Economist - 'Abandon "failing" cities and towns across the north of England'

antrobus

Annie_Nameless wrote: »

statistics are as unrelentingly subjective as any unsupported opinion you might hear - just listen to a politician or two (well, that's what truckert reckons, anyway)

There's nothing subjective about the North-East voting 78%-22% against having it's own regional assembly, neither is there anything subjective about London voting 72%-28% in favour of having their own mayor.

Of course, I appreciate that there are some people who find such things as facts rather uncomfortable, particularly when said facts challenge their preconceived prejudices.

kabayiri

I've just remembered one of the (presumably) heroic efforts, masquerading as policy.

It was only a couple of years ago when the inhabitants of the wider Manchester zone were asked to vote on our very own Congestion charge scheme. This was to be even larger than Londons, with inner and outer zones.

We had to weigh up the deal on the table. The authorities were offering us a new additional tax on top of the many others, and in return they offer us 17 miles of tram network which had already been in the planning pipeline until the Coallition froze it.

There you have it. Way to go. Add more effective taxation. Sounds pretty heroic to me.

Luckily up here we don't measure £5 notes in terms of a Grande Chocatino Latte, and we turned down the scheme.

A heroic response perhaps?

MFW_ASAP

kabayiri wrote: »

Lol

Let me understand this. You can be a shopworker or cleaner on NMW in a place like Hull, or in somewhere like London where your money will stretch even less.

I'm not so sure that the only alternative to living in Hull is to move to London. There is plenty of work in and around Manchester and other cities in the Northwest. With house prices and living costs not too dissimilar to Hull, especially if they are prepared to commute.

Hull's decline is linked to that of the fishing industry, exacerbated during WWII by the heavy bombing it sustained due to its strategic location. The reason for Hull's growth has now gone and so in many respects it's natural for it to decline, it's just a shame that rather than a managed decline where unwanted homes are demolished and the site returned to green field, they will be left to fall apart and become a blight on the landscape and a magnet for crime.

Pennywise

The "heroic" efforts of the politicians have been the wrong ideas in the wrong places at the wrong time administered by the wrong bodies. To put it bluntly, they havn't the faintest idea what to do so they just come up with media-grabbing initiatives that people in those areas know won't work.

I'm from a run down seaside resort which like lots of others is long past its best. We have hundreds of old "boarding houses", mostly converted into multiple occupancy, which are a magnet for problem tenants of various types. In fact, there were adverts inside prisons advertising for those being released to come here. Then they wonder why there are social problems!!!

Everyone knows that the answer is to demolish most of these buildings. They're unsuitable for family homes because they have no gardens, no parking, and the room layout/sizes make them unsuitable for social housing of families etc. But we've had all kinds of crazy political initiatives to "solve" the problem, such as knocking down every third house to create space between houses - effectively turning them from terraces into semi's. Another initiative was demolish one side of a road to provide car parking and green areas for residents living on the other side. Millions have been spent, mostly on office dwellers and other consultants, but the problems remain. The answer is to give the land to one of the big housebuilding firms, let them demolish entire areas, and build new housing estates with a mix of housing but mainly to attract families back into these "no go" areas.

We've another entire street that the council have earmarked for demolition, but they keep delaying - 10 years now since it was first announced. Those with homes and businesses in the street are trapped - no-one will buy because of the doubt of redevelopment and price they'd get. Small business owners can't retire, residents can't move. Political idiots messing up people's lives again! The "heroic" efforts have actually made things worse!!

I'd be the first to praise "heroic" efforts, but the realty is that they're empty gestures for media attention, and not what the local people know is needed and what they want. If the politicians listened to the locals instead of the local councillors (who only want their media glory and brown envelopes), things may change!

DominicJ_2

thescouselander wrote: »

This is really nothing new but it is not ministers who need to be told to abandon failing cities - it is the population of those cities who must take action. In fact, as mentioned in the article - anyone who has the wherewithal to move probably has done already. The abandonment of failing cities will eventually happen without intervention.

Which leaves the benefits class behind.
Who live wherever the government tells them to.
The point of the article is that there are hundreds of towns and cities that have populations simply because the government would remove the benefits of anyone who left.

The authorities were offering us a new additional tax on top of the many others, and in return they offer us 17 miles of tram network which had already been in the planning pipeline until the Coallition froze it.

The metrolink vote was 2 years before the coalition government.....

Conrad

You know what I always notice about depressing places? Lack of trees.
Greenery makes a key difference to the feel of a place and helps you feel more grounded and at ease.

Make these places green havens, relax the parking and enable them to become French style market towns. Limit the number of takeaways and make people feel they want to cherish the space.

Why is the nicer parts of London so often feature more greenery whereas somewhere very depressing like Wembley has a very sterile concrete feel, even the nicer back roads with their sporadic amenity trees.

Annie_Nameless

antrobus wrote: »

There's nothing subjective about the North-East voting 78%-22% against having it's own regional assembly, neither is there anything subjective about London voting 72%-28% in favour of having their own mayor.

Of course, I appreciate that there are some people who find such things as facts rather uncomfortable, particularly when said facts challenge their preconceived prejudices.

On the news today, the BBC reported a fact which was provided by York university. It said that the bedroom tax will provide significantly less savings than the government originally predicted. The government response was that the survey had only polled 4 out of 100 housing societies, and that therefore the survey was worthless.

The BBC provided no supporting evidence in support of either claim.

How am I supposed to know who to believe?

Please don't tell me to google - I am Jill Average, and need to have things explained to me.

zagubov

MacMickster wrote: »

A regional assembly would merely add another level of government - ie more f!!!ing politicians on the gravy train being paid for by taxpayers.

I'm amazed that 22% were daft enough to vote for that - even in the North East.

And yet London voted 72: 28%. for its own regional assembly, with a majority in every single borough. The fact the NE didn't want it was enough to stop further regional assemblies dead . Apparently.

kabayiri wrote: »

I've just remembered one of the (presumably) heroic efforts, masquerading as policy.

It was only a couple of years ago when the inhabitants of the wider Manchester zone were asked to vote on our very own Congestion charge scheme. This was to be even larger than Londons, with inner and outer zones.

We had to weigh up the deal on the table. The authorities were offering us a new additional tax on top of the many others, and in return they offer us 17 miles of tram network which had already been in the planning pipeline until the Coallition froze it.

There you have it. Way to go. Add more effective taxation. Sounds pretty heroic to me.

Luckily up here we don't measure £5 notes in terms of a Grande Chocatino Latte, and we turned down the scheme.

A heroic response perhaps?

The congestion charge did some good in central London. However the westward extension made me cynical about the whole business. It was the area I used to work in( no longer since it started) and it had no congestion. It was just a money-spinning idea. They could have extended it north into Labour Isilington where there was real congetsion but that would upset their voters so expand it somewhere that nobody votes labour. The westaward extension probably did increase central congestion because it had loads of residential areas whose resisdents could now park their Chelsea tractors inside the zone with no extra hassle.

I'm pleased the Edinburgh also turned down such a scheme as well. Just horrified how they can't run a tram system. In a city that only has two railways stations.:(

andrewf75

We need to start making stuff again. We can't go on using cheap labour in the far East because their economies are going to overtake ours. We should be setting up factories in places like Hull and making clothes. And take back those call centres from India as well.

CLAPTON

andrewf75 wrote: »

We need to start making stuff again. We can't go on using cheap labour in the far East because their economies are going to overtake ours. We should be setting up factories in places like Hull and making clothes. And take back those call centres from India as well.

who is 'we'?

do you mean we should pay extra taxes so the government can set up car factories in Hull?
if the government set up such a factory how much of your own money or pension money would be willing to invest in it?