North South Divide - will we ever recover?

[MrSmith]

Originally Posted by donkey

 

The economy in Sheffield was fine before the credit crunch.

 

I really don't think it was. It was, and is heavily dependent on government spending through the universities and NHS. In boom times IMHO it really hasn't managed to boom so much.

 

But even if it was, the very people that donkey holds responsible for the crunch, caused the boom and made the economy of Sheffield appear to be good. Without the lax lending of the banks which apparently cause the crunch the economy would have been in the doldrums anyway.

[donkey]

I'm wasn't trying to blame economic events on people who don't vote Tory. That's reductio ad absurdum. I have repeatedly tried to avoid getting into that argument. I have no political affiliation whatsoever. My comment was related to the differential between North and South. Don't you think there's a reason, if the north is suffering more than the south from the same economic troubles facing the country?

 

Yes, I do think there is a reason. I've already said it in an earlier post. It is the same reason why areas round New York are more prosperous than areas around Indianapolis. Or why areas around Moscow are more prosperous than areas round Vladivostok. Or why areas around L.A. are more prosperous than areas around Fresno. I could go on, but it is pretty obvious really.

 

Metropolis and capital cities don't become big because of a lack of wealth and opportunities. That does not mean the solution is we should all move to the South East either.

 

The reasaon why people in wealthier areas vote tory is because the tories favour wealthier areas and wealthier people. There is no reductionism in my assessment of what you said. You are clearly implying that by failing to vote tory, people in the North are displaying an ignorance of economic reality which you hold up as the root cause of geographical wealth discrepancies which are so obviously the result of other factors.

[donkey]

But even if it was, the very people that donkey holds responsible for the crunch, caused the boom and made the economy of Sheffield appear to be good. Without the lax lending of the banks which apparently cause the crunch the economy would have been in the doldrums anyway.

 

So you are advocating boom and bust as a sound economic policy?

[donkey]

I really don't think it was. It was, and is heavily dependent on government spending through the universities and NHS. In boom times IMHO it really hasn't managed to boom so much.

 

I don't think so. The NHS in Sheffield is only as big as the community it needs to serve, just like anywhere else.

 

The subsidy to university education was paid indirectly to students through reduced tuition fees. The Universities still get the same money, but now more of it comes directly from the students themselves. There has been a slight decrease in uptake for courses this year, but not enough that you could seriously claim the economy of the whole city has been notably effected by the removal of the subsidies.

 

The situation isn't helped by the fact the Government are now making life difficult for foreign students who bring millions into the local economy, in a bid to attract the votes of ignorant xenophobes.

 

The fact that they would do such a thing further undermines your argument. If the Tories are the party of business, who are voted for by the smart people, then why are they doing something which they know is bad for business in order to retain the votes of bigots, who by definition are not generally that smart?

[MrSmith]

So you are advocating boom and bust as a sound economic policy?

 

No, I think it’s a stupid idea, but you seem to be happy we had a boom, and you are now complaining about the inevitable bust and blaming the banks.

 

People caused the boom and people caused the bust, the banks and governments just made it possible.

[biotechpete]

Yes, I do think there is a reason. I've already said it in an earlier post. It is the same reason why areas round New York are more prosperous than areas around Indianapolis. Or why areas around Moscow are more prosperous than areas round Vladivostok. Or why areas around L.A. are more prosperous than areas around Fresno. I could go on, but it is pretty obvious really.

 

Metropolis and capital cities don't become big because of a lack of wealth and opportunities. That does not mean the solution is we should all move to the South East either.

 

The reasaon why people in wealthier areas vote tory is because the tories favour wealthier areas and wealthier people. There is no reductionism in my assessment of what you said. You are clearly implying that by failing to vote tory, people in the North are displaying an ignorance of economic reality which you hold up as the root cause of geographical wealth discrepancies which are so obviously the result of other factors.

 

But there's no inherent reason why one city might prosper more so than another (with the exception of capitals). Why are York and Cambridge doing so well in comparison? Why Chicago or Boston are more wealthy than Detroit. What attracts wealth and well qualified people to places? What creates opportunities? Why are services better and council tax lower in Milton Keynes than they are in Sheffield?

 

Once again, I'm not suggesting it's a failure to vote Tory! MK is LibDem. It's just that high Labour voting populations might be a good indicator of places which have such an ignorance of economic reality, as a whole.

 

There is no reason to blame Sheffield's geographical location for its lack of prosperity and 30 years later there is no reason that the industrial legacy should still be blighting us. Its about time we stopped blaming the horrible tories and their cuts and had a good hard look in the mirror and ask ourselves what it is that we can do for ourselves to create more jobs and prosperity in our city. After all, it's a beautiful place to live.

[donkey]

No, I think it’s a stupid idea, but you seem to be happy we had a boom, and you are now complaining about the inevitable bust and blaming the banks.

 

People caused the boom and people caused the bust, the banks and governments just made it possible.

 

No, that is just a conclusion you have jumped to.

 

I have been on this Forum since the boom years, and have been consistent on this issue. I predicted that the greedy rush to make money for nothing by relentlessly driving up the value of housing stock would end in a collapse which would drag the wider economy down and leave others to foot the bill for the vast unearned profits made.

 

The only thing I didn't forsee was that the problem would start in the American property bubble.

[Anna B]

The trouble in this country (if not most of the World) is politicians. All they want is power and the trappings that go with it. So we have Labour and Tory ping-ponging in and out of power, blaming each other and by the time the excuses have run out, the public is fed up of the imcumbents and votes the other lot in.

 

The electorate seems content to go along with this - as can be seen on this forum. It's all 'Labour this', 'Tory that' and we fall further behind the emerging nations - so far that we have no chance of ever catching up. Question Time last week featured five people, four of whom had received 'honours'. For what, exactly? Simply favouritism and to keep the staus quo going.'

 

 

You're so right, but this is the fault of the system we have not the electorate. What choice do they/we have? The politicians have it rigged so that they have no fear of the electorate and if they consider them at all find them an irrelevant inconvenience. When people try to change it by peaceful means (Occupy?) they get very little support.

I'm not sure the electorate go along with it, they vote for a particular manifesto only to see the promises broken again and again.

 

So, as I say, there is no solution. Realise that and life gets easier. Voting for the rank amateurs who call themselves politicians only deepens the crisis. But vote for them the population will, because of their inherent stupidity.

 

Stupidity? Well maybe, but remember the difficulties at the last election when people didn't want to vote for either (Labour would've stayed in power...) and the launching of 'none of the above' which wouldn't have been registered.

 

The Romans kept the citizens happy by giving them bread and circuses. The modern-day equivalent is Giro and X-Factor. Lay on a wildly-expensive bash for the Queen later this year and the country will be fooled for a bit longer. ('Nobody does ceremony like us.' Yeah, but it doesn't do anything).

 

Again, Occupy have been trying to raise public awareness and demand something better, but thanks to public apathy haven't got very far. As far as I'm concerned to publicly decry Occupy (no matter how cack handed they've been) is as good as showing support for the Government system, so maybe they are stupid, but how many of these people will bother to investigate the system for themselves?.

[Anna B]

Oops, messed that up.

 

The third paragraph is mine. Posted it wrong.

[biotechpete]

I don't think so. The NHS in Sheffield is only as big as the community it needs to serve, just like anywhere else.

 

The subsidy to university education was paid indirectly to students through reduced tuition fees. The Universities still get the same money, but now more of it comes directly from the students themselves. There has been a slight decrease in uptake for courses this year, but not enough that you could seriously claim the economy of the whole city has been notably effected by the removal of the subsidies.

 

The situation isn't helped by the fact the Government are now making life difficult for foreign students who bring millions into the local economy, in a bid to attract the votes of ignorant xenophobes.

 

The fact that they would do such a thing further undermines your argument. If the Tories are the party of business, who are voted for by the smart people, then why are they doing something which they know is bad for business in order to retain the votes of bigots, who by definition are not generally that smart?

 

In which case the fact that the NHS and other government agencies are the biggest employers here but are not elsewhere, speaks volumes.

 

I'm not going to engage you in such a ridiculous attempt to imply that conservatives are racists. You are again dragging the debate off topic by presenting an irrelevant dichotomous argument about who votes for whom. There more racists in the south then, are there?

 

However we all rely on doctors, teachers, engineers and scientists and I see no reason why the government should not a least subsidise those professions where wages are not all that high in comparison to the national average, especially if as I do, you believe in a meritocratic society. Otherwise what incentive is there for teachers to train? Universities have in reality been hit pretty hard by the tuition fee changes and there is far less money in them than a few years ago.

 

A reliance on training foreign students is not an industry to be marveled at it's a short sighted money grab which will ultimately export more high value jobs, predominantly to Asia. I can see no long term gain from effectively selling off our intellectual property.