To elaborate a bit, if we had a minister for London then the rest of England would feel, again, democratically short-changed.
Yes, it is hard to argue that London lacks power, influence or favour. Brexit is in part a reaction against the perspective in the rest of the country that London (and its immediate hinterland) is over-powerful in our over-centralised democracy. Even Osborne realised as much.
(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.
I'm afraid I think you massively overrate the value of the rest of the UK to London. Everything else stems from that.
London is struggling with the problems of success. The rest of the UK is struggling with the problems of decline. That, rather than a provincial vs metropolitan attitude, is the essential divide.
I am not sure many people in London see things in this way. A secretary of state means centralisation, especially as the mayor has such limited power. Surely more devolution is what London - and other parts of England - need.
Bomb-sites in 1986; thought they’d all gone well before then.
Any parent of teenage children, especially of the male of the species will advise you otherwise !!
Still doubtful about ‘many sites’ left in 1986. I was visiting the City regularly, although not daily, at that time and driving there sometimes. The big bang development-wise was surely the end of the docks as a docks area.
I Mr Meeks thinks London is so important, perhaps he could give us some thoughts on who should be allowed to live there. We hear a lot about social cleansing, but why should anyone be allowed to remain in London if they cannot afford to live there? Surely we need to make sure that the workers of London should be able to live there and not have to commute from outside.
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:
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.
London is fighting back. Having a SoS for London would make no difference. The London SoS would have to toe the Cabinet line. Far better that London defends itself.
The Thames-Valley, or at least Affinity-Water, uses Thames-Water to process sewage. Cutting of water-supply could turn large parts of the Home-Counties into sewers.
Privatised water-companies have invested heavily into desalination, with Thames Water to the fore. It is quite clear that many upon here have no more knowledge than Al-Beeb or The Gruiniad.
Bomb-sites in 1986; thought they’d all gone well before then.
Any parent of teenage children, especially of the male of the species will advise you otherwise !!
Still doubtful about ‘many sites’ left in 1986. I was visiting the City regularly, although not daily, at that time and driving there sometimes. The big bang development-wise was surely the end of the docks as a docks area.
Just look up the ‘fount of all wsdom’ Wikiprdia, which says "The docks were closed to shipping in 1969 and sold to the borough of Tower Hamlets. The western portion of the London Docks was filled in with the (unrealised) intention of turning them into public housing estates. The land was still largely derelict when it was acquired in 1981 by the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC). It was subsequently redeveloped with over 1,000 individual properties centred on the old Tobacco Dock and Shadwell Basin."
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:
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?
Other countries have capitals that do not attract the most talented and the most dynamic. What London has has taken 1,000 years and more to build - and it’s been done by a never-ending flow of incomers from home and abroad. It’s a superb resource for the whole country. As a (North) Londoner born and bred I think it’s entirely right the wealth it creates benefits the entire UK.
London's 3 main airports all are outside London. Let's make them pay massive fees every time they fly to their multiple homes in Hungary. After all, the rest of the UK gets the pollution and the inconvenience and the traffic congestion.
Oxford and Cambridge entrance is massively dominated by the children of greedy Londoners. Let's have a proper quota, so Londoners don't take everything that is not theirs. London gets what its populations is entitled to -- no more.
Let's look at the British Museum, and ensure that the cultural treasures that belong to the rest of the country get returned to the rest of the country. Why, for example, is the Mold Roman cape, found in Mold in Wales, in the British Museum at all?
Let's look at the National Gallery and the Tate, and return the artworks that don't belong to London to the rest of the country.
Let's see how many tourists go to London, once its museum and art galleries have been thoroughly denuded and have been dispersed to the places they belong to.
And finally, Wales and Scotland and N Ireland are different countries. They have a historical and cultural heritage that is different. That is the reason for the different arrangement.
I wonder if Mr Meeks is actually native to the capital. In my experience, those most dismissive of the rest of the country are those who have left the provinces for London. Heaping scorn on their origins helps to justify their choice.
The solution to this problem seems less to me to be moaning about the rest of the country ‘sponging’ off London and thinking more about how we can solve the disparity in wealth between London and the rest of the country. In the large number of instances, it is not the fault of the regions that they lag behind - it is the fault of successive governments putting all their eggs in the London basket and not investing in the infrastructure, funding and support for the regions that would help facilitate this.
Whilst we can criticise some local authorities for a lack of vision and inefficient planning over the years, they also need the ear and support of government. You can’t have it that you resent the amount flowing out of London to the regions without understanding why that has happened and that in many instances this is hardly the fault of the regions in question!
I would be the first to acknowledge that London suffers from unique problems - but then, so too does the East Midlands, urban West Yorkshire, the South West, the North East. Do we have Secretaries of State for every county of the UK?
Rebalancing is long overdue but to do so we have to think less in terms of “us vs them” and more in terms of practical solutions.
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.
Agree with your first two paragraphs. On the third the devolution settlement for London has always seemed weird to me because of the very high numbers of people who commute in to London. These people have such an interest in how London is governed that I feel there's a democratic deficit in having London's boundaries remaining as drawn in 1972(?)
The solution to this problem seems less to me to be moaning about the rest of the country ‘sponging’ off London and thinking more about how we can solve the disparity in wealth between London and the rest of the country. In the large number of instances, it is not the fault of the regions that they lag behind - it is the fault of successive governments putting all their eggs in the London basket and not investing in the infrastructure, funding and support for the regions that would help facilitate this.
Whilst we can criticise some local authorities for a lack of vision and inefficient planning over the years, they also need the ear and support of government. You can’t have it that you resent the amount flowing out of London to the regions without understanding why that has happened and that in many instances this is hardly the fault of the regions in question!
I would be the first to acknowledge that London suffers from unique problems - but then, so too does the East Midlands, urban West Yorkshire, the South West, the North East. Do we have Secretaries of State for every county of the UK?
Rebalancing is long overdue but to do so we have to think less in terms of “us vs them” and more in terms of practical solutions.
Whisper it but England are slogging the Aussies all over the place.
228/2 after 35 overs chasing 305
Roy 145 no
RRR under 5 per over. Tiptoe time!
Run rate now under 4. Unbelievable performance by Roy. Should he have been in the Ashes?
Roy hasn’t, generally, done so well in Tests. However, take this and the performance of thise who went ....
Yeah, and he was out of form himself for a chunk of last year but when he is playing like this he just looks almost impossible to bowl at.
To be fair, Hales didn’t so well in this game. And until now one would have picked him over Roy every time.
And he goes. Brilliant innings though. He was looking seriously tired at the end.
This England ODI team is frightening in terms of its hitting power. Lacks a little bite with the ball but awesome with the bat.
English, at any rate, cricket seems to be evolving into two games, with different skills required in each. I note that Morgan was talking the other day about two coaches...... one for the four-five day game and one for the shorter. Possibly even one for 50 over an one for t20. I shan’t see how it turns out, though.
The best way to resolve regional disparity is for London house sale proceeds over the national average to be taxed at 100% - and donated to people outside London.
I wonder if Mr Meeks is actually native to the capital. In my experience, those most dismissive of the rest of the country are those who have left the provinces for London. Heaping scorn on their origins helps to justify their choice.
Mr Meeks is from Norfolk. Insularity is his forte.
Whisper it but England are slogging the Aussies all over the place.
228/2 after 35 overs chasing 305
Roy 145 no
RRR under 5 per over. Tiptoe time!
Run rate now under 4. Unbelievable performance by Roy. Should he have been in the Ashes?
Roy hasn’t, generally, done so well in Tests. However, take this and the performance of thise who went ....
Yeah, and he was out of form himself for a chunk of last year but when he is playing like this he just looks almost impossible to bowl at.
To be fair, Hales didn’t so well in this game. And until now one would have picked him over Roy every time.
And he goes. Brilliant innings though. He was looking seriously tired at the end.
This England ODI team is frightening in terms of its hitting power. Lacks a little bite with the ball but awesome with the bat.
English, at any rate, cricket seems to be evolving into two games, with different skills required in each. I note that Morgan was talking the other day about two coaches...... one for the four-five day game and one for the shorter. Possibly even one for 50 over an one for t20. I shan’t see how it turns out, though.
Players being unbelievably good in ODI cricket, and rubbish in test matches (or to a lesser extent vice versa) is nothing new. Nor people misguidedly advocating selection for one based on performances in the other.
Morgan gone now. Lack of practice, I would suspect.
Sitting waiting too long. He got 80 odd not out just a few days ago. I think teams should be more flexible about the batting order in situations like that. Having someone sitting on edge for that long really does them no favours. I would suggest 45 minutes and then you drop down one.
Morgan gone now. Lack of practice, I would suspect.
Sitting waiting too long. He got 80 odd not out just a few days ago. I think teams should be more flexible about the batting order in situations like that. Having someone sitting on edge for that long really does them no favours. I would suggest 45 minutes and then you drop down one.
Good point. How often do we see the guy who’s had his pads on for ages back ine pavilion quickly!
Morgan gone now. Lack of practice, I would suspect.
Sitting waiting too long. He got 80 odd not out just a few days ago. I think teams should be more flexible about the batting order in situations like that. Having someone sitting on edge for that long really does them no favours. I would suggest 45 minutes and then you drop down one.
Good point. How often do we see the guy who’s had his pads on for ages back ine pavilion quickly!
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.
Good point. Woking’s a nightmare to get to in a car. Fantastic access by train though, which is why it’s grown so much in recent times.
Interesting Nigel Farage LBC show this morning. He has just spent an hour debating with Alastair Campbell - surprisingly it was quite civil. Lord Adonis will be appearing in the second hour with him.
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.
Good point. Woking’s a nightmare to get to in a car. Fantastic access by train though, which is why it’s grown so much in recent times.
Funnily enough, the lack of accessibility has its benefits. I reckon burglaries are rare where we live because it's quite difficult to get away quickly.
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 agree.
Is your view common among fellow SCons? A situation that propels Mundell to prominence and requires year on year exponential increases in funding (for reasons we both probably know) can't be the easiest of sells.
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 agree.
Is your view common among fellow SCons? A situation that propels Mundell to prominence and requires year on year exponential increases in funding (for reasons we both probably know) can't be the easiest of sells.
Couldn't really say. Mundell's only obvious talent was keeping his seat in the hard times, a talent not to be underestimated of course. What he does on a day to day basis is less than obvious. There are some legal issues, principally to do with the Home Office and Immigration but I struggle to see what he does.
Viewcode said: ' Just before the start of WWII, life expectancy was in the 40's, infant mortality was nontrivial, the disabled were bedbound, housebound or dead. The immunisation programs of the 50's hugely reduced child mortality, better antenatal and postnatal care stopped infant mortality in its tracks'
That is not correct. Life expectancy by the late 1930s was higher than you imply - in fact not far off 60 for a male in the UK. To find figures in the 40s we would have to go back to pre- World War 1.
She's been put on the Sunday Politics as an example of increasing the number of women in government. She is the daughter of a former Tory MEP.
And she has a very tough brief, given that net migration is almost certain to go up over the coming year.
Why will it go up?
Because the current moving annual total includes the six months after the referendum when it fell quite a lot. The next six months were much closer to the same time the previous year. So as the last two quarters of 2016 drop out of the calculation, they are likely to be replaced with figures closer to those recorded in 2015. So we'll probably get some "immigration is up" headlines.
Mr. 86, was revealing to have the Sky presenter (Anna Botting, I think) describe the last figures (showing a decline) as 'worsening'. I imagine a lot of the country wished net migration had been lower rather than higher.
She's been put on the Sunday Politics as an example of increasing the number of women in government. She is the daughter of a former Tory MEP.
And she has a very tough brief, given that net migration is almost certain to go up over the coming year.
Why will it go up?
Because the current moving annual total includes the six months after the referendum when it fell quite a lot. The next six months were much closer to the same time the previous year. So as the last two quarters of 2016 drop out of the calculation, they are likely to be replaced with figures closer to those recorded in 2015. So we'll probably get some "immigration is up" headlines.
Not sure I agree. I think the value of the pound is more important in determining marginal migration from the EU, and its recovery is quite a recent phenomenon.
Which is better for eurosceptics? Higher migration to reinforce the need to leave, or lower migration to show that Brexit is working?
Viewcode said: ' Just before the start of WWII, life expectancy was in the 40's, infant mortality was nontrivial, the disabled were bedbound, housebound or dead. The immunisation programs of the 50's hugely reduced child mortality, better antenatal and postnatal care stopped infant mortality in its tracks'
That is not correct. Life expectancy by the late 1930s was higher than you imply - in fact not far off 60 for a male in the UK. To find figures in the 40s we would have to go back to pre- World War 1.
Have the tweets of Henry Bolton's racist bidie-in been done yet? I keep thinking that UKIP's degradation with each successive leader has to stop at some point, but no.
She's been put on the Sunday Politics as an example of increasing the number of women in government. She is the daughter of a former Tory MEP.
And she has a very tough brief, given that net migration is almost certain to go up over the coming year.
Why will it go up?
Because the current moving annual total includes the six months after the referendum when it fell quite a lot. The next six months were much closer to the same time the previous year. So as the last two quarters of 2016 drop out of the calculation, they are likely to be replaced with figures closer to those recorded in 2015. So we'll probably get some "immigration is up" headlines.
Not sure I agree. I think the value of the pound is more important in determining marginal migration from the EU, and its recovery is quite a recent phenomenon.
Which is better for eurosceptics? Higher migration to reinforce the need to leave, or lower migration to show that Brexit is working?
Here are the year-on-year changes for the last four quarters:
Jul - Sep -63,000 Oct - Dec -24,000 Jan - Mar -6,000 Apr - Jun -13,000
Perhaps when the next figures come out, July to September 2017 will be the same or lower than the same period in 2016, but I doubt it.
Have the tweets of Henry Bolton's racist bidie-in been done yet? I keep thinking that UKIP's degradation with each successive leader has to stop at some point, but no.
Have the tweets of Henry Bolton's racist bidie-in been done yet? I keep thinking that UKIP's degradation with each successive leader has to stop at some point, but no.
Nicely put .. neil hamilton or mark reckless to be their last leader would be perfect.
I wonder if Mr Meeks is actually native to the capital. In my experience, those most dismissive of the rest of the country are those who have left the provinces for London. Heaping scorn on their origins helps to justify their choice.
Mr Meeks is from Norfolk. Insularity is his forte.
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:
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?
Think leeches or blood suckers is what you are looking to describe it here. Locals are pushed further and further out as the bloodsuckers flock to gorge on the wealth sucked into Westminster from all over the country
(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.
I'm afraid I think you massively overrate the value of the rest of the UK to London. Everything else stems from that.
London is struggling with the problems of success. The rest of the UK is struggling with the problems of decline. That, rather than a provincial vs metropolitan attitude, is the essential divide.
Have the tweets of Henry Bolton's racist bidie-in been done yet? I keep thinking that UKIP's degradation with each successive leader has to stop at some point, but no.
I've been wondering from the get-go whether there isn't some sort of honeytrap/sting operation going on, in that Bolton hasn't the looks, charm or money that generally attract 25 y.o. models, and surely the "cachet" of leading UKIP isn't enough to bridge the gap? Then again, if she thinks harry n meg are going to put a little octoroon on the throne, she possibly also thinks Bolton is next PM, nailed on.
Have the tweets of Henry Bolton's racist bidie-in been done yet? I keep thinking that UKIP's degradation with each successive leader has to stop at some point, but no.
She's been put on the Sunday Politics as an example of increasing the number of women in government. She is the daughter of a former Tory MEP.
And she has a very tough brief, given that net migration is almost certain to go up over the coming year.
Why will it go up?
Because the current moving annual total includes the six months after the referendum when it fell quite a lot. The next six months were much closer to the same time the previous year. So as the last two quarters of 2016 drop out of the calculation, they are likely to be replaced with figures closer to those recorded in 2015. So we'll probably get some "immigration is up" headlines.
Not sure I agree. I think the value of the pound is more important in determining marginal migration from the EU, and its recovery is quite a recent phenomenon.
Which is better for eurosceptics? Higher migration to reinforce the need to leave, or lower migration to show that Brexit is working?
Here are the year-on-year changes for the last four quarters:
Jul - Sep -63,000 Oct - Dec -24,000 Jan - Mar -6,000 Apr - Jun -13,000
Perhaps when the next figures come out, July to September 2017 will be the same or lower than the same period in 2016, but I doubt it.
Have the tweets of Henry Bolton's racist bidie-in been done yet? I keep thinking that UKIP's degradation with each successive leader has to stop at some point, but no.
Covered last night.
I thought about doing a thread on it but thought a Kippers being racist thread was up there with dog bites man.
Plus as TLG86 pointed out last night she’s incredibly thick/uneducated if she thinks the progeny of Harry and Meghan are going to end up on the throne.
Viewcode said: ' Just before the start of WWII, life expectancy was in the 40's, infant mortality was nontrivial, the disabled were bedbound, housebound or dead. The immunisation programs of the 50's hugely reduced child mortality, better antenatal and postnatal care stopped infant mortality in its tracks'
That is not correct. Life expectancy by the late 1930s was higher than you imply - in fact not far off 60 for a male in the UK. To find figures in the 40s we would have to go back to pre- World War 1.
If they had known WWII was coming then it would indeed have been back less than 40's for many.
Have the tweets of Henry Bolton's racist bidie-in been done yet? I keep thinking that UKIP's degradation with each successive leader has to stop at some point, but no.
I've been wondering from the get-go whether there isn't some sort of honeytrap/sting operation going on, in that Bolton hasn't the looks, charm or money that generally attract 25 y.o. models, and surely the "cachet" of leading UKIP isn't enough to bridge the gap? Then again, if she thinks harry n meg are going to put a little octoroon on the throne, she possibly also thinks Bolton is next PM, nailed on.
Have the tweets of Henry Bolton's racist bidie-in been done yet? I keep thinking that UKIP's degradation with each successive leader has to stop at some point, but no.
I've been wondering from the get-go whether there isn't some sort of honeytrap/sting operation going on, in that Bolton hasn't the looks, charm or money that generally attract 25 y.o. models, and surely the "cachet" of leading UKIP isn't enough to bridge the gap? Then again, if she thinks harry n meg are going to put a little octoroon on the throne, she possibly also thinks Bolton is next PM, nailed on.
Ms Marney certainly seems to be painted in pretty crude tabloid colours, I'd hope '5' might manage to be a bit more subtle than that.
Of course EUSSR black ops may be a bit more culturally tin eared..
Have the tweets of Henry Bolton's racist bidie-in been done yet? I keep thinking that UKIP's degradation with each successive leader has to stop at some point, but no.
Covered last night.
I thought about doing a thread on it but thought a Kippers being racist thread was up there with dog bites man.
Plus as TLG86 pointed out last night she’s incredibly thick/uneducated if she thinks the progeny of Harry and Meghan are going to end up on the throne.
Wasn’t she making a slippery slope argument? Like if we tolerate this then George might end up with an arranged marriage or something.
Have the tweets of Henry Bolton's racist bidie-in been done yet? I keep thinking that UKIP's degradation with each successive leader has to stop at some point, but no.
Covered last night.
I thought about doing a thread on it but thought a Kippers being racist thread was up there with dog bites man.
Plus as TLG86 pointed out last night she’s incredibly thick/uneducated if she thinks the progeny of Harry and Meghan are going to end up on the throne.
Wasn’t she making a slippery slope argument? Like if we tolerate this then George might end up with an arranged marriage or something.
Quite possibly, but I thought it was more fun to suggest she didn't understand how succession works.
I'll admit to having wondered if it would have been tolerated for William to marry Ms Markle, but perhaps I'm being unfair on the royal family.
Have the tweets of Henry Bolton's racist bidie-in been done yet? I keep thinking that UKIP's degradation with each successive leader has to stop at some point, but no.
Covered last night.
I thought about doing a thread on it but thought a Kippers being racist thread was up there with dog bites man.
Plus as TLG86 pointed out last night she’s incredibly thick/uneducated if she thinks the progeny of Harry and Meghan are going to end up on the throne.
Wasn’t she making a slippery slope argument? Like if we tolerate this then George might end up with an arranged marriage or something.
Quite possibly, but I thought it was more fun to suggest she didn't understand how succession works.
I'll admit to having wondered if it would have been tolerated for William to marry Ms Markle, but perhaps I'm being unfair on the royal family.
The Royals/public were fine with Prince Charles marrying a divorcee.
Mr. 86, the divorcee issue might have been tricky. And for those who cite Camilla, she didn't give birth to the future monarch so it's not the same kettle of monkeys.
She's been put on the Sunday Politics as an example of increasing the number of women in government. She is the daughter of a former Tory MEP.
And she has a very tough brief, given that net migration is almost certain to go up over the coming year.
Why will it go up?
Because the current moving annual total includes the six months after the referendum when it fell quite a lot. The next six months were much closer to the same time the previous year. So as the last two quarters of 2016 drop out of the calculation, they are likely to be replaced with figures closer to those recorded in 2015. So we'll probably get some "immigration is up" headlines.
Not sure I agree. I think the value of the pound is more important in determining marginal migration from the EU, and its recovery is quite a recent phenomenon.
Which is better for eurosceptics? Higher migration to reinforce the need to leave, or lower migration to show that Brexit is working?
Here are the year-on-year changes for the last four quarters:
Jul - Sep -63,000 Oct - Dec -24,000 Jan - Mar -6,000 Apr - Jun -13,000
Perhaps when the next figures come out, July to September 2017 will be the same or lower than the same period in 2016, but I doubt it.
Huh, interesting.
Surely we should look at that an expect 230k to fall to 220 or 225k? Why do you think there would be a rise, based on that trend?
Comments
London is struggling with the problems of success. The rest of the UK is struggling with the problems of decline. That, rather than a provincial vs metropolitan attitude, is the essential divide.
The big bang development-wise was surely the end of the docks as a docks area.
Privatised water-companies have invested heavily into desalination, with Thames Water to the fore. It is quite clear that many upon here have no more knowledge than Al-Beeb or The Gruiniad.
271/2 after 40 chasing 305
Oxford and Cambridge entrance is massively dominated by the children of greedy Londoners. Let's have a proper quota, so Londoners don't take everything that is not theirs. London gets what its populations is entitled to -- no more.
Let's look at the British Museum, and ensure that the cultural treasures that belong to the rest of the country get returned to the rest of the country. Why, for example, is the Mold Roman cape, found in Mold in Wales, in the British Museum at all?
Let's look at the National Gallery and the Tate, and return the artworks that don't belong to London to the rest of the country.
Let's see how many tourists go to London, once its museum and art galleries have been thoroughly denuded and have been dispersed to the places they belong to.
And finally, Wales and Scotland and N Ireland are different countries. They have a historical and cultural heritage that is different. That is the reason for the different arrangement.
This England ODI team is frightening in terms of its hitting power. Lacks a little bite with the ball but awesome with the bat.
Whilst we can criticise some local authorities for a lack of vision and inefficient planning over the years, they also need the ear and support of government. You can’t have it that you resent the amount flowing out of London to the regions without understanding why that has happened and that in many instances this is hardly the fault of the regions in question!
I would be the first to acknowledge that London suffers from unique problems - but then, so too does the East Midlands, urban West Yorkshire, the South West, the North East. Do we have Secretaries of State for every county of the UK?
Rebalancing is long overdue but to do so we have to think less in terms of “us vs them” and more in terms of practical solutions.
I shan’t see how it turns out, though.
Did nobody notice?
Is your view common among fellow SCons? A situation that propels Mundell to prominence and requires year on year exponential increases in funding (for reasons we both probably know) can't be the easiest of sells.
Viewcode said:
' Just before the start of WWII, life expectancy was in the 40's, infant mortality was nontrivial, the disabled were bedbound, housebound or dead. The immunisation programs of the 50's hugely reduced child mortality, better antenatal and postnatal care stopped infant mortality in its tracks'
That is not correct. Life expectancy by the late 1930s was higher than you imply - in fact not far off 60 for a male in the UK. To find figures in the 40s we would have to go back to pre- World War 1.
She's been put on the Sunday Politics as an example of increasing the number of women in government. She is the daughter of a former Tory MEP.
And she has a very tough brief, given that net migration is almost certain to go up over the coming year.
Which is better for eurosceptics? Higher migration to reinforce the need to leave, or lower migration to show that Brexit is working?
I keep thinking that UKIP's degradation with each successive leader has to stop at some point, but no.
Jul - Sep -63,000
Oct - Dec -24,000
Jan - Mar -6,000
Apr - Jun -13,000
Perhaps when the next figures come out, July to September 2017 will be the same or lower than the same period in 2016, but I doubt it.
Well.
Unprecedented 'Positive' correlation but not in a negative sense for a change..
PS spurs should join the sanchez bidding just for fun...
Though I’d laugh if he joined Spurs.
Those ‘Arse Sol’ shirts were amusing.
Not when it comes to the EU surely?
Bring back Rutland Weekend Television (RWT).
I thought about doing a thread on it but thought a Kippers being racist thread was up there with dog bites man.
Plus as TLG86 pointed out last night she’s incredibly thick/uneducated if she thinks the progeny of Harry and Meghan are going to end up on the throne.
https://twitter.com/Hey_Flike/status/952316544842944513
Of course EUSSR black ops may be a bit more culturally tin eared..
I'll admit to having wondered if it would have been tolerated for William to marry Ms Markle, but perhaps I'm being unfair on the royal family.
https://twitter.com/MirrorFootball/status/952512075544383489?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-vs-manchester-city-live-14152895
I’ll be here later, rumours have it Van Dijk is out injured today.
Edited extra bit: wish it were a bit warmer. Got to perambulate with the hound again soon.