder Professor of Geography at Oxford, has published a new book: Shattered Nation: Inequality and the Geography of a Failing State.

In it he observes that living standards in the UK were at their highest in 1974 when inequality had also been reduced to its lowest ever level. Its been downhill ever since then.

Levels of hunger in the UK are currently at their worst since the 1930s and real wages have declined more than at any time since the 1780s.

The gap between life expectancies in different parts of the UK is wider than the gap between life expectancies in the UK as a whole and Sudan.

[_Os_]

I don’t think anyone really wants to unmake London (ok, a few loonies maybe), but neither does anyone want to continue a situation of the rest of the country being fully dependent on London to pay the bills. London’s GDP per capita is about $80k. The North East is $32k. We want to take that up to mid forties across the country. UK’s average GDP per capita is about $45k, which is pretty good globally for a reasonably sized country. But we should be aiming to get the whole country nearer to that, and try to keep London at around the level of Singapore, which it currently is. The South East is dragged up by London but the rest of the country is lower. The only other high spot in the UK is Edinburgh at just under $60k per capita.

London was made into the hub post WW2 though, some it by design some of it not.

A map of UK motorways shows most of what was built was about improving road access to London, the Welsh motorway is the most glaring example. A map of new and expanded towns post WW2 shows most of what was built was around London. Underground/metros show most (all? did Liverpool/Newcastle/Glasgow get anything new?) of what has been built post WW2 is in London, when it's normal in countries as developed as the UK for metro networks to be in many large cities and sometimes the not so large cities. This type of large infrastructure spending/building basically ended with Thatcher unless it was in London/directed towards London.

The other big change was industry/mining/manufacturing all being nuked which impacted economic hubs outside London more than London. As well as financialisaton which benefitted London and everywhere else not so much (other than maybe Edinburgh).

Put all that together and London last had this sort of dominance over the UK economy before the industrial revolution.

[Biffer]

I don’t think anyone really wants to unmake London (ok, a few loonies maybe), but neither does anyone want to continue a situation of the rest of the country being fully dependent on London to pay the bills. London’s GDP per capita is about $80k. The North East is $32k. We want to take that up to mid forties across the country. UK’s average GDP per capita is about $45k, which is pretty good globally for a reasonably sized country. But we should be aiming to get the whole country nearer to that, and try to keep London at around the level of Singapore, which it currently is. The South East is dragged up by London but the rest of the country is lower. The only other high spot in the UK is Edinburgh at just under $60k per capita.

London was made into the hub post WW2 though, some it by design some of it not.

A map of UK motorways shows most of what was built was about improving road access to London, the Welsh motorway is the most glaring example. A map of new and expanded towns post WW2 shows most of what was built was around London. Underground/metros show most (all? did Liverpool/Newcastle/Glasgow get anything new?) of what has been built post WW2 is in London, when it's normal in countries as developed as the UK for metro networks to be in many large cities and sometimes the not so large cities. This type of large infrastructure spending/building basically ended with Thatcher unless it was in London/directed towards London.

The other big change was industry/mining/manufacturing all being nuked which impacted economic hubs outside London more than London. As well as financialisaton which benefitted London and everywhere else not so much (other than maybe Edinburgh).

Put all that together and London last had this sort of dominance over the UK economy before the industrial revolution.

I know

But I think actually doing something now for the future is better than refighting the battles of the past. We cam look at the past for reasons that caused the weaknesses, but heavy industry has gone. We need to develop modern high value manufacturing instead, and build service sectors both directly on those products and in the support industries around them.

The Manchester example ties right into that suburban rail / metro point you make as that city has the largest tram network in the UK. I don't think that's unrelated! Nearly every reasonably sized city in Northern / western Europe has some domestic mass transit system, but in the UK they're the exception not the rule.

[Lobby]

I don’t think anyone really wants to unmake London (ok, a few loonies maybe), but neither does anyone want to continue a situation of the rest of the country being fully dependent on London to pay the bills. London’s GDP per capita is about $80k. The North East is $32k. We want to take that up to mid forties across the country. UK’s average GDP per capita is about $45k, which is pretty good globally for a reasonably sized country. But we should be aiming to get the whole country nearer to that, and try to keep London at around the level of Singapore, which it currently is. The South East is dragged up by London but the rest of the country is lower. The only other high spot in the UK is Edinburgh at just under $60k per capita.

London was made into the hub post WW2 though, some it by design some of it not.

A map of UK motorways shows most of what was built was about improving road access to London, the Welsh motorway is the most glaring example. A map of new and expanded towns post WW2 shows most of what was built was around London. Underground/metros show most (all? did Liverpool/Newcastle/Glasgow get anything new?) of what has been built post WW2 is in London, when it's normal in countries as developed as the UK for metro networks to be in many large cities and sometimes the not so large cities. This type of large infrastructure spending/building basically ended with Thatcher unless it was in London/directed towards London.

The other big change was industry/mining/manufacturing all being nuked which impacted economic hubs outside London more than London. As well as financialisaton which benefitted London and everywhere else not so much (other than maybe Edinburgh).

Put all that together and London last had this sort of dominance over the UK economy before the industrial revolution.

It used to be said that the only reason the M11 was built was to enable MPs to travel back to their Cambridge colleges for Fellows dinners.

[Biffer]

Hancock in the Covid inquiry is just embellishing his prickishness. What a fucking tool.

[sockwithaticket]

Hancock getting a doing and tying himself in knots with his dodgy answers as the KC forensically tears him a new one! This is only going one way and it looks like he is going to take Johnson and the Cab Office crew down with him. He is getting angry now as the KC forces him to answer the question and not waffle on. What is clear is that the rats in the sack are now eating each other and Hancock is aware he will be the first to be consumed but won't go without going for everyone else!

It's been instructive watching many of the politicians called so far reel, get defensive and even aggressive in the face of being asked to simply answer the questions being asked. They're not used to it (useless and/or pocket media...) and they don't like it.

[Line6 HXFX]

We are all talking like there is a British society, that we all have some shared common experience, that there is a common bond amongst us. Frankly, we are deluded. If you had my british experience, like nearly all of my compadres you would be dead before you were 30. The only, singulatr thing that saved me was my completely illogical, joyful mad obsession with guitar. Practicing like 15 hours a day.. No obsession, no bueno. I wouldn't be talking to you now and would be messed up in all sorts of crazy shit..and probably be dead.

When Thatcher was re elected I remember my dad was so fucking disappointed he said to me " everyone is out for themselves now, we should be too".

:that was what nearly 45 years ago.

There is either Socialism, or there is this.
Self serving contempt, greed, fuck you I'm alright Jack...

And there ain't no fucking Socialism.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

whoever invented the guitar clearly has some questions to answer

[fishfoodie]

Hancock in the Covid inquiry is just embellishing his prickishness. What a fucking tool.

Just catching up on some of his perjury now.

I didn't think it was possible to lower my opinion of him, by by dog was I wrong !

[dpedin]

Hancock in the Covid inquiry is just embellishing his prickishness. What a fucking tool.

Just catching up on some of his perjury now.

I didn't think it was possible to lower my opinion of him, by by dog was I wrong !

Funniest bit was when the KC asked him if he thought the Blonde Bumblecunt couldn't make a decision and after disagreeing with how the KC described the PM to him was then reminded this was actually a direct quote from his own book! I suspect that Hancock regrets publishing his 'covid diary' now given the KC is using it and cross referencing it with other sources. Hancock is not nearly as clever as he thinks he is!

[fishfoodie]

Hancock in the Covid inquiry is just embellishing his prickishness. What a fucking tool.

Just catching up on some of his perjury now.

I didn't think it was possible to lower my opinion of him, by by dog was I wrong !

Funniest bit was when the KC asked him if he thought the Blonde Bumblecunt couldn't make a decision and after disagreeing with how the KC described the PM to him was then reminded this was actually a direct quote from his own book! I suspect that Hancock regrets publishing his 'covid diary' now given the KC is using it and cross referencing it with other sources. Hancock is not nearly as clever as he thinks he is!

This has the feeling like we're going to see a series of venal, moronic, & frankly psychopathic scum be questioned by the the enquiry, & then the cunt in chief will bumble on in, & try his usual shtick, & play the absent minded buffoon, & after all the lower level Political scum have done their perjury, he'll try & lay all the blame at their feet, & the KC will just make the obvious observation; "if they were all so incompetent/corrupt/evil, why did you appoint them ?"

The plan was obviously there from a long time ago, to make Hand-on-cock the fall guy, but it's very difficult to portray someone whose as thick as pig shit as some kind of master criminal, & there's too much going on, e.g. PPE fraud, to just lay at the door of just the one bad Politician, so when it can't all have happened at one layer of management, you obviously look the next layer up !

[dpedin]

Just catching up on some of his perjury now.

I didn't think it was possible to lower my opinion of him, by by dog was I wrong !

Funniest bit was when the KC asked him if he thought the Blonde Bumblecunt couldn't make a decision and after disagreeing with how the KC described the PM to him was then reminded this was actually a direct quote from his own book! I suspect that Hancock regrets publishing his 'covid diary' now given the KC is using it and cross referencing it with other sources. Hancock is not nearly as clever as he thinks he is!

This has the feeling like we're going to see a series of venal, moronic, & frankly psychopathic scum be questioned by the the enquiry, & then the cunt in chief will bumble on in, & try his usual shtick, & play the absent minded buffoon, & after all the lower level Political scum have done their perjury, he'll try & lay all the blame at their feet, & the KC will just make the obvious observation; "if they were all so incompetent/corrupt/evil, why did you appoint them ?"

The plan was obviously there from a long time ago, to make Hand-on-cock the fall guy, but it's very difficult to portray someone whose as thick as pig shit as some kind of master criminal, & there's too much going on, e.g. PPE fraud, to just lay at the door of just the one bad Politician, so when it can't all have happened at one layer of management, you obviously look the next layer up !

This module is going to be looked back on as friendly experience for those giving evidence compared to module 5 which will focus on PPE procurement! I suspect a lot of witnesses might by then be living abroad or even try the old Ernest Saunders, United Distillers excuse that they are now 'suffering from pre-senile dementia' and can't be witnesses or held to account!