Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Scotland has its own Secretary of State then so should Lond

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited January 14 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Scotland has its own Secretary of State then so should London

Graphic: The last two general election results in London via the BBC

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,537
    edited January 14
    Thirst.

    Thanks, Alastair. I'm afraid from my perspective this is a QTWTAIN.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,420
    I believe at one point the Tories suggested merging the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and NI. But Labour/SNP/et al attacked them "see the Tories don't care about [delete as appropriate] rather than thinking whether it was a good idea or not.

    But the Mayor should represent the interests of London (there may be an argument for them attending Cabinet) - you don't need to create someone who s/he will be in personal conflict with
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,305

    Thirst.

    Thanks, Alastair. I'm afraid from my perspective this is a QTWTAIN.

    Second +1
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,446
    No.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,446
    To elaborate a bit, if we had a minister for London then the rest of England would feel, again, democratically short-changed.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,022
    Charles said:

    I believe at one point the Tories suggested merging the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and NI. But Labour/SNP/et al attacked them "see the Tories don't care about [delete as appropriate] rather than thinking whether it was a good idea or not.

    But the Mayor should represent the interests of London (there may be an argument for them attending Cabinet) - you don't need to create someone who s/he will be in personal conflict with

    That, surely, is what the Mayor is for. TBH I’m not in favour of him or her attending cabinet, unless specifically London issues are under discussion.... although it’s fairly difficult to see an issue where the city (not The City) doesn’t have a dog in the fight.

    However, Mr M slightly dodges the questioon of WHY a Secretary of State. When I was yourg the Minister for Health wa a powerful figure, and I don’t think the present SoS for Health is any more significant or powerful than Aneurin Bevan was in the late 40’s.
    What really is the difference in range of activity, power or influence? Or is it just that it sounds better?
  • No. Next thread.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,537

    To elaborate a bit, if we had a minister for London then the rest of England would feel, again, democratically short-changed.

    There are practical issues with such things. As an example on the railways, the Welsh government run some services that cross the border from England, where the majority of the line is in Wales (examples are, I believe, the Heart of Wales and the West Marches lines). It has been alleged that the Welsh government is running services for the benefit of Welsh customers on the line rather than ones served in the English parts. As is, of course, their right and responsibility. It's a bit hard on the people living in the east, though.

    I foresee similar problems when TfL gets its mucky fingers on services further out from London.
  • Rebourne_FluffyRebourne_Fluffy Posts: 225
    edited January 14
    London is not a city FFS. It contains 'The City of London (Square-Mile)' and 'The City of Westminster'.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,220
    Why no Secretary of State for the East Midlands for that matter?

    After all, the regional inequality in pay is highest here. East Midlanders aee the worst paid in England:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/regional-pay-gap-gender-equality-south-east-london-north-midlands-wales-women-gender-a8043911.html

    There are 4.5 million people, so about the same as NI and Scotland together.

    Perhaps each English region should have an SoS to speak for it, it could quite reasonably be combined with another role.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,406
    Yawn. The madness goes on - thankfully so does life.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,508
    Foxy said:

    Why no Secretary of State for the East Midlands for that matter?

    Because the incumbent would be too embarrassed to tell anyone their job title.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,022
    edited January 14
    Skids being prepared? Trouble is, as most of us know, if you get one meeting wrong, that’s unfortunate; to do it several times suggests incompetence.
    Looks like Boris is being lined up for a move sideways to a job that sounds good, but where he can't make a lot of a mess.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,830
    edited January 14
    Why just London? Every argument Alistair makes could be made for Manchester or Birmingham as well, certainly for the big metro mayor areas combined.

    Equally I think I am right in saying almost half of the population of the entire UK lives in England outside those areas, and issues of grinding poverty are just as acute in Coleford, Hednesford or Whitehaven as they are in Brixton or Sunderland - arguably more so as their isolation makes work more difficult to find and the cost of transport to work once found is often higher due to the distances involved. Coleford doesn't even have a railway station, while there is only one major employer left in Whitehaven - Sellafield.

    The argument could be made with far more force for England as a whole combining the three areas - yet it never is as far as I can see.

    I do worry that London seems to be developing almost a siege mentality with regard to the rest of the country, claiming we take their money and give nothing back. Leaving aside the obvious fact that this isn't true (if London lived for three days without the water supply from the Thames valley they might suddenly realise the rest of the country is not irrelevant) very often they come across as pretty patronising, endlessly demanding extra because they are London and everyone else is less important and less wonderful.

    Pure anecdote - I was once told quite seriously by a Londoner that every graduate lives in London for a time. When I pointed out that I do not live in London, never have and almost certainly never will, he refused to believe me. He then told me I was a fool because I'd be on three times the money in London. When I pointed out that on my salary I have a three-bedroom house with garage and garden and in London I wouldn't even be able to afford a flat, he then started telling me that it was because of his subsidies that I could afford it and ranting about house prices in London. It never occurred to him to wonder if perhaps his choice to stay in London was the problem, rather than my salary.

    I think if Brexit has shown anything useful, it has shown how little we are talking to each other as a country, and it is a real tragedy that in May, who is incapable of leading, and Corbyn, who epitomises all the worst faults of this tendency I have outlined, we have leaders incapable of getting us to communicate better.
  • Rebourne_FluffyRebourne_Fluffy Posts: 225
    edited January 14
    Foxy said:

    Why no Secretary of State for the East Midlands for that matter?

    After all, the regional inequality in pay is highest here. East Midlanders aee the worst paid in England:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/regional-pay-gap-gender-equality-south-east-london-north-midlands-wales-women-gender-a8043911.html

    There are 4.5 million people, so about the same as NI and Scotland together.

    Perhaps each English region should have an SoS to speak for it, it could quite reasonably be combined with another role.

    Scotland: ~5.3 million.
    Ulster-Jocks: ~ 1.8 million.

    Would you really trust Dr FauxSuks to undertake a medical procedure upon your body? Please avoid Leicester NHS.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,446
    Dr. Foxy, is that true? I thought it was about 5.5m in Scotland, very close to the number in Yorkshire.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,452
    Foxy said:

    Why no Secretary of State for the East Midlands for that matter?

    Or we could just revive the titles Secretary of State for the Northern Department and the Shouthern Department... ?

    Guess which had seniority.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,637
    London doesn’t need a SoS and a mayor with wide ranging powers.

    Just because we are leaving the EU we don’t have to replace all the redundant layers of bureaucrats.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,650

    I recall after the Brexit referendum, you promised you would set up your own London City Independence Party to stop the "carrot munchers" (your term).

    How is LCIP coming on?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,446
    Mr. Flashman (deceased), if we don't do that, we might end up with an English Parliament rather than carving England up into little pieces, though.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,830
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Why no Secretary of State for the East Midlands for that matter?

    Or we could just revive the titles Secretary of State for the Northern Department and the Shouthern Department... ?

    Guess which had seniority.
    Except under Richard III of course.

    (That was a joke, BTW. I do know that the titles were after his time.)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,220
    ydoethur said:

    Why just London? Every argument Alistair makes could be made for Manchester or Birmingham as well, certainly for the big metro mayor areas combined.

    Equally I think I am right in saying almost half of the population of the entire UK lives in England outside those areas, and issues of grinding poverty are just as acute in Coleford, Hednesford or Whitehaven as they are in Brixton or Sunderland - arguably more so as their isolation makes work more difficult to find and the cost of transport to work once found is often higher due to the distances involved. Coleford doesn't even have a railway station, while there is only one major employer left in Whitehaven - Sellafield.

    The argument could be made with far more force for England as a whole combining the three areas - yet it never is as far as I can see.

    I do worry that London seems to be developing almost a siege mentality with regard to the rest of the country, claiming we take their money and give nothing back. Leaving aside the obvious fact that this isn't true (if London lived for three days without the water supply from the Thames valley they might suddenly realise the rest of the country is not irrelevant) very often they come across as pretty patronising, endlessly demanding extra because they are London and everyone else is less important and less wonderful.

    Pure anecdote - I was once told quite seriously by a Londoner that every graduate lives in London for a time. When I pointed out that I do not live in London, never have and almost certainly never will, he refused to believe me. He then told me I was a fool because I'd be on three times the money in London. When I pointed out that on my salary I have a three-bedroom house with garage and garden and in London I wouldn't even be able to afford a flat, he then started telling me that it was because of his subsidies that I could afford it and ranting about house prices in London. It never occurred to him to wonder if perhaps his choice to stay in London was the problem, rather than my salary.

    I think if Brexit has shown anything useful, it has shown how little we are talking to each other as a country, and it is a real tragedy that in May, who is incapable of leading, and Corbyn, who epitomises all the worst faults of this tendency I have outlined, we have leaders incapable of getting us to communicate better.

    A more eloquent reasoning than I put for the East Midlands, but much the same argument.

    It is also worth noting that London is where a lot of people in the regions work but do not live. Much of London's GDP is generated by commuters, and by national companies with HQs there. Additionally many Londoners retire away from the Great Wen.

    @ydoethur's acquaintance is right that many Britons spend part of their lives there, but why is that more important than the other places that they spend their life in?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,830
    TGOHF said:

    London doesn’t need a SoS and a mayor with wide ranging powers.

    Just because we are leaving the EU we don’t have to replace all the redundant layers of bureaucrats.

    Alternatively we could use the opportunity to get rid of at least one level of county and district councils, which are not only huge drains on the public purse but also often run at best incompetently and at worst dishonestly. The chief executive of a council in the East Midlands who awarded himself a bonus of £100,000 for making £200,000 worth of cuts springs to mind.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,220

    Dr. Foxy, is that true? I thought it was about 5.5m in Scotland, very close to the number in Yorkshire.

    I intended Wales and NI, but am in a pre-coffee level of consciousness.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,335
    There isn't a shortage of enemies in the Cabinet. On the substance, I wonder if there isn't an actual medical reason for his quite extraordinary lapses of concentration. It ought not to be possible for the Foreign Secretary to mix up two coupletely different countries a thousand miles apart, any more than a US Secretary of State would confuse France with Slovenia.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,637
    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    London doesn’t need a SoS and a mayor with wide ranging powers.

    Just because we are leaving the EU we don’t have to replace all the redundant layers of bureaucrats.

    Alternatively we could use the opportunity to get rid of at least one level of county and district councils, which are not only huge drains on the public purse but also often run at best incompetently and at worst dishonestly. The chief executive of a council in the East Midlands who awarded himself a bonus of £100,000 for making £200,000 worth of cuts springs to mind.
    Correct - but odds on a thread on here arguing for less government around 50/1.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,220
    London is certainly different to the English regions in how it voted in Brexit:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028

    Indeed the neglect of the regions is one factor in the anti-metropolitan feeling that drove Brexit, similar to the cultural divide between red and blue counties in the USA. Brexit may well be the beginning of our cultural civil war rather than its end.
  • If there is one thing to get the rest of the Country annoyed it is the constant whinging of Londoners
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 741
    Good to see that Mr Meeks is taking a break from his ‘Brexit is bad’ tub, in favour of his ‘London’s taxes feather-bed knuckle-dragging northerners’ tub :-)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,125
    Foxy said:

    London is certainly different to the English regions in how it voted in Brexit:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028

    Indeed the neglect of the regions is one factor in the anti-metropolitan feeling that drove Brexit, similar to the cultural divide between red and blue counties in the USA. Brexit may well be the beginning of our cultural civil war rather than its end.

    Outer London was not that different (45% supported Brexit). Inner London was very different (only 28% did).
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,345
    Mr G,

    "If there is one thing to get the rest of the Country annoyed it is the constant whinging of Londoners."

    We should look upon London as a useful dustbin. It deposits the real moaners and pretentious prats all in one place.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,665
    On topic, off topic: How much would a ~ 100 sq m house of around 0.1 acre garden, parking for 2 or 3 cars next to a field (to own) and nearby grazing land suitable for a retired horse, and stabling/ out turn for a younger one (to rent) be in London :) ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,220
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    London is certainly different to the English regions in how it voted in Brexit:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028

    Indeed the neglect of the regions is one factor in the anti-metropolitan feeling that drove Brexit, similar to the cultural divide between red and blue counties in the USA. Brexit may well be the beginning of our cultural civil war rather than its end.

    Outer London was not that different (45% supported Brexit). Inner London was very different (only 28% did).
    Sure, but at a similar granularity, Leicester voted Remain, while Leics voted Leave.

    Its about the cultural divide between those comfortable with a diverse cultural environment and those who are not.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,019
    Foxy said:

    Dr. Foxy, is that true? I thought it was about 5.5m in Scotland, very close to the number in Yorkshire.

    I intended Wales and NI, but am in a pre-coffee level of consciousness.
    Like Boris?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,022
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Why just London? Every argument Alistair makes could be made for Manchester or Birmingham as well, certainly for the big metro mayor areas combined.

    Equally I think I am right in saying almost half of the population of the entire UK lives in England outside those areas, and issues of grinding poverty are just as acute in Coleford, Hednesford or Whitehaven as they are in Brixton or Sunderland - arguably more so as their isolation makes work more difficult to find and the cost of transport to work once found is often higher due to the distances involved. Coleford doesn't even have a railway station, while there is only one major employer left in Whitehaven - Sellafield.

    The argument could be made with far more force for England as a whole combining the three areas - yet it never is as far as I can see.

    I do worry that London seems to be developing almost a siege mentality with regard to the rest of the country, claiming we take their money and give nothing back. Leaving aside the obvious fact that this isn't true (if London lived for three days without the water supply from the Thames valley they might suddenly realise the rest of the country is not irrelevant) very often they come across as pretty patronising, endlessly demanding extra because they are London and everyone else is less important and less wonderful.


    I think if Brexit has shown anything useful, it has shown how little we are talking to each other as a country, and it is a real tragedy that in May, who is incapable of leading, and Corbyn, who epitomises all the worst faults of this tendency I have outlined, we have leaders incapable of getting us to communicate better.

    A more eloquent reasoning than I put for the East Midlands, but much the same argument.

    It is also worth noting that London is where a lot of people in the regions work but do not live. Much of London's GDP is generated by commuters, and by national companies with HQs there. Additionally many Londoners retire away from the Great Wen.

    @ydoethur's acquaintance is right that many Britons spend part of their lives there, but why is that more important than the other places that they spend their life in?
    That has, I suspect, always been the case. I seem to recall reading that from about 1400 until 1900 infant mortality in London was such that to maintain London’s business immigration frm the countryside was essential.

    And around the Colchester area a significant paert of the economy is derived from exporting people to London in the morning, and importing them back in the evening.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 264
    Foxy said:

    London is certainly different to the English regions in how it voted in Brexit:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028

    Indeed the neglect of the regions is one factor in the anti-metropolitan feeling that drove Brexit, similar to the cultural divide between red and blue counties in the USA. Brexit may well be the beginning of our cultural civil war rather than its end.

    It's hardly the fault of Londoners that they live in the 21st century.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,309
    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,452
    ydoethur said:

    Why just London? Every argument Alistair makes could be made for Manchester or Birmingham as well, certainly for the big metro mayor areas combined.

    Equally I think I am right in saying almost half of the population of the entire UK lives in England outside those areas, and issues of grinding poverty are just as acute in Coleford, Hednesford or Whitehaven as they are in Brixton or Sunderland - arguably more so as their isolation makes work more difficult to find and the cost of transport to work once found is often higher due to the distances involved. Coleford doesn't even have a railway station, while there is only one major employer left in Whitehaven - Sellafield.

    The argument could be made with far more force for England as a whole combining the three areas - yet it never is as far as I can see.

    I do worry that London seems to be developing almost a siege mentality with regard to the rest of the country, claiming we take their money and give nothing back. Leaving aside the obvious fact that this isn't true (if London lived for three days without the water supply from the Thames valley they might suddenly realise the rest of the country is not irrelevant) very often they come across as pretty patronising, endlessly demanding extra because they are London and everyone else is less important and less wonderful.

    Pure anecdote - I was once told quite seriously by a Londoner that every graduate lives in London for a time. When I pointed out that I do not live in London, never have and almost certainly never will, he refused to believe me. He then told me I was a fool because I'd be on three times the money in London. When I pointed out that on my salary I have a three-bedroom house with garage and garden and in London I wouldn't even be able to afford a flat, he then started telling me that it was because of his subsidies that I could afford it and ranting about house prices in London. It never occurred to him to wonder if perhaps his choice to stay in London was the problem, rather than my salary.

    I think if Brexit has shown anything useful, it has shown how little we are talking to each other as a country, and it is a real tragedy that in May, who is incapable of leading, and Corbyn, who epitomises all the worst faults of this tendency I have outlined, we have leaders incapable of getting us to communicate better.

    An excellent rebuttal of Alistair's (not ridiculous) piece.
    I'm not entirely convinced that we're not talking to each other at all; it's just that the conversation is dominated by insult, recrimination and snark.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,220

    Foxy said:

    Dr. Foxy, is that true? I thought it was about 5.5m in Scotland, very close to the number in Yorkshire.

    I intended Wales and NI, but am in a pre-coffee level of consciousness.
    Like Boris?
    Indeed. But in a Churchillian style: soon I shall have had my coffee*, but Boris will remain Boris.

    *My cat is refusing to budge from my lap, so coffee remains out of reach...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,125
    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    London is certainly different to the English regions in how it voted in Brexit:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028

    Indeed the neglect of the regions is one factor in the anti-metropolitan feeling that drove Brexit, similar to the cultural divide between red and blue counties in the USA. Brexit may well be the beginning of our cultural civil war rather than its end.

    Outer London was not that different (45% supported Brexit). Inner London was very different (only 28% did).
    Sure, but at a similar granularity, Leicester voted Remain, while Leics voted Leave.

    Its about the cultural divide between those comfortable with a diverse cultural environment and those who are not.
    You can see the same divide in terms of party political support. Inner London is almost a Labour monolith (Lab 24, Con 3). Outer London is more mixed (Lab 25, Con 18, Lib Dem 3). It becomes even starker if Hornsey & Wood Green, Tottenham, and Brent Central are treated as Inner London. Inner London has both lots of rich people who vote Labour for cultural reasons, and lots of poor people who vote Labour for economic reasons. Outer London has a much larger number of people in the middle.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,830
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Dr. Foxy, is that true? I thought it was about 5.5m in Scotland, very close to the number in Yorkshire.

    I intended Wales and NI, but am in a pre-coffee level of consciousness.
    Like Boris?
    Indeed. But in a Churchillian style: soon I shall have had my coffee*, but Boris will remain Boris.

    *My cat is refusing to budge from my lap, so coffee remains out of reach...
    The love of pussy has been the downfall of many a good man, and also the likes of Trump and Boris :wink:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,665
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    London is certainly different to the English regions in how it voted in Brexit:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028

    Indeed the neglect of the regions is one factor in the anti-metropolitan feeling that drove Brexit, similar to the cultural divide between red and blue counties in the USA. Brexit may well be the beginning of our cultural civil war rather than its end.

    Outer London was not that different (45% supported Brexit). Inner London was very different (only 28% did).
    Sure, but at a similar granularity, Leicester voted Remain, while Leics voted Leave.

    Its about the cultural divide between those comfortable with a diverse cultural environment and those who are not.
    You can see the same divide in terms of party political support. Inner London is almost a Labour monolith (Lab 24, Con 3). Outer London is more mixed (Lab 25, Con 18, Lib Dem 3). It becomes even starker if Hornsey & Wood Green, Tottenham, and Brent Central are treated as Inner London. Inner London has both lots of rich people who vote Labour for cultural reasons, and lots of poor people who vote Labour for economic reasons. Outer London has a much larger number of people in the middle.
    I liked the stats from r Newham. Highest immigration and emigration in the entire country. People can't wait to hear in there, and then get out lol
  • fox327fox327 Posts: 6
    edited January 14
    Perhaps the time has come for London to have its own political party: The London Party.

    This would support strong links with the EU or EU membership, and economic growth generally. It would have a different Brexit policy to the Conservative Party. It would also lack the trade union historical connections that the Labour Party has. It could attract voters dissatisfied with the existing parties.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,830
    edited January 14
    Nigelb said:

    An excellent rebuttal of Alistair's (not ridiculous) piece.
    I'm not entirely convinced that we're not talking to each other at all; it's just that the conversation is dominated by insult, recrimination and snark.

    I still cherish the memory of the poster from Surrey who thought three-bed ex council houses in Bury were worth £450,000 and was really shocked to see how wrong he was when I persuaded him to look on Zoopla.

    Recrimination and snark (which I mistyped as snarl, and I think I prefer) are talking at people rather than to them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,452

    There isn't a shortage of enemies in the Cabinet. On the substance, I wonder if there isn't an actual medical reason for his quite extraordinary lapses of concentration. It ought not to be possible for the Foreign Secretary to mix up two coupletely different countries a thousand miles apart, any more than a US Secretary of State would confuse France with Slovenia.
    It's not impossible that someone worrying about reckless Saudi foreign policy might make the mistake as a slip of the tongue - after all, Saudi adventurism regarding Lebanon is a matter of some concern too:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/24/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-saad-hariri-mohammed-bin-salman-lebanon.html

    To do it repeatedly is rather more disturbing.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,220
    tlg86 said:

    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.

    Good stats, but worth noting that of the parts of the country with lower than average incomes, most have higher than average spending. East Midlands is the exception. We have fewer doctors per capita than any other region too.

    Good place to live otherwise. Good housing is cheap, good countryside too, and my season ticket at LCFC is £500 cheaper than a London Prem Club, and only 20 min away.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,452
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Dr. Foxy, is that true? I thought it was about 5.5m in Scotland, very close to the number in Yorkshire.

    I intended Wales and NI, but am in a pre-coffee level of consciousness.
    Like Boris?
    Indeed. But in a Churchillian style: soon I shall have had my coffee*, but Boris will remain Boris.

    *My cat is refusing to budge from my lap, so coffee remains out of reach...
    Good to see the order of feline/vulpine precedence being properly respected.
  • CD13 said:

    Mr G,

    "If there is one thing to get the rest of the Country annoyed it is the constant whinging of Londoners."

    We should look upon London as a useful dustbin. It deposits the real moaners and pretentious prats all in one place.

    +1
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,309
    edited January 14
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.

    Good stats, but worth noting that of the parts of the country with lower than average incomes, most have higher than average spending. East Midlands is the exception. We have fewer doctors per capita than any other region too.

    Good place to live otherwise. Good housing is cheap, good countryside too, and my season ticket at LCFC is £500 cheaper than a London Prem Club, and only 20 min away.
    Yes, the East Midlands does seem to get a raw deal. I reckon the West Midlands does better because Birmingham is so big and therefore carries more weight than Leicester/Derby/Nottingham.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,125
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.

    Good stats, but worth noting that of the parts of the country with lower than average incomes, most have higher than average spending. East Midlands is the exception. We have fewer doctors per capita than any other region too.

    Good place to live otherwise. Good housing is cheap, good countryside too, and my season ticket at LCFC is £500 cheaper than a London Prem Club, and only 20 min away.
    Rural Northamptonshire is outstanding, IMO.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894

    Dr. Foxy, is that true? I thought it was about 5.5m in Scotland, very close to the number in Yorkshire.

    MD you should know the facts are made to fit their cause. Knowledge of Scotland on here i slower than dunce level, yet idiots pontificate daily.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,537
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.

    Good stats, but worth noting that of the parts of the country with lower than average incomes, most have higher than average spending. East Midlands is the exception. We have fewer doctors per capita than any other region too.

    Good place to live otherwise. Good housing is cheap, good countryside too, and my season ticket at LCFC is £500 cheaper than a London Prem Club, and only 20 min away.
    Rural Northamptonshire is outstanding, IMO.
    It is. I've been doing bits of the Nene Way recently, and some of the small Northamptonshire villages are beautiful. The churches, with their tall spires and golden stone, can be exquisite. The walk along the Grand Union Canal can also be quite pleasant. Countryside isn't always about dramatic hills and sea views.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894
    tlg86 said:

    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.

    The idiots could sell their hovels , move to a decent part of the country and live like kings if they had the brains.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,220
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.

    Good stats, but worth noting that of the parts of the country with lower than average incomes, most have higher than average spending. East Midlands is the exception. We have fewer doctors per capita than any other region too.

    Good place to live otherwise. Good housing is cheap, good countryside too, and my season ticket at LCFC is £500 cheaper than a London Prem Club, and only 20 min away.
    Yes, the East Midlands does seem to get a raw deal. I reckon the West Midlands does better because Birmingham is so big and therefore carries more weight than Leicester/Derby/Nottingham.
    Leicester, Derby and Nottingham rarely speak with one voice, but perhaps not surprisingly as we have different hinterlands, economies and populations. The University quarter of Nottingham is quite pleasant, and I am there for work reasons a few times each year. Leicester has the nicest city centre of the three, best shopping, best food, best theatre and of course best football and rugby.

    On the other hand, even Derby is better than Coventry :)

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,022

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.

    Good stats, but worth noting that of the parts of the country with lower than average incomes, most have higher than average spending. East Midlands is the exception. We have fewer doctors per capita than any other region too.

    Good place to live otherwise. Good housing is cheap, good countryside too, and my season ticket at LCFC is £500 cheaper than a London Prem Club, and only 20 min away.
    Rural Northamptonshire is outstanding, IMO.
    It is. I've been doing bits of the Nene Way recently, and some of the small Northamptonshire villages are beautiful. The churches, with their tall spires and golden stone, can be exquisite. The walk along the Grand Union Canal can also be quite pleasant. Countryside isn't always about dramatic hills and sea views.
    Same can be said about Essex. Even in the S of the county.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,309
    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.

    The idiots could sell their hovels , move to a decent part of the country and live like kings if they had the brains.
    This was quite interesting:

    https://tinyurl.com/ya89ntm2

    "Why Jewish families are moving to Canvey Island" - find out why ultra-Orthodox Jewish families are so impressed with the Essex seaside.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,537

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.

    Good stats, but worth noting that of the parts of the country with lower than average incomes, most have higher than average spending. East Midlands is the exception. We have fewer doctors per capita than any other region too.

    Good place to live otherwise. Good housing is cheap, good countryside too, and my season ticket at LCFC is £500 cheaper than a London Prem Club, and only 20 min away.
    Rural Northamptonshire is outstanding, IMO.
    It is. I've been doing bits of the Nene Way recently, and some of the small Northamptonshire villages are beautiful. The churches, with their tall spires and golden stone, can be exquisite. The walk along the Grand Union Canal can also be quite pleasant. Countryside isn't always about dramatic hills and sea views.
    Same can be said about Essex. Even in the S of the county.
    Coastal Essex is fairly bland IMO (a highlight being the exquisite and ancient St Peter's Chapel in Bradwell). However I do quite like the interior, which the Essex Way shows off quite well. Again it's not 'classic' scenery, but still worth doing.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,537
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.

    Good stats, but worth noting that of the parts of the country with lower than average incomes, most have higher than average spending. East Midlands is the exception. We have fewer doctors per capita than any other region too.

    Good place to live otherwise. Good housing is cheap, good countryside too, and my season ticket at LCFC is £500 cheaper than a London Prem Club, and only 20 min away.
    Yes, the East Midlands does seem to get a raw deal. I reckon the West Midlands does better because Birmingham is so big and therefore carries more weight than Leicester/Derby/Nottingham.
    Leicester, Derby and Nottingham rarely speak with one voice, but perhaps not surprisingly as we have different hinterlands, economies and populations. The University quarter of Nottingham is quite pleasant, and I am there for work reasons a few times each year. Leicester has the nicest city centre of the three, best shopping, best food, best theatre and of course best football and rugby.

    On the other hand, even Derby is better than Coventry :)

    Derby is miles better than Leicester. After all, we've got Rolls Royce and the railway. ;)
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,637
    malcolmg said:

    tlg86 said:

    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.

    The idiots could sell their hovels , move to a decent part of the country and live like kings if they had the brains.
    Yes but then they would miss out on the stabbing, acid attacks and moped riding phone thieves.

    Amazing the easy ride Khan gets - guess it’s easier when the local paper is still crywanking about the referendum.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,506
    Thanks to all those who have engaged with the argument. I note that no one has begun to come up with a logical rather than an historical reason why Wales has a Secretary of State and London doesn't.

    @ydoethur my point is that London is radically different from the rest of the country, very big and very important. Its sheer scale is underappreciated. This map illustrates that scale well:

    https://media.timeout.com/images/103140639/image.jpg

    Your point about water is odd: many independent countries round the world sit downstream of another country. No one is suggesting London is geographically detached from the rest of England. (As it happens, London husbands its water well.)

    London is lavishly subsidising the rest of the country. Judging by most posters on this thread, the spongers are pretty content with this arrangement. At a time when London seems more disliked by those it funds than ever before and when the regions are following policies that London has a strong consensus against, the continuing viability of that arrangement looks shakier than ever before. The deal has to work both ways.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,910
    edited January 14
    All this talk of cultural values being the reason for peoples’ votes rather obscures an obvious point: people in London (inner) voted Remain because they benefited from EU membership. Other regions voted differently because they didn’t - or felt they didn't or felt that the disadvantages of membership were greater than the advantages.

    Ditto with voting Labour at the last election. I would consider myself socially liberal and multicultural and am not fussed by EU immigration. No way on God’s earth would I vote for Labour in its current form because I fear what it would mean for my ability to earn a living, provide for my family and and the savings I have accumulated for my old age. Plus I think its values are not very liberal and there is a very nasty streak in its leadership.

    Many of my childrens friends voted Labour for precisely the opposite reason ie they thought Labour would help them with tuition fees and housing and rents. Pensions and old age don’t figure. They have barely heard of, let alone remember, the 1970’s. Our values are pretty similar. Some of the more thoughtful ones are a bit bothered by some of the misogyny and anti-semitism but see these as aberrations rather than as anything more significant or worrying.

    In short, what is or is not in your purse still matters.

    Thanks for the piece Mr M. Interesting idea: I don’t see what you propose happening though no real reason why it shouldn’t.

    I agree that having SoS for Scotland and Wales seens unnecessary given devolution. But imagine the shrieks if those posts were abolished.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,309
    edited January 14
    I agree with Emily Thornberry. We've traded perfectly well with the US without a trade deal for years. The same will be true of trade with the EU after Brexit.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,637

    Thanks to all those who have engaged with the argument. I note that no one has begun to come up with a logical rather than an historical reason why Wales has a Secretary of State and London doesn't.

    @ydoethur my point is that London is radically different from the rest of the country, very big and very important. Its sheer scale is underappreciated. This map illustrates that scale well:

    https://media.timeout.com/images/103140639/image.jpg

    Your point about water is odd: many independent countries round the world sit downstream of another country. No one is suggesting London is geographically detached from the rest of England. (As it happens, London husbands its water well.)

    London is lavishly subsidising the rest of the country. Judging by most posters on this thread, the spongers are pretty content with this arrangement. At a time when London seems more disliked by those it funds than ever before and when the regions are following policies that London has a strong consensus against, the continuing viability of that arrangement looks shakier than ever before. The deal has to work both ways.

    Of course London should subsidise the regions - a fair return for taking the brightest and best of its resources - ie people.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,022
    edited January 14

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.

    Good stats, but worth noting that of the parts of the country with lower than average incomes, most have higher than average spending. East Midlands is the exception. We have fewer doctors per capita than any other region too.

    Good place to live otherwise. Good housing is cheap, good countryside too, and my season ticket at LCFC is £500 cheaper than a London Prem Club, and only 20 min away.
    Rural Northamptonshire is outstanding, IMO.
    It is. I've been doing bits of the Nene Way recently, and some of the small Northamptonshire villages are beautiful. The churches, with their tall spires and golden stone, can be exquisite. The walk along the Grand Union Canal can also be quite pleasant. Countryside isn't always about dramatic hills and sea views.
    Same can be said about Essex. Even in the S of the county.
    Coastal Essex is fairly bland IMO (a highlight being the exquisite and ancient St Peter's Chapel in Bradwell). However I do quite like the interior, which the Essex Way shows off quite well. Again it's not 'classic' scenery, but still worth doing.
    What about the NE of the county, with the horrible exception of Clacton and environs, especially Jaywick? The Naze area is fascinating.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,537

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.

    Good stats, but worth noting that of the parts of the country with lower than average incomes, most have higher than average spending. East Midlands is the exception. We have fewer doctors per capita than any other region too.

    Good place to live otherwise. Good housing is cheap, good countryside too, and my season ticket at LCFC is £500 cheaper than a London Prem Club, and only 20 min away.
    Rural Northamptonshire is outstanding, IMO.
    It is. I've been doing bits of the Nene Way recently, and some of the small Northamptonshire villages are beautiful. The churches, with their tall spires and golden stone, can be exquisite. The walk along the Grand Union Canal can also be quite pleasant. Countryside isn't always about dramatic hills and sea views.
    Same can be said about Essex. Even in the S of the county.
    Coastal Essex is fairly bland IMO (a highlight being the exquisite and ancient St Peter's Chapel in Bradwell). However I do quite like the interior, which the Essex Way shows off quite well. Again it's not 'classic' scenery, but still worth doing.
    What about the NE of the county, with the horrible exception of Clacton and environs, especially Jaywick? The Naze area is fascinating.
    Fair enough, but it doesn't appeal to me that much. Though it is better than the countless miles of flat marshland in the south ...
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,296
    Foxy said:

    Why no Secretary of State for the East Midlands for that matter?

    After all, the regional inequality in pay is highest here. East Midlanders aee the worst paid in England:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/regional-pay-gap-gender-equality-south-east-london-north-midlands-wales-women-gender-a8043911.html

    There are 4.5 million people, so about the same as NI and Scotland together.

    Perhaps each English region should have an SoS to speak for it, it could quite reasonably be combined with another role.

    Secretary of State for Rutland first as a step to the county becoming a Grand Duchy .. :smile:
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,125

    Thanks to all those who have engaged with the argument. I note that no one has begun to come up with a logical rather than an historical reason why Wales has a Secretary of State and London doesn't.

    @ydoethur my point is that London is radically different from the rest of the country, very big and very important. Its sheer scale is underappreciated. This map illustrates that scale well:

    https://media.timeout.com/images/103140639/image.jpg

    Your point about water is odd: many independent countries round the world sit downstream of another country. No one is suggesting London is geographically detached from the rest of England. (As it happens, London husbands its water well.)

    London is lavishly subsidising the rest of the country. Judging by most posters on this thread, the spongers are pretty content with this arrangement. At a time when London seems more disliked by those it funds than ever before and when the regions are following policies that London has a strong consensus against, the continuing viability of that arrangement looks shakier than ever before. The deal has to work both ways.

    The spongers (ie taxpayers) underwrite London's financial transactions, through the B o E acting as lender of last resort. London is the centre of government. London does very well out of the present set up.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,910

    Thanks to all those who have engaged with the argument. I note that no one has begun to come up with a logical rather than an historical reason why Wales has a Secretary of State and London doesn't.

    @ydoethur my point is that London is radically different from the rest of the country, very big and very important. Its sheer scale is underappreciated. This map illustrates that scale well:

    https://media.timeout.com/images/103140639/image.jpg

    Your point about water is odd: many independent countries round the world sit downstream of another country. No one is suggesting London is geographically detached from the rest of England. (As it happens, London husbands its water well.)

    London is lavishly subsidising the rest of the country. Judging by most posters on this thread, the spongers are pretty content with this arrangement. At a time when London seems more disliked by those it funds than ever before and when the regions are following policies that London has a strong consensus against, the continuing viability of that arrangement looks shakier than ever before. The deal has to work both ways.

    A question: re the London subsidy to the rest of the country. Does this include the implicit subsidy which the government gives the finance industry? I’m not seeking to make a point here just trying to understand how the figures are calculated.
  • Listening to Emily Thornberry you do wonder how labour would fair if Corbyn disappeared and she was leader
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,363
    Yes, what is it about London that makes it different from constituent countries if the UK which get secretaries of state I wonder, it is a mystery.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,022

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Let's look at the evidence:

    Public spending (£) per head by country and region (Index in brackets, UK = 100), 2016-17

    North East 9,680 (106)
    North West 9,429 (103)
    Yorkshire and the Humber 8,810 (96)
    East Midlands 8,282 (90)
    West Midlands 8,846 (97)
    East 8,155 (89)
    London 10,192 (111)
    South East 8,111 (89)
    South West 8,549 (93)

    England 8,898 (97)
    Scotland 10,651 (116)
    Wales 10,076 (110)
    Northern Ireland 11,042 (121)

    UK identifiable expenditure 9,159 (100)

    Source: https://tinyurl.com/y7k5fj8t

    Sure, London isn't doing as well as NI or Scotland, but it's doing a lot better than the East, the East Midlands and the South East. Of course, a lot of those who pay "the tax revenues [to]... keep the rest of the country in the style to which it has become accustomed" live in the South East.

    Good stats, but worth noting that of the parts of the country with lower than average incomes, most have higher than average spending. East Midlands is the exception. We have fewer doctors per capita than any other region too.

    Good place to live otherwise. Good housing is cheap, good countryside too, and my season ticket at LCFC is £500 cheaper than a London Prem Club, and only 20 min away.
    Rural Northamptonshire is outstanding, IMO.
    It is. I've been doing bits of the Nene Way recently, and some of the small Northamptonshire villages are beautiful. The churches, with their tall spires and golden stone, can be exquisite. The walk along the Grand Union Canal can also be quite pleasant. Countryside isn't always about dramatic hills and sea views.
    Same can be said about Essex. Even in the S of the county.
    Coastal Essex is fairly bland IMO (a highlight being the exquisite and ancient St Peter's Chapel in Bradwell). However I do quite like the interior, which the Essex Way shows off quite well. Again it's not 'classic' scenery, but still worth doing.
    What about the NE of the county, with the horrible exception of Clacton and environs, especially Jaywick? The Naze area is fascinating.
    Fair enough, but it doesn't appeal to me that much. Though it is better than the countless miles of flat marshland in the south ...
    Last comment on this, to avoid boring everyone, but the development of Wallasea Island as an RSPB reserve and walking area is making that area much more interesting.
  • If there is one thing to get the rest of the Country annoyed it is the constant whinging of Londoners

    Mr Meeks may live in London but he ain't a Luhndahnah like I is. He lacks - shall we say - the Blitz spirit.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,506
    edited January 14
    Sean_F said:

    Thanks to all those who have engaged with the argument. I note that no one has begun to come up with a logical rather than an historical reason why Wales has a Secretary of State and London doesn't.

    @ydoethur my point is that London is radically different from the rest of the country, very big and very important. Its sheer scale is underappreciated. This map illustrates that scale well:

    https://media.timeout.com/images/103140639/image.jpg

    Your point about water is odd: many independent countries round the world sit downstream of another country. No one is suggesting London is geographically detached from the rest of England. (As it happens, London husbands its water well.)

    London is lavishly subsidising the rest of the country. Judging by most posters on this thread, the spongers are pretty content with this arrangement. At a time when London seems more disliked by those it funds than ever before and when the regions are following policies that London has a strong consensus against, the continuing viability of that arrangement looks shakier than ever before. The deal has to work both ways.

    The spongers (ie taxpayers) underwrite London's financial transactions, through the B o E acting as lender of last resort. London is the centre of government. London does very well out of the present set up.
    London has the lowest percentage of public sector workers in the country. Government has been dispersed to the regions, except at the very highest levels. That is in fact another indirect subsidy of the provinces.

    The first point can be overstated too. London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,022

    If there is one thing to get the rest of the Country annoyed it is the constant whinging of Londoners

    Mr Meeks may live in London but he ain't a Luhndahnah like I is. He lacks - shall we say - the Blitz spirit.
    Like what I is, please. If you’re going to use the dialect.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,864

    Thanks to all those who have engaged with the argument. I note that no one has begun to come up with a logical rather than an historical reason why Wales has a Secretary of State and London doesn't.

    @ydoethur my point is that London is radically different from the rest of the country, very big and very important. Its sheer scale is underappreciated. This map illustrates that scale well:

    https://media.timeout.com/images/103140639/image.jpg

    Your point about water is odd: many independent countries round the world sit downstream of another country. No one is suggesting London is geographically detached from the rest of England. (As it happens, London husbands its water well.)

    London is lavishly subsidising the rest of the country. Judging by most posters on this thread, the spongers are pretty content with this arrangement. At a time when London seems more disliked by those it funds than ever before and when the regions are following policies that London has a strong consensus against, the continuing viability of that arrangement looks shakier than ever before. The deal has to work both ways.

    If the outer reaches didn't have Cabinet level representation, there would be a grave danger of them being ignored. There is no chance of London being ignored - Cabinet representation or not. It is too big and powerful to be ignored.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,506
    Barnesian said:

    Thanks to all those who have engaged with the argument. I note that no one has begun to come up with a logical rather than an historical reason why Wales has a Secretary of State and London doesn't.

    @ydoethur my point is that London is radically different from the rest of the country, very big and very important. Its sheer scale is underappreciated. This map illustrates that scale well:

    https://media.timeout.com/images/103140639/image.jpg

    Your point about water is odd: many independent countries round the world sit downstream of another country. No one is suggesting London is geographically detached from the rest of England. (As it happens, London husbands its water well.)

    London is lavishly subsidising the rest of the country. Judging by most posters on this thread, the spongers are pretty content with this arrangement. At a time when London seems more disliked by those it funds than ever before and when the regions are following policies that London has a strong consensus against, the continuing viability of that arrangement looks shakier than ever before. The deal has to work both ways.

    If the outer reaches didn't have Cabinet level representation, there would be a grave danger of them being ignored. There is no chance of London being ignored - Cabinet representation or not. It is too big and powerful to be ignored.
    The current government is making a bloody good attempt.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,363
    edited January 14
    Yes, what is it about London that makes it different from constituent countries if the UK which get secretaries of state I wonder, it is a mystery.

    Its important enough to the larger nation so I don't have a problem with a secretary of state being named for London, but the comparison with Wales and Scotland is just silly since they are countries and London is not. Far better is just pointing out how important it is, and how unimportant by comparison some secretaries of state are, there's a case there as was made. But that allows less self victimising so we know why the argument was presented the way it was, to hope people would dis miss the first, very silly reason, and allow some acting superior and mistreated for emotional comfort while emphasising how 'different' London is. As transparent as glass.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,910

    Thanks to all those who have engaged with the argument. I note that no one has begun to come up with a logical rather than an historical reason why Wales has a Secretary of State and London doesn't.

    London is lavishly subsidising the rest of the country. Judging by most posters on this thread, the spongers are pretty content with this arrangement. At a time when London seems more disliked by those it funds than ever before and when the regions are following policies that London has a strong consensus against, the continuing viability of that arrangement looks shakier than ever before. The deal has to work both ways.

    Would you be happy if the SoS for Wales and Scotland were abolished?

    Implicit in your final para - but please correct me - seems to be an assumption that money should give you a greater say ie that if you are a net contributor you should be listened to more. Hence your argument for London to have its own voice.

    But the rich having the same vote as the poor despite their greater contribution is implicit in a one man/one vote democracy. Despite being a net contributor to the Treasury I get the same - one - vote as my poor net beneficiary neighbour. We do not base votes on wealth. Why then should the collective votes of Londoners weigh more heavily than the collective votes of any other region? There may be arguments for this of course. But I will leave these to you.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,125

    Sean_F said:

    Thanks to all those who have engaged with the argument. I note that no one has begun to come up with a logical rather than an historical reason why Wales has a Secretary of State and London doesn't.

    @ydoethur my point is that London is radically different from the rest of the country, very big and very important. Its sheer scale is underappreciated. This map illustrates that scale well:

    https://media.timeout.com/images/103140639/image.jpg

    Your point about water is odd: many independent countries round the world sit downstream of another country. No one is suggesting London is geographically detached from the rest of England. (As it happens, London husbands its water well.)

    London is lavishly subsidising the rest of the country. Judging by most posters on this thread, the spongers are pretty content with this arrangement. At a time when London seems more disliked by those it funds than ever before and when the regions are following policies that London has a strong consensus against, the continuing viability of that arrangement looks shakier than ever before. The deal has to work both ways.

    The spongers (ie taxpayers) underwrite London's financial transactions, through the B o E acting as lender of last resort. London is the centre of government. London does very well out of the present set up.
    London has the lowest percentage of public sector workers in the country. Government has been dispersed to the regions, except at the very highest levels. That is in fact another indirect subsidy of the provinces.

    The first point can be overstated too. London's economy is comparable in size to that of Switzerland.
    Being the centre of government inevitably attracts well-heeled people to London, who would otherwise not be there. If Parliament, Whitehall, the High Court, the main teaching hospitals, many corporate headquarters, were located elsewhere, then London would suffer a loss of wealth and influence. And where would London's economy have gone in 2008, without the backing of the Bank of England and government?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,894

    Thanks to all those who have engaged with the argument. I note that no one has begun to come up with a logical rather than an historical reason why Wales has a Secretary of State and London doesn't.

    @ydoethur my point is that London is radically different from the rest of the country, very big and very important. Its sheer scale is underappreciated. This map illustrates that scale well:

    https://media.timeout.com/images/103140639/image.jpg

    Your point about water is odd: many independent countries round the world sit downstream of another country. No one is suggesting London is geographically detached from the rest of England. (As it happens, London husbands its water well.)

    London is lavishly subsidising the rest of the country. Judging by most posters on this thread, the spongers are pretty content with this arrangement. At a time when London seems more disliked by those it funds than ever before and when the regions are following policies that London has a strong consensus against, the continuing viability of that arrangement looks shakier than ever before. The deal has to work both ways.

    I thought it was a joke, Scotland is a country and is part of a union, London is a town in another country that is part of the same union.
  • If there is one thing to get the rest of the Country annoyed it is the constant whinging of Londoners

    Mr Meeks may live in London but he ain't a Luhndahnah like I is. He lacks - shall we say - the Blitz spirit.
    Like what I is, please. If you’re going to use the dialect.
    I don't speak Essex as I born in Peckham. Can you translate?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,309
    Let me give an example of how good London has it relative to the South East. Each morning I cycle to Woking railway station. The roads in Surrey are shocking. But we put up with it. At the other end I walk across Waterloo Bridge. Before Christmas, the powers that be thought it would be worthwhile repaving the pavements (much to the anger of the road users who had to use just one lane). The old pavements were a bit cracked but nothing to worry about. But London has so much money that they can afford to waste it on such things.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,506
    Cyclefree said:

    Thanks to all those who have engaged with the argument. I note that no one has begun to come up with a logical rather than an historical reason why Wales has a Secretary of State and London doesn't.

    London is lavishly subsidising the rest of the country. Judging by most posters on this thread, the spongers are pretty content with this arrangement. At a time when London seems more disliked by those it funds than ever before and when the regions are following policies that London has a strong consensus against, the continuing viability of that arrangement looks shakier than ever before. The deal has to work both ways.

    Would you be happy if the SoS for Wales and Scotland were abolished?

    Implicit in your final para - but please correct me - seems to be an assumption that money should give you a greater say ie that if you are a net contributor you should be listened to more. Hence your argument for London to have its own voice.

    But the rich having the same vote as the poor despite their greater contribution is implicit in a one man/one vote democracy. Despite being a net contributor to the Treasury I get the same - one - vote as my poor net beneficiary neighbour. We do not base votes on wealth. Why then should the collective votes of Londoners weigh more heavily than the collective votes of any other region? There may be arguments for this of course. But I will leave these to you.
    Of course money gives you a greater say on many matters. Taxation policy is driven in large part by the efficiency in raising revenues, which means the government needs to consider carefully what the rich will stand. Any government has to pay attention to the bond markets, which dictate what price the government pays for its borrowings by virtue of their participants having the wherewithal. Many of these people will have no vote at all but far greater influence than hundreds of thousands of voters collectively do.

    If the rest of the UK continues to choose systematically to ignore London, then London will undoubtedly look to its options. Being much richer than the rest of the country, those options are potentially extensive.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,057
    To paraphrase Mr Meeks, London contains some of the biggest shitholes in the country. London needs to get its own house in order.

    Let Londoners believe their fantasies that the rest of the UK is baled out by them and that everyone else looks on Londoners with envy.

    I have lived in London. I enjoyed the experience but there were plenty of downsides too. I prefer the north. Not everyone has the chance to live and work where they want.

    I don't expect Yorkshire to have a Secretary of State. Perhaps one day a President, but not a Secretary of State.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,506
    kle4 said:

    Yes, what is it about London that makes it different from constituent countries if the UK which get secretaries of state I wonder, it is a mystery.

    Its important enough to the larger nation so I don't have a problem with a secretary of state being named for London, but the comparison with Wales and Scotland is just silly since they are countries and London is not. Far better is just pointing out how important it is, and how unimportant by comparison some secretaries of state are, there's a case there as was made. But that allows less self victimising so we know why the argument was presented the way it was, to hope people would dis miss the first, very silly reason, and allow some acting superior and mistreated for emotional comfort while emphasising how 'different' London is. As transparent as glass.

    One of the constituent countries does not have a Secretary of State. And the other three only got one quite recently. Your sole argument is "that's how it is now". You haven't addressed the "why" question at all.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,309

    To paraphrase Mr Meeks, London contains some of the biggest shitholes in the country. London needs to get its own house in order.

    Racist!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,125
    edited January 14
    London is hardly monolithic in outlook (judging by these electoral maps). The outlook in the South East or South West or North West is very different to that in the London County Council area.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,022
    England now need 98 runs off 104 balls, with 8 wickets less. How times change!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,022
    edited January 14
    tlg86 said:

    Let me give an example of how good London has it relative to the South East. Each morning I cycle to Woking railway station. The roads in Surrey are shocking. But we put up with it. At the other end I walk across Waterloo Bridge. Before Christmas, the powers that be thought it would be worthwhile repaving the pavements (much to the anger of the road users who had to use just one lane). The old pavements were a bit cracked but nothing to worry about. But London has so much money that they can afford to waste it on such things.

    Interesting thought; my son who lives on the Kent/Surrey border reckons roads are better in Surrey than Kent.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,057
    tlg86 said:

    To paraphrase Mr Meeks, London contains some of the biggest shitholes in the country. London needs to get its own house in order.

    Racist!
    So Londoners now consider themselves to be a different race to the rest of us?

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,215
    edited January 14
    TGOHF said:

    Thanks to all those who have engaged with the argument. I note that no one has begun to come up with a logical rather than an historical reason why Wales has a Secretary of State and London doesn't.

    @ydoethur my point is that London is radically different from the rest of the country, very big and very important. Its sheer scale is underappreciated. This map illustrates that scale well:

    https://media.timeout.com/images/103140639/image.jpg

    Your point about water is odd: many independent countries round the world sit downstream of another country. No one is suggesting London is geographically detached from the rest of England. (As it happens, London husbands its water well.)

    London is lavishly subsidising the rest of the country. Judging by most posters on this thread, the spongers are pretty content with this arrangement. At a time when London seems more disliked by those it funds than ever before and when the regions are following policies that London has a strong consensus against, the continuing viability of that arrangement looks shakier than ever before. The deal has to work both ways.

    Of course London should subsidise the regions - a fair return for taking the brightest and best of its resources - ie people.
    Cities are a drain on the surrounding area. They suck in people and resources and the quid pro quo is they spit out money in return.

    If we were to move the government out of London to, say, Birmingham then a great number of sums would suddenly tip the other way.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,309

    tlg86 said:

    Let me give an example of how good London has it relative to the South East. Each morning I cycle to Woking railway station. The roads in Surrey are shocking. But we put up with it. At the other end I walk across Waterloo Bridge. Before Christmas, the powers that be thought it would be worthwhile repaving the pavements (much to the anger of the road users who had to use just one lane). The old pavements were a bit cracked but nothing to worry about. But London has so much money that they can afford to waste it on such things.

    Interesting thought; my son who lives on the Kent/Surrey border reckons roads are better in Surrey than Kent.
    Kent must have it really bad. The problem we have around Woking is that we have a lot of B roads that get used really intensively and they just cannot cope.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,041
    edited January 14
    I moved to London in 1986 - suffice to say back then it wasn't a shining global metropolis - I think much of it could fairly have been described as a "shithole". The City was dotted with WW2 bombsites used as car parks and the concrete jungles created by the 1960s and 1970s town planners were everywhere.

    Margaret Thatcher triggered the regeneration of London through massive infrastructure investment. I think our economy has been to London centric for the last 30 years - with WM only recently wakening up to the need to spread around the investment into the regions. If Thatcher and successive Governments had invested more in the regions our economy would be much better balanced and better able to deal with the likes of Brexit.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,309

    tlg86 said:

    To paraphrase Mr Meeks, London contains some of the biggest shitholes in the country. London needs to get its own house in order.

    Racist!
    So Londoners now consider themselves to be a different race to the rest of us?

    I think some of them think they're a different species.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,830


    Your point about water is odd: many independent countries round the world sit downstream of another country. No one is suggesting London is geographically detached from the rest of England. (As it happens, London husbands its water well.)

    London has very little usable water of its own whether it husbands what it has or not. I appreciate Hungary is downstream of Germany, or Germany downstream of Switzerland. The fact is however that London simply couldn't survive without water supplies from the rest of the country. Whole towns and villages have died to allow London and other major urban centres to have enough water (in Wales there is still a lot of ill-feeling over Tryweryn, although I appreciate that was Liverpool not London).

    London is lavishly subsidising the rest of the country. Judging by most posters on this thread, the spongers are pretty content with this arrangement.

    You're getting this backwards and it is part of the problem. You say we are 'sponging' off the rest of you. Even if that were true - it isn't, because once you take into account the other services in terms of labour, pollution reduction, water, food and materials provided by the rest of the country, it breaks about evenly, and even in regions like mine where much government spending comes from the Smoke, there are millions of jobs that have nothing to do with London - you are therefore implicitly belittling the rest of the country.

    Twas ever thus of course. London declared Edward IV King in 1461, ignoring the wishes of the north, Wales and Midlands to keep Henry VI. London gave us the city and massive deregulation in the 80s, while the rest of the country stagnated. Of course, very often this power has been used for good. We would have struggled mightily without London's defence of the democratic systems we now have in the 1640s, and indeed London was crucial in setting them up in the 1260s. London also led the charge for many vital progressive causes, including secular university education.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,830
    (continued)
    But the 'provincial' versus 'metropolitan' attitude which has always existed - I am still stunned that David Cannadine felt able to say in the ODNB that one of the problems with Thatcher was that she came from Grantham and never quite adapted to London - seems to me to be getting wider rather than narrower. Important though London is to our society and economy, it is not actually quite as vital as you claim especially given the recent financial losses it has inflicted on the rest of us, and the fact remains that it is in aggregate still only a small minority of England. Giving it special treatment would aggravate, rather than heal, the divisions we're seeing now.

    That is however arguably also a good reason for more devolution and recognition of other parts of England (*looks round uneasily in case Morris Dancer is reading*) as much as against your views on London.

    We've had this discussion many times before over the last ten years, and I don't think either of us has shifted position. I do hope however that you find food for thought in this.

    I have to go. Have a good day everyone.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,022
    calum said:

    I moved to London in 1986 - suffice to say back then it wasn't a shining global metropolis - I think much of it could fairly have been described as a "shithole". The City was dotted with WW2 bombsites used as car parks and the concrete jungles created by the 1960s and 1970s town planners were everywhere.

    Margaret Thatcher triggered the regeneration of London through massive infrastructure investment. I think our economy has been to London centric for the last 30 years - with WM only recently wakening up to the need to spread around the investment into the regions. If Thatcher and successive Governments had invested more in the regions our economy would be much better balanced and able to deal with the likes of Brexit.

    Bomb-sites in 1986; thought they’d all gone well before then.
  • Whisper it but England are slogging the Aussies all over the place.

    228/2 after 35 overs chasing 305

    Roy 145 no
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,839
    I am not sure that Scotland, Wales or (at least in what passes for normal times) NI require Secretaries of State. Before devolution they had the job of ensuring joined up government in those countries and direct responsibility for many of the services. These have now been passed to the devolved administrations and the role of the SoS is very much diminished. I think a SoS for the devolved regions would be a perfectly good idea as many of the issues they would address have similarities.

    I am much less persuaded about the idea of a SoS for London. London has its Mayor and its Assembly. I think there is an argument that more powers and control of public spending should be devolved to London and that Assembly but to have a SoS as well simply replicates the devolution duplication we have in respect of the countries.

    London should, however, be careful what it wishes for. A genuinely powerful London Assembly is very likely to be almost permanently dominated by Labour. Ask Wales how that goes. Londoners may well find themselves facing the consequence of much higher taxes and higher, if not particularly efficient public spending in support of groups that don't add the value to London. The golden goose may well end up cooked.
This discussion has been closed.