Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Infrastructure: the Conservatives’ necessary but misplaced pri

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 18 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Infrastructure: the Conservatives’ necessary but misplaced priority

The Custard Factory is one of Birmingham’s more striking developments.   Its current incarnation is as Birmingham’s answer to Shoreditch (a question that probably did not need asking).  Its history, however, stands as a warning to the government, a warning that it almost certainly will not heed.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 17,864
    edited January 18
    The Custard Factory has a real Johnsonian ring to it.

    Perhaps the nickname of a tuck shop in one of the fine establishments that is pumping out the new paladins of the voiceless and hopeless left behinds of England.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389
    They seem to be dithering about HS2 at the moment as well, which is the only major infrastructure project outside London currently underway. Apparently some of Johnson’s dimmer advisers - Gilligan, Cummings, etc - are not in favour of it, despite the Oakervee review coming down heavily for it.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,630
    When I was growing up in the West Midlands the Custard Factory was essentially a rather stabby nightclub.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,699
    Interesting article, thanks.

    Another example of what you describe is the fashion there used to be a few years ago of building big arts centres in regional towns in the hope that they would regenerate the area. Not all of these were successful. Something more than just building some big project is needed.

    Maybe listening to the people living there about what they need would be a start. Lots of small scale improvements which actually make a real positive difference to people’s’ lives might be better.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 17,864
    Also, desserted, vg.
  • I expect Sajid will outline the policies and direction of travel by the budget in march

    It does look as if everything is on hold until the 1st February when we leave, subject to the transistion to 31st December
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,630
    This hustings format is pretty rubbish. Sound byte after sound byte. They need to have an actual debate.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,055
    edited January 18
    kinabalu said:

    Pidcock bashing again, I see, when I pop in to say a cheery hello. Hugely disappointing and such a mood killer. Sounds like nobody on here wants to be friends with her either.

    All that stuff is just knockabout slapstick for the faithful. Here is the important quote from her -

    ‘We lost the argument and we have to understand why."

    I don't quite know what your objection is to people bashing Pidcock for saying something really really stupid, particularly as it is now revealed to not be a mere youthful bit of hyperbole as she keeps repeating it and similar sentiments. Why are her knockabout comments to the faithful irrelevant? Why are you able to state which of her comments are important and which are not? When Boris says something stupid and offensive would you object to people focusing on it because he has said other things too? I highly doubt that.

    She owns what she says, if she doesn't mean it she shouldn't repeatedly say such things, and people can hardly object if others take notice of the offensive and stupid things she says rather than other bits. There is a very easy way Pidcock could avoid being bashed so easily - stop being silly. Starmer, Nandy, Phillips, even RLB, they get picked up on various things they have said, and sometimes it will be unfair, but none of them face bashing such as you seem upset that Pidock gets, as they are not as silly as her.

    So frankly I don't see that the problem is people criticising her. Edit: She's inviting that, and if it is overshadowing useful things she is saying that's her own damn fault. It's like how Trump could come up with a good point on something and we'd not notice because of how odious he is generally - it'd be a shame to miss the good point, but we could hardly be blamed for doing so.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 30,093
    edited January 18

    This hustings format is pretty rubbish. Sound byte after sound byte. They need to have an actual debate.

    The little I saw of it they all seemed frightened of upsetting each other

    Will they eventually face a proper tv debates with a moderator, or are they all going to be internal hustings with little forensic cross examination
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pidcock bashing again, I see, when I pop in to say a cheery hello. Hugely disappointing and such a mood killer. Sounds like nobody on here wants to be friends with her either.

    All that stuff is just knockabout slapstick for the faithful. Here is the important quote from her -

    ‘We lost the argument and we have to understand why."

    I don't quite know what your objection is to people bashing Pidcock for saying something really really stupid, particularly as it is now revealed to not be a mere youthful bit of hyperbole as she keeps repeating it and similar sentiments. Why are her knockabout comments to the faithful irrelevant? Why are you able to state which of her comments are important and which are not? When Boris says something stupid and offensive would you object to people focusing on it because he has said other things too? I highly doubt that.

    She owns what she says, if she doesn't mean it she shouldn't repeatedly say such things, and people can hardly object if others take notice of the offensive and stupid things she says rather than other bits. There is a very easy way Pidcock could avoid being bashed so easily - stop being silly. Starmer, Nandy, Phillips, even RLB, they get picked up on various things they have said, and sometimes it will be unfair, but none of them face bashing such as you seem upset that Pidock gets, as they are not as silly as her.

    So frankly I don't see that the problem is people criticising her.
    To give a semblance of fairness, she was speaking to her audience. Look at the fellow speakers - the sort of audience member there will be focused (and odd). But there is a history of these simple-minded, dim, juvenile, pathetic statements.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807

    I expect Sajid will outline the policies and direction of travel by the budget in march

    It does look as if everything is on hold until the 1st February when we leave, subject to the transistion to 31st December

    Got to give the Saj credit for a sense of humour.
    In the same interview he tells business they’ve had three years to prepare for divergence, he declines to give any details of what the divergences resulting from Brexit are going to be...
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    Good header from Alastair.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626

    This hustings format is pretty rubbish. Sound byte after sound byte. They need to have an actual debate.

    Given (nearly) all of them agree that the manifesto was, at a minimum, satisfactory and it was the messenger that was the problem, what is there to debate?
  • kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pidcock bashing again, I see, when I pop in to say a cheery hello. Hugely disappointing and such a mood killer. Sounds like nobody on here wants to be friends with her either.

    All that stuff is just knockabout slapstick for the faithful. Here is the important quote from her -

    ‘We lost the argument and we have to understand why."

    I don't quite know what your objection is to people bashing Pidcock for saying something really really stupid, particularly as it is now revealed to not be a mere youthful bit of hyperbole as she keeps repeating it and similar sentiments. Why are her knockabout comments to the faithful irrelevant? Why are you able to state which of her comments are important and which are not? When Boris says something stupid and offensive would you object to people focusing on it because he has said other things too? I highly doubt that.

    She owns what she says, if she doesn't mean it she shouldn't repeatedly say such things, and people can hardly object if others take notice of the offensive and stupid things she says rather than other bits. There is a very easy way Pidcock could avoid being bashed so easily - stop being silly. Starmer, Nandy, Phillips, even RLB, they get picked up on various things they have said, and sometimes it will be unfair, but none of them face bashing such as you seem upset that Pidock gets, as they are not as silly as her.

    So frankly I don't see that the problem is people criticising her. Edit: She's inviting that, and if it is overshadowing useful things she is saying that's her own damn fault. It's like how Trump could come up with a good point on something and we'd not notice because of how odious he is generally - it'd be a shame to miss the good point, but we could hardly be blamed for doing so.
    Good post
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626
    edited January 18
    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    How many people have left though? Look at the age profiles of many of the old DDR cities. The future for many still looks pretty bleak.

    James Hayes, in The Shortest History of Germany gives a excellent overview in the final chapter. And sets it in the context of German/Prussian history where the story of the rise of Prussia is the story of the west subsidising the east. Perhaps nothing changes.
  • Nigelb said:

    I expect Sajid will outline the policies and direction of travel by the budget in march

    It does look as if everything is on hold until the 1st February when we leave, subject to the transistion to 31st December

    Got to give the Saj credit for a sense of humour.
    In the same interview he tells business they’ve had three years to prepare for divergence, he declines to give any details of what the divergences resulting from Brexit are going to be...
    I do not disagree with that criticism
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 31,883
    edited January 18

    When I was growing up in the West Midlands the Custard Factory was essentially a rather stabby nightclub.

    There were stabbier venues in Digbeth.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626
    edited January 18
    Deleted for reasons of ineptness.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    There used to be some belting clubs in Brum, in the nineties. Bakers and the Que Club were superb in their day.
  • Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    Polite announcement by the Queen in nice language saying that H&M will basically not represent the Queen anymore.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Can I trouble you to use British English spelling please? My brother also lives in the States and his inadvertent adoption of US spelling is equally annoying.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626

    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Can I trouble you to use British English spelling please? My brother also lives in the States and his inadvertent adoption of US spelling is equally annoying.
    It’s the computer. Mine does the same (and I have to get used the month/date/year format). Cultural imperialism (or a reversion to 17th/early 18th century British norms if one believes Bill Bryson).
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    Money making oppourtunity get ownership of www.mountbatten-windsorcommoners.com
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,984
    Another good piece on the same topic

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,907
    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Can I trouble you to use British English spelling please? My brother also lives in the States and his inadvertent adoption of US spelling is equally annoying.
    It’s the computer. Mine does the same (and I have to get used the month/date/year format). Cultural imperialism (or a reversion to 17th/early 18th century British norms if one believes Bill Bryson).
    I think RCS1000 is preparing us for the US FTD which could involve the UK adopting US English.
  • Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    The Queen has been excellent in drawing this to a conclusion including Harry and Megan repaying the 2.5 million paid for restoration of Frogmore Cottage and preventing them using HRH

    I fully support the Queen's decision and I hope Harry and Megan succeed in their new life in Canada

    I really cannot see how anyone can object to this solution
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Can I trouble you to use British English spelling please? My brother also lives in the States and his inadvertent adoption of US spelling is equally annoying.
    It’s the computer. Mine does the same (and I have to get used the month/date/year format). Cultural imperialism (or a reversion to 17th/early 18th century British norms if one believes Bill Bryson).
    RCS has been known to refer to sports teams as singular.

    England has a chance of winning etc. I’m not sure he can blame that crime against British usage on his computer?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389

    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Can I trouble you to use British English spelling please? My brother also lives in the States and his inadvertent adoption of US spelling is equally annoying.
    It’s the computer. Mine does the same (and I have to get used the month/date/year format). Cultural imperialism (or a reversion to 17th/early 18th century British norms if one believes Bill Bryson).
    I think RCS1000 is preparing us for the US FTD which could involve the UK adopting US English.
    If we wanted to be mean, we could start trade negotiations by saying that as a minimum, all Webster dictionaries must be declared to be not English.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
    Meghan and Harry have got the freedom they want but won't use their HRH titles, nor receive public money and will pay back most of what they already have. They've completely stepping back from royal duties but have also committed to uphold the values of HMQ.

    It's a great deal to keep the brand of the monarchy intact.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,013
    Interesting piece on a subject we don't see much discussed except in political soundbites.

    An alternative model to more companies outside London is really good train services to London. That's basically how a lot of the Home Counties thrive, and if HS2 does happen (I'm not yet convinced it will or should) then I can see people living in the Midlands and working in London. It's not as attractive a prospect as developing more prosperous centres around the country, but may be more realistic for some time.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Have they?

    Whenever I read about East Germany it's to say they're still in the doldrums regardless of the fact money's been thrown at it for 30 years.

    It's far easier to kill a golden goose than create one.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
    Meghan and Harry have got the freedom they want but won't use their HRH titles, nor receive public money and will pay back most of what they already have. They've completely stepping back from royal duties but have also committed to uphold the values of HMQ.

    It's a great deal to keep the brand of the monarchy intact.
    Without its two only interesting people. Back to the utter bore-fest that is Wills and Kate, the world’s dullest Stepford Wife.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626

    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Can I trouble you to use British English spelling please? My brother also lives in the States and his inadvertent adoption of US spelling is equally annoying.
    It’s the computer. Mine does the same (and I have to get used the month/date/year format). Cultural imperialism (or a reversion to 17th/early 18th century British norms if one believes Bill Bryson).
    I think RCS1000 is preparing us for the US FTD which could involve the UK adopting US English.
    Color me shocked.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040

    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Can I trouble you to use British English spelling please? My brother also lives in the States and his inadvertent adoption of US spelling is equally annoying.
    It’s the computer. Mine does the same (and I have to get used the month/date/year format). Cultural imperialism (or a reversion to 17th/early 18th century British norms if one believes Bill Bryson).
    I think RCS1000 is preparing us for the US FTD which could involve the UK adopting US English.
    A dark future indeed Mike!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616
    Great header.

    You cannot "level up" the North without "levelling down" the South. This to me is a statement of almost scientific certainty.

    So if this Boris Johnson led Conservative government can manage to do it - well it will be an achievement of such magnitude that no other party need bother standing next time. And rightly not.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    ydoethur said:

    They seem to be dithering about HS2 at the moment as well, which is the only major infrastructure project outside London currently underway. Apparently some of Johnson’s dimmer advisers - Gilligan, Cummings, etc - are not in favour of it, despite the Oakervee review coming down heavily for it.

    I think it's basically politically impossible for Boris to cancel it. It's a drastic improvement to infrastructure right up the spine of the country and a strategic economic enabler.

    The savings to be achieved are in the spec. For example, the civils specs for the tunnels demand virtually no leaks.

    There's never been a tunnel in history that doesn't leak to some extent somewhere and these idealistic designs are jacking up the cost something silly.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    The Queen has been excellent in drawing this to a conclusion including Harry and Megan repaying the 2.5 million paid for restoration of Frogmore Cottage and preventing them using HRH

    I fully support the Queen's decision and I hope Harry and Megan succeed in their new life in Canada

    I really cannot see how anyone can object to this solution
    I’m always surprised that anyone gives even a fraction of a fuck. They are all borne on the world’s most luxurious welfare state, two million quid for doing up a cottage is a rounding error.
  • Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
    Meghan and Harry have got the freedom they want but won't use their HRH titles, nor receive public money and will pay back most of what they already have. They've completely stepping back from royal duties but have also committed to uphold the values of HMQ.

    It's a great deal to keep the brand of the monarchy intact.
    Without its two only interesting people. Back to the utter bore-fest that is Wills and Kate, the world’s dullest Stepford Wife.
    Maybe, but very popular
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    kinabalu said:

    Great header.

    You cannot "level up" the North without "levelling down" the South. This to me is a statement of almost scientific certainty.

    So if this Boris Johnson led Conservative government can manage to do it - well it will be an achievement of such magnitude that no other party need bother standing next time. And rightly not.

    Garbage.

    Why would you want to artificially depress Europe’s most successful region?

  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626

    ydoethur said:

    They seem to be dithering about HS2 at the moment as well, which is the only major infrastructure project outside London currently underway. Apparently some of Johnson’s dimmer advisers - Gilligan, Cummings, etc - are not in favour of it, despite the Oakervee review coming down heavily for it.

    I think it's basically politically impossible for Boris to cancel it. It's a drastic improvement to infrastructure right up the spine of the country and a strategic economic enabler.

    The savings to be achieved are in the spec. For example, the civils specs for the tunnels demand virtually no leaks.

    There's never been a tunnel in history that doesn't leak to some extent somewhere and these idealistic designs are jacking up the cost something silly.
    That has arts graduate civil servant all over it. It’s like demanding trains will never crash, aircraft will never crash. It’s ALARP where the R has been discarded because the public is deemed not understand risk. And journalists certainly don’t.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,699

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    That’s to make sure they can no longer market and make money out of sussexroyal.com.
    Or any other royal connection.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
    Meghan and Harry have got the freedom they want but won't use their HRH titles, nor receive public money and will pay back most of what they already have. They've completely stepping back from royal duties but have also committed to uphold the values of HMQ.

    It's a great deal to keep the brand of the monarchy intact.
    Without its two only interesting people. Back to the utter bore-fest that is Wills and Kate, the world’s dullest Stepford Wife.
    I expected a response like that from you.

    Monarchy isn't supposed to be an exciting celebrity fest. It's supposed to exemplify duty, stability and continuity.

    Can you explain to me why you think it's unacceptable to critique Meghan but it is fine to insult Kate, other than the fact you've decided to align them as affiliates on opposite sides of the culture wars?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 17,864
    edited January 18

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    Will this mean that Piers Morgan and his puce faced comrades will stop pursuing their vendetta against Markle?

    Will it fcuk.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
    Meghan and Harry have got the freedom they want but won't use their HRH titles, nor receive public money and will pay back most of what they already have. They've completely stepping back from royal duties but have also committed to uphold the values of HMQ.

    It's a great deal to keep the brand of the monarchy intact.
    Without its two only interesting people. Back to the utter bore-fest that is Wills and Kate, the world’s dullest Stepford Wife.
    Maybe, but very popular
    Not with me old bean.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    The Queen has been excellent in drawing this to a conclusion including Harry and Megan repaying the 2.5 million paid for restoration of Frogmore Cottage and preventing them using HRH

    I fully support the Queen's decision and I hope Harry and Megan succeed in their new life in Canada

    I really cannot see how anyone can object to this solution
    I’m always surprised that anyone gives even a fraction of a fuck. They are all borne on the world’s most luxurious welfare state, two million quid for doing up a cottage is a rounding error.
    You seem to care deeply enough to comment every time the issue comes up.

    But of course, that's not what you mean. What you mean is that you're irritated people don't agree with you.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    Cyclefree said:

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    That’s to make sure they can no longer market and make money out of sussexroyal.com.
    Or any other royal connection.
    Indeed.
  • Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
    Meghan and Harry have got the freedom they want but won't use their HRH titles, nor receive public money and will pay back most of what they already have. They've completely stepping back from royal duties but have also committed to uphold the values of HMQ.

    It's a great deal to keep the brand of the monarchy intact.
    Without its two only interesting people. Back to the utter bore-fest that is Wills and Kate, the world’s dullest Stepford Wife.
    Maybe, but very popular
    Not with me old bean.
    Of course not 100%

    Indeed I have been a republican most of my life, but over the years have grown to respect the Queen but would not be surprised if sentiment changes should Charles ever become King
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
    Meghan and Harry have got the freedom they want but won't use their HRH titles, nor receive public money and will pay back most of what they already have. They've completely stepping back from royal duties but have also committed to uphold the values of HMQ.

    It's a great deal to keep the brand of the monarchy intact.
    Without its two only interesting people. Back to the utter bore-fest that is Wills and Kate, the world’s dullest Stepford Wife.
    I expected a response like that from you.

    Monarchy isn't supposed to be an exciting celebrity fest. It's supposed to exemplify duty, stability and continuity.

    Can you explain to me why you think it's unacceptable to critique Meghan but it is fine to insult Kate, other than the fact you've decided to align them as affiliates on opposite sides of the culture wars?

    Duty and stability like driving on to a main road without looking and nearly killing a young mum and baby?

    Duty and stability like driving a stake between people who love each other?

    Duty and stability like sleeping with underage girls?

    Whatever.

    I just think that Kate is boring. Full stop.

    Meghan was the best thing to happen to the monarchy for years.

    I loved her wedding, and I’m a republican.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,630
    edited January 18
    Cyclefree said:

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    That’s to make sure they can no longer market and make money out of sussexroyal.com.
    Or any other royal connection.
    They’ll still be the Duke and Duchess of Sussex though right? Just won’t have the style “His/Her Royal Highness”?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    The Queen has been excellent in drawing this to a conclusion including Harry and Megan repaying the 2.5 million paid for restoration of Frogmore Cottage and preventing them using HRH

    I fully support the Queen's decision and I hope Harry and Megan succeed in their new life in Canada

    I really cannot see how anyone can object to this solution
    I’m always surprised that anyone gives even a fraction of a fuck. They are all borne on the world’s most luxurious welfare state, two million quid for doing up a cottage is a rounding error.
    You seem to care deeply enough to comment every time the issue comes up.

    But of course, that's not what you mean. What you mean is that you're irritated people don't agree with you.
    It’s more that I find your toadying sycophancy utterly pathetic.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    The one fly in the ointment is that they will continue to receive private money from Prince Charles's estate in the meantime.

    That must be a temporary arrangement as I cannot see that surviving his transition to reigning monarch.
  • Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
    Meghan and Harry have got the freedom they want but won't use their HRH titles, nor receive public money and will pay back most of what they already have. They've completely stepping back from royal duties but have also committed to uphold the values of HMQ.

    It's a great deal to keep the brand of the monarchy intact.
    Without its two only interesting people. Back to the utter bore-fest that is Wills and Kate, the world’s dullest Stepford Wife.
    I expected a response like that from you.

    Monarchy isn't supposed to be an exciting celebrity fest. It's supposed to exemplify duty, stability and continuity.

    Can you explain to me why you think it's unacceptable to critique Meghan but it is fine to insult Kate, other than the fact you've decided to align them as affiliates on opposite sides of the culture wars?

    Duty and stability like driving on to a main road without looking and nearly killing a young mum and baby?

    Duty and stability like driving a stake between people who love each other?

    Duty and stability like sleeping with underage girls?

    Whatever.

    I just think that Kate is boring. Full stop.

    Meghan was the best thing to happen to the monarchy for years.

    I loved her wedding, and I’m a republican.
    I think most posters would have already concluded you are a republican
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,630
    edited January 18

    The one fly in the ointment is that they will continue to receive private money from Prince Charles's estate in the meantime.

    That must be a temporary arrangement as I cannot see that surviving his transition to reigning monarch.

    No-one will care in a few months time. I bet the repayment of the Frogmore Cottage expenditure will take hundreds of years.

    EDIT: either that or Charles will funnel them the money through a back channel and they’ll simply “pay it off” that way.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,984
    It appears Javid wasn't being a loose cannon with his "shape up or get out" message to business faced with a as yet unspecified torrent of hard Brexit red tape and costs. It is in fact a coordinated part of the government's "fuck business" policy.

    It takes all the condescension of someone who flogged enough collateral debt obligations to bankrupt the world's financial system, landed all of us with billions of debt, while making sure he continued to pocket his bonus, to berate business for not being prepared for adverse effects that his government is introducing but refuses to tell them about .
  • The one fly in the ointment is that they will continue to receive private money from Prince Charles's estate in the meantime.

    That must be a temporary arrangement as I cannot see that surviving his transition to reigning monarch.

    No-one will care in a few months time. I bet the repayment of the Frogmore Cottage expenditure will take hundreds of years.

    EDIT: either that or Charles will funnel them the money through a back channel and they’ll simply “pay it off” that way.
    One of the biggest problems they will face is taxation issues from both Canada and the UK
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
    Meghan and Harry have got the freedom they want but won't use their HRH titles, nor receive public money and will pay back most of what they already have. They've completely stepping back from royal duties but have also committed to uphold the values of HMQ.

    It's a great deal to keep the brand of the monarchy intact.
    Without its two only interesting people. Back to the utter bore-fest that is Wills and Kate, the world’s dullest Stepford Wife.
    I expected a response like that from you.

    Monarchy isn't supposed to be an exciting celebrity fest. It's supposed to exemplify duty, stability and continuity.

    Can you explain to me why you think it's unacceptable to critique Meghan but it is fine to insult Kate, other than the fact you've decided to align them as affiliates on opposite sides of the culture wars?

    Duty and stability like driving on to a main road without looking and nearly killing a young mum and baby?

    Duty and stability like driving a stake between people who love each other?

    Duty and stability like sleeping with underage girls?

    Whatever.

    I just think that Kate is boring. Full stop.

    Meghan was the best thing to happen to the monarchy for years.

    I loved her wedding, and I’m a republican.
    The last three words are all we need to take note of in your post.

    Megan and Harry certainly could have made a great contribution to the monarchy and perhaps got non-committed observers to take another look at its next generation both in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth.

    However, they decided it was too much like hard work and too constraining for them.

    Those who have sympathy with that point of view are those who lack sympathy with the institution of the monarchy as a whole.

    So here we are.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    Cyclefree said:

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    That’s to make sure they can no longer market and make money out of sussexroyal.com.
    Or any other royal connection.
    Where do I sign up to stop the rest of them making money from royal.com and get a bloody job like the rest of us?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    The Queen has been excellent in drawing this to a conclusion including Harry and Megan repaying the 2.5 million paid for restoration of Frogmore Cottage and preventing them using HRH

    I fully support the Queen's decision and I hope Harry and Megan succeed in their new life in Canada

    I really cannot see how anyone can object to this solution
    I’m always surprised that anyone gives even a fraction of a fuck. They are all borne on the world’s most luxurious welfare state, two million quid for doing up a cottage is a rounding error.
    You seem to care deeply enough to comment every time the issue comes up.

    But of course, that's not what you mean. What you mean is that you're irritated people don't agree with you.
    It’s more that I find your toadying sycophancy utterly pathetic.
    No, I simply disagree with you.

    If you're going to just resort to abuse in your posts then I'm more than happy to let your posts speak for themselves.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    The Queen has been excellent in drawing this to a conclusion including Harry and Megan repaying the 2.5 million paid for restoration of Frogmore Cottage and preventing them using HRH

    I fully support the Queen's decision and I hope Harry and Megan succeed in their new life in Canada

    I really cannot see how anyone can object to this solution
    I’m always surprised that anyone gives even a fraction of a fuck. They are all borne on the world’s most luxurious welfare state, two million quid for doing up a cottage is a rounding error.
    You seem to care deeply enough to comment every time the issue comes up.

    But of course, that's not what you mean. What you mean is that you're irritated people don't agree with you.
    It’s more that I find your toadying sycophancy utterly pathetic.
    No, I simply disagree with you.

    If you're going to just resort to abuse in your posts then I'm more than happy to let your posts speak for themselves.
    Bear in mind please that Anozanobananabanana is cleverer than everyone here. Despite being unable to recall or save passwords...
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
    Meghan and Harry have got the freedom they want but won't use their HRH titles, nor receive public money and will pay back most of what they already have. They've completely stepping back from royal duties but have also committed to uphold the values of HMQ.

    It's a great deal to keep the brand of the monarchy intact.
    Without its two only interesting people. Back to the utter bore-fest that is Wills and Kate, the world’s dullest Stepford Wife.
    I expected a response like that from you.

    Monarchy isn't supposed to be an exciting celebrity fest. It's supposed to exemplify duty, stability and continuity.

    Can you explain to me why you think it's unacceptable to critique Meghan but it is fine to insult Kate, other than the fact you've decided to align them as affiliates on opposite sides of the culture wars?

    Duty and stability like driving on to a main road without looking and nearly killing a young mum and baby?

    Duty and stability like driving a stake between people who love each other?

    Duty and stability like sleeping with underage girls?

    Whatever.

    I just think that Kate is boring. Full stop.

    Meghan was the best thing to happen to the monarchy for years.

    I loved her wedding, and I’m a republican.
    I think most posters would have already concluded you are a republican
    I was a pragmatic republican for most of my life. Until I realised that having a genetic lottery 5-star welfare state was somewhat incompatible with meritocracy.

    Son, read a lot, practice, and work bloody hard.

    Or shag a princess and get her pregnant.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,699
    On topic, one of the questions the government has to decide is whether it is seeking simply to share current prosperity more fairly ie redistribution. Or whether it wants to kickstart these areas so that they can be revenue-generating. Different policies will be needed depending on what the government is trying to achieve.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    The Queen has been excellent in drawing this to a conclusion including Harry and Megan repaying the 2.5 million paid for restoration of Frogmore Cottage and preventing them using HRH

    I fully support the Queen's decision and I hope Harry and Megan succeed in their new life in Canada

    I really cannot see how anyone can object to this solution
    I’m always surprised that anyone gives even a fraction of a fuck. They are all borne on the world’s most luxurious welfare state, two million quid for doing up a cottage is a rounding error.
    You seem to care deeply enough to comment every time the issue comes up.

    But of course, that's not what you mean. What you mean is that you're irritated people don't agree with you.
    It’s more that I find your toadying sycophancy utterly pathetic.
    No, I simply disagree with you.

    If you're going to just resort to abuse in your posts then I'm more than happy to let your posts speak for themselves.
    You make some great points (your golden goose analogy below being one of them - spot on). Which is why it’s so sad when it comes to the monarchy, you are just a bit blinkered and Alf Garnett about it aren’t you?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 5,375

    The one fly in the ointment is that they will continue to receive private money from Prince Charles's estate in the meantime.

    That must be a temporary arrangement as I cannot see that surviving his transition to reigning monarch.

    Surely it's up to Charles what he does with his private money? How is that a fly in the ointment?
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626
    Cyclefree said:

    On topic, one of the questions the government has to decide is whether it is seeking simply to share current prosperity more fairly ie redistribution. Or whether it wants to kickstart these areas so that they can be revenue-generating. Different policies will be needed depending on what the government is trying to achieve.

    Yes. That goes to an earlier post here which was to the effect that cake sharing is a zero sum game. No concept that the cake might grow and everyone might benefit although some might benefit more than others (the EU model of transferring wealth from west to east after all).
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
    Meghan and Harry have got the freedom they want but won't use their HRH titles, nor receive public money and will pay back most of what they already have. They've completely stepping back from royal duties but have also committed to uphold the values of HMQ.

    It's a great deal to keep the brand of the monarchy intact.
    An overlooked aspect of this news is that there will almost nothing else in tomorrow's newspapers. :disappointed:
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    Barnesian said:

    The one fly in the ointment is that they will continue to receive private money from Prince Charles's estate in the meantime.

    That must be a temporary arrangement as I cannot see that surviving his transition to reigning monarch.

    Surely it's up to Charles what he does with his private money? How is that a fly in the ointment?
    The PB Cap Doffers want Meg and Hazza to suffer as much as possible for binning off the cruel oppression of the Firm.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,276
    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Mighty migration flows to the prosperous areas. Prior to the 2015 immigration, people in the ex-DDR area were down by three million, or twenty per cent. A few cities did not shrink, like (East) Berlin, but that is it. So wages adjusted to account for the lower labour supply.

    Almost all European countries face the same problem as the UK in so far as successful young people want to be married to other SYP, to reap the proven gains of changing from employer to employer, and to go on business travel and nice holidays to other countries. But only Paris matches London, in the measure of how many of the best people in the world in their fields work near London.

    The problem is anyone who gains from proximity to law, finance, venture capital, aviation, or media and publicity, gains from being near London. The only level-up solution I see is a general increase in corporation tax, plus tax-free zones far from the home counties, so that the firms which gain less from London's scale benefits are outside the capital and are taxed less.
  • Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
    Meghan and Harry have got the freedom they want but won't use their HRH titles, nor receive public money and will pay back most of what they already have. They've completely stepping back from royal duties but have also committed to uphold the values of HMQ.

    It's a great deal to keep the brand of the monarchy intact.
    An overlooked aspect of this news is that there will almost nothing else in tomorrow's newspapers. :disappointed:
    Correction. There will be 'nothing else' in tomorrows papers or on the media
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807
    (FPT)
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    matt said:


    Labour came this close to her being leader.
    The politics of the students union (6th form version), It’s. possible that she will become an intellectual adult at some point. Time is running against her though.
    Her loss was a mixed blessing for Conservatives.
    On behalf of my sixth formers, I protest. They show far more dignity, respect and willingness to engage with the world around them than Pidcock ever has.
    I thought it was a teacher's job to knock that out of them, and indoctrinate them into the glories of international socialism to boot, I read that on the internet - you are quite lax, sir.
    Yes, I teach the little bastards to think for themselves, question everything and always find evidence.
    It’s very wrong of me. It did actually cost me a job once when I applied for a role in an LEA school.
    Have things calmed down in your current employment? Hope so.
    No. But I am at the stage where I no longer care very much. Let them bugger it all up and sort it out next year, probably without me.
    The school, or the profession ?
    (You are not the first I’ve heard that from.)
    The first, definitely.

    The second, I am still pondering. It may depend a bit on whether I get a job before I quit or afterwards.
    All the best with any and all future endeavours.
  • FlannerFlanner Posts: 225
    On topic:
    Alastair's post is excellent. But he misses a crucial point.

    Where did Bird's relocate to 50 years ago?

    To that awful example of a collapsing economy, Banbury. Which sits on the edge of beautiful countryside slap bang in the middle of what - until Brexit came along - turned out to be one of Britain's most successful regions (with the most overpriced housing relative to income) in the second half of the 20th century.

    So the Bird's turned GF turned Kraft factory has succeeded in adding to the pressure on housing in Oxfordshire, while impoverishing Birmingham

    We often say governments can't pick winners. They're pretty crap at spotting failures as well.
  • Barnesian said:

    The one fly in the ointment is that they will continue to receive private money from Prince Charles's estate in the meantime.

    That must be a temporary arrangement as I cannot see that surviving his transition to reigning monarch.

    Surely it's up to Charles what he does with his private money? How is that a fly in the ointment?
    The PB Cap Doffers want Meg and Hazza to suffer as much as possible for binning off the cruel oppression of the Firm.
    You really are being silly and bitter.

    It is a fair resolution
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
    Meghan and Harry have got the freedom they want but won't use their HRH titles, nor receive public money and will pay back most of what they already have. They've completely stepping back from royal duties but have also committed to uphold the values of HMQ.

    It's a great deal to keep the brand of the monarchy intact.
    An overlooked aspect of this news is that there will almost nothing else in tomorrow's newspapers. :disappointed:
    Correction. There will be 'nothing else' in tomorrows papers or on the media
    :lol: Thanks. Although I assume there will still be adverts for Easter eggs seeing as it is mid-January.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,699

    Cyclefree said:

    Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    That’s to make sure they can no longer market and make money out of sussexroyal.com.
    Or any other royal connection.
    They’ll still be the Duke and Duchess of Sussex though right? Just won’t have the style “His/Her Royal Highness”?
    Not sure. The title is the whole thing including the duke bit surely.

    Basically, a week ago they wanted to be half in/half out and the inevitable result is, as was pretty obvious, that it’s in or out and if you’re out, you’re fully out.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616

    Garbage.

    Why would you want to artificially depress Europe’s most successful region?

    I said that it would be a great achievement to boost the North WITHOUT damaging the South.

    Comprehension issues?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    kinabalu said:

    Garbage.

    Why would you want to artificially depress Europe’s most successful region?

    I said that it would be a great achievement to boost the North WITHOUT damaging the South.

    Comprehension issues?
    Probably, I might have misread!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 13,228
    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting article, thanks.

    Another example of what you describe is the fashion there used to be a few years ago of building big arts centres in regional towns in the hope that they would regenerate the area. Not all of these were successful. Something more than just building some big project is needed.

    Maybe listening to the people living there about what they need would be a start. Lots of small scale improvements which actually make a real positive difference to people’s’ lives might be better.

    I did wonder twenty years ago about the regeneration plans for inner city Leicester, which has some fairly grim parts, but by and large it has been well managed, particularly compared to other similar sized cities. Sir Peter Soulsby has been a pretty successful mayor.

    The "Cultural Quarter" centred around the Curve Theatre, has worked, including the renovation of the Athena into a party venue, suitable for even large Asian weddings. The relocated Arts cinema is thriving. The improvements in the De Montfort Campus and linking into the city via the reworked Greyfriars area, and Highcross development that keeps retail in the city centre rather than out of town mall have also worked.

    Gradually the cities clothing factories have converted to apartments, and the city has become a destination for retail and the night time economy. Unquestionably the transition has been helped by the expansion of the two universities, as is true of many provincial cities.

    How much of this is reproducible elsewhere is uncertain, but Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield have all become hipster, cosmopolitan cities in a similar vein. Others too that I am less familiar with, no doubt.

    do wonder how sustainable such a transformation based upon student loans on the never never is, and Leicester has not completely lost its gritty urban edge, but is a much more liveable place.

    Maybe not the transformation that Beexiteers nostalgically long for, but it has worked.
  • BantermanBanterman Posts: 240

    Barnesian said:

    The one fly in the ointment is that they will continue to receive private money from Prince Charles's estate in the meantime.

    That must be a temporary arrangement as I cannot see that surviving his transition to reigning monarch.

    Surely it's up to Charles what he does with his private money? How is that a fly in the ointment?
    The PB Cap Doffers want Meg and Hazza to suffer as much as possible for binning off the cruel oppression of the Firm.
    When Chaz becomes King, the Dutchy of Cornwall goes to William, so HHazza and the Megster will be dependent on big brother for money.

    Hope she hasn't upset Kate too much.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 7,616
    edited January 18
    kle4 said:

    I don't quite know what your objection is to people bashing Pidcock for saying something really really stupid, particularly as it is now revealed to not be a mere youthful bit of hyperbole as she keeps repeating it and similar sentiments. Why are her knockabout comments to the faithful irrelevant? Why are you able to state which of her comments are important and which are not? When Boris says something stupid and offensive would you object to people focusing on it because he has said other things too? I highly doubt that.

    She owns what she says, if she doesn't mean it she shouldn't repeatedly say such things, and people can hardly object if others take notice of the offensive and stupid things she says rather than other bits. There is a very easy way Pidcock could avoid being bashed so easily - stop being silly. Starmer, Nandy, Phillips, even RLB, they get picked up on various things they have said, and sometimes it will be unfair, but none of them face bashing such as you seem upset that Pidock gets, as they are not as silly as her.

    So frankly I don't see that the problem is people criticising her. Edit: She's inviting that, and if it is overshadowing useful things she is saying that's her own damn fault. It's like how Trump could come up with a good point on something and we'd not notice because of how odious he is generally - it'd be a shame to miss the good point, but we could hardly be blamed for doing so.

    You're obsessing over trivia in this case IMO.

    But I agree your general point.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,276
    After the Wall fell, Germany created the IWH in Halle to investigate East-West convergence at ground level. They are still studying it as well as competitiveness and CEE integration nowadays. At any rate, nobody knows more about the subject than they do. If you are interested, check out their "United Country" report, which notes the successes and failures.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,699
    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Mighty migration flows to the prosperous areas. Prior to the 2015 immigration, people in the ex-DDR area were down by three million, or twenty per cent. A few cities did not shrink, like (East) Berlin, but that is it. So wages adjusted to account for the lower labour supply.

    Almost all European countries face the same problem as the UK in so far as successful young people want to be married to other SYP, to reap the proven gains of changing from employer to employer, and to go on business travel and nice holidays to other countries. But only Paris matches London, in the measure of how many of the best people in the world in their fields work near London.

    The problem is anyone who gains from proximity to law, finance, venture capital, aviation, or media and publicity, gains from being near London. The only level-up solution I see is a general increase in corporation tax, plus tax-free zones far from the home counties, so that the firms which gain less from London's scale benefits are outside the capital and are taxed less.
    Law and finance are two sectors which are going to hollowed out to an extent not yet realised by AI. And proximity is not as necessary as often claimed. Lots of banks and law firms have moved many of their functions a long way from London.
  • Breaking news on Sky

    The Sussexes will no longer use their titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family

    The Palace has done well with that deal.
    In what way?

    Very tempted to repeat my view that monarchist-traditionalists are, well, a bit weird. But I won’t.
    Meghan and Harry have got the freedom they want but won't use their HRH titles, nor receive public money and will pay back most of what they already have. They've completely stepping back from royal duties but have also committed to uphold the values of HMQ.

    It's a great deal to keep the brand of the monarchy intact.
    An overlooked aspect of this news is that there will almost nothing else in tomorrow's newspapers. :disappointed:
    Correction. There will be 'nothing else' in tomorrows papers or on the media
    :lol: Thanks. Although I assume there will still be adverts for Easter eggs seeing as it is mid-January.
    Probably
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 17,807
    kinabalu said:

    Garbage.

    Why would you want to artificially depress Europe’s most successful region?

    I said that it would be a great achievement to boost the North WITHOUT damaging the South.

    Comprehension issues?
    Yes, I think so.
    I don’t buy the zero sum game argument. Economies don’t work like that.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,630
    Brucey’s boys do it again. Super Newcastle on the march!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,699
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Interesting article, thanks.

    Another example of what you describe is the fashion there used to be a few years ago of building big arts centres in regional towns in the hope that they would regenerate the area. Not all of these were successful. Something more than just building some big project is needed.

    Maybe listening to the people living there about what they need would be a start. Lots of small scale improvements which actually make a real positive difference to people’s’ lives might be better.

    I did wonder twenty years ago about the regeneration plans for inner city Leicester, which has some fairly grim parts, but by and large it has been well managed, particularly compared to other similar sized cities. Sir Peter Soulsby has been a pretty successful mayor.

    The "Cultural Quarter" centred around the Curve Theatre, has worked, including the renovation of the Athena into a party venue, suitable for even large Asian weddings. The relocated Arts cinema is thriving. The improvements in the De Montfort Campus and linking into the city via the reworked Greyfriars area, and Highcross development that keeps retail in the city centre rather than out of town mall have also worked.

    Gradually the cities clothing factories have converted to apartments, and the city has become a destination for retail and the night time economy. Unquestionably the transition has been helped by the expansion of the two universities, as is true of many provincial cities.

    How much of this is reproducible elsewhere is uncertain, but Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield have all become hipster, cosmopolitan cities in a similar vein. Others too that I am less familiar with, no doubt.

    do wonder how sustainable such a transformation based upon student loans on the never never is, and Leicester has not completely lost its gritty urban edge, but is a much more liveable place.

    Maybe not the transformation that Beexiteers nostalgically long for, but it has worked.
    Interesting, thanks. Maybe one of the things that is needed is really good local government leadership.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 28,598
    Cyclefree said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Mighty migration flows to the prosperous areas. Prior to the 2015 immigration, people in the ex-DDR area were down by three million, or twenty per cent. A few cities did not shrink, like (East) Berlin, but that is it. So wages adjusted to account for the lower labour supply.

    Almost all European countries face the same problem as the UK in so far as successful young people want to be married to other SYP, to reap the proven gains of changing from employer to employer, and to go on business travel and nice holidays to other countries. But only Paris matches London, in the measure of how many of the best people in the world in their fields work near London.

    The problem is anyone who gains from proximity to law, finance, venture capital, aviation, or media and publicity, gains from being near London. The only level-up solution I see is a general increase in corporation tax, plus tax-free zones far from the home counties, so that the firms which gain less from London's scale benefits are outside the capital and are taxed less.
    Law and finance are two sectors which are going to hollowed out to an extent not yet realised by AI. And proximity is not as necessary as often claimed. Lots of banks and law firms have moved many of their functions a long way from London.
    I intend saying much more about this in due course. (I agree.)
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626
    edited January 18
    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Mighty migration flows to the prosperous areas. Prior to the 2015 immigration, people in the ex-DDR area were down by three million, or twenty per cent. A few cities did not shrink, like (East) Berlin, but that is it. So wages adjusted to account for the lower labour supply.

    Almost all European countries face the same problem as the UK in so far as successful young people want to be married to other SYP, to reap the proven gains of changing from employer to employer, and to go on business travel and nice holidays to other countries. But only Paris matches London, in the measure of how many of the best people in the world in their fields work near London.

    The problem is anyone who gains from proximity to law, finance, venture capital, aviation, or media and publicity, gains from being near London. The only level-up solution I see is a general increase in corporation tax, plus tax-free zones far from the home counties, so that the firms which gain less from London's scale benefits are outside the capital and are taxed less.
    WFH and video communication should have changed this at a professional level. I know it can because I do it in, living and working areas which are not near London despite hitting a number of the areas in your final paragraph. That this does not happen is a weakness of management. Perhaps the solution is to make public transport in the South East utterly appalling....

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,630

    Cyclefree said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Mighty migration flows to the prosperous areas. Prior to the 2015 immigration, people in the ex-DDR area were down by three million, or twenty per cent. A few cities did not shrink, like (East) Berlin, but that is it. So wages adjusted to account for the lower labour supply.

    Almost all European countries face the same problem as the UK in so far as successful young people want to be married to other SYP, to reap the proven gains of changing from employer to employer, and to go on business travel and nice holidays to other countries. But only Paris matches London, in the measure of how many of the best people in the world in their fields work near London.

    The problem is anyone who gains from proximity to law, finance, venture capital, aviation, or media and publicity, gains from being near London. The only level-up solution I see is a general increase in corporation tax, plus tax-free zones far from the home counties, so that the firms which gain less from London's scale benefits are outside the capital and are taxed less.
    Law and finance are two sectors which are going to hollowed out to an extent not yet realised by AI. And proximity is not as necessary as often claimed. Lots of banks and law firms have moved many of their functions a long way from London.
    I intend saying much more about this in due course. (I agree.)
    Oh no don’t say that!
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,630
    @Foxy Newcastle is similar. The difference in the last 20 years is night and day.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626
    edited January 18

    Cyclefree said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Mighty migration flows to the prosperous areas. Prior to the 2015 immigration, people in the ex-DDR area were down by three million, or twenty per cent. A few cities did not shrink, like (East) Berlin, but that is it. So wages adjusted to account for the lower labour supply.

    Almost all European countries face the same problem as the UK in so far as successful young people want to be married to other SYP, to reap the proven gains of changing from employer to employer, and to go on business travel and nice holidays to other countries. But only Paris matches London, in the measure of how many of the best people in the world in their fields work near London.

    The problem is anyone who gains from proximity to law, finance, venture capital, aviation, or media and publicity, gains from being near London. The only level-up solution I see is a general increase in corporation tax, plus tax-free zones far from the home counties, so that the firms which gain less from London's scale benefits are outside the capital and are taxed less.
    Law and finance are two sectors which are going to hollowed out to an extent not yet realised by AI. And proximity is not as necessary as often claimed. Lots of banks and law firms have moved many of their functions a long way from London.
    I intend saying much more about this in due course. (I agree.)
    Do feel free to quote that snake oil salesman par excellence, Richard Susskind. Much loved by the dimmer law firm MP.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 28,598
    Anyway, in a case of “be careful what you wish for”, my firm encourages its lawyers to use social media to enhance the firm’s profile and to project a human image of its people as sparky professionals. I also use it to give throwaway views on politics that occur to me that don’t seem particularly to fit here. Naturally I hope to impress people with the incisiveness of my thought.

    This week I posted by far my most successful tweet by stats. Here it is:



    Hmm. Not quite the image I want to leave behind on my deathbed.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,276
    Cyclefree said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Mighty migration flows to the prosperous areas. Prior to the 2015 immigration, people in the ex-DDR area were down by three million, or twenty per cent. A few cities did not shrink, like (East) Berlin, but that is it. So wages adjusted to account for the lower labour supply.

    Almost all European countries face the same problem as the UK in so far as successful young people want to be married to other SYP, to reap the proven gains of changing from employer to employer, and to go on business travel and nice holidays to other countries. But only Paris matches London, in the measure of how many of the best people in the world in their fields work near London.

    The problem is anyone who gains from proximity to law, finance, venture capital, aviation, or media and publicity, gains from being near London. The only level-up solution I see is a general increase in corporation tax, plus tax-free zones far from the home counties, so that the firms which gain less from London's scale benefits are outside the capital and are taxed less.
    Law and finance are two sectors which are going to hollowed out to an extent not yet realised by AI. And proximity is not as necessary as often claimed. Lots of banks and law firms have moved many of their functions a long way from London.
    Absolutely, and that poses the risk that London gets canned on the double by technology and policy changes. Now that you mention it, I suppose I mean that the very people who invent those AI solutions in law and finance would benefit a lot from being near London or Cambridge, compared to the firms whose workers they will be replacing (sorry!). Not only the giant pool of talented technologists, but simply the proximity to venture capitalist, compliance and regulatory experts, and (unfortunate but true) lobbyists and lawmakers. Whereas other startup firms would benefit from being near Heathrow or the big PR agencies.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,626
    Cyclefree said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Excellent article, Alistair.

    We should take some lessons from the Germans, who have managed to raise incomes in the East German Laander to levels above many English regions in little more than 20 years.

    It required a combination of tax incentives, infrastructure spending, and direct subsidies from the center to local government.

    Mighty migration flows to the prosperous areas. Prior to the 2015 immigration, people in the ex-DDR area were down by three million, or twenty per cent. A few cities did not shrink, like (East) Berlin, but that is it. So wages adjusted to account for the lower labour supply.

    Almost all European countries face the same problem as the UK in so far as successful young people want to be married to other SYP, to reap the proven gains of changing from employer to employer, and to go on business travel and nice holidays to other countries. But only Paris matches London, in the measure of how many of the best people in the world in their fields work near London.

    The problem is anyone who gains from proximity to law, finance, venture capital, aviation, or media and publicity, gains from being near London. The only level-up solution I see is a general increase in corporation tax, plus tax-free zones far from the home counties, so that the firms which gain less from London's scale benefits are outside the capital and are taxed less.
    Law and finance are two sectors which are going to hollowed out to an extent not yet realised by AI. And proximity is not as necessary as often claimed. Lots of banks and law firms have moved many of their functions a long way from London.
    You are Richard Susskind and I claim my publishing contract for saying the same thing repeatedly.

    I partially agree. Middle and back office is in trouble (but much of that has relocated from the U.K. already). On the law side, there has always been commoditisation (and AI is an aspect of that) but the number of lawyers continues to increase. The past is a dubious guide to the future but the question is one of value. I’d say, and I’ve sat on both sides of the curtain, private practice and in-house, that there is much value still there and much of the inefficiencies are client led.

    What we also are inclined to forget is that the US alone is about 50% of the global legal market and they work in a very different way to many legal services consumers,
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    I was living and working in old West Germany during the early years of the reunification process. Two things I remember, apart from Trabants on the autobahn. There was hostility to Ossies and the German Govt introduced a solidarity tax to pay for the pensions of the Ossies and the new infrastructure required.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,040
    Bung-on Burgon is yesterday’s man. Absolutely nobody will be interested in his views on antisemitism or anything else post April 4.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 13,228

    Brucey’s boys do it again. Super Newcastle on the march!

    Like Palace, doing Leicester a favour :)
This discussion has been closed.