Social engineering or too good an opportunity to miss

System

I don't think this works if done piecemeal.
As has been done in other countries, they need to move the capital itself, either to a brand new location or to an existing city.

One spur might be if it is really true that the SE is sinking and/or sea levels rising, and London itself will be untenable in say 100 years time.
They could designate a new site, and then have a rolling programme of requisitioning/building new facilities and shifting the entire government mechanism over a period of say 10 years.
Historic buildings would be dismantled and rebuilt, the rest abandoned as the water rose.

But none of that will happen because we don't plan things in this country.

CLAPTON

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

I don't think this works if done piecemeal.
As has been done in other countries, they need to move the capital itself, either to a brand new location or to an existing city.

One spur might be if it is really true that the SE is sinking and/or sea levels rising, and London itself will be untenable in say 100 years time.
They could designate a new site, and then have a rolling programme of requisitioning/building new facilities and shifting the entire government mechanism over a period of say 10 years.
Historic buildings would be dismantled and rebuilt, the rest abandoned as the water rose.

But none of that will happen because we don't plan things in this country.

or we could build some flood defences

kabayiri

westernpromise wrote: »

That's because there are no other jobs there. Changing jobs means moving house.
...

There are less job options, but not "no jobs".

But it's more than that.

Some people will value the relative stability that government administration jobs bring.

Others will want to chance their arm a bit, and work in a more fluid place like London where you can take risks and move about a bit.

I think there is room for both types of employment in different places.

There will come a point where say 20% of the eligible workforce can provide for the needs of the 100% population, and it will mean addressing some difficult questions involving balance.

movilogo

Can't understand why the government dont move central government departments to the regions.

Those who are in power and can make that decision have lots of money and thus no problem enjoying their wealthy lifestyle in London.

They see no housing crisis because they are all landlords/ladies with multiple property portfolio. They also don't know (or care) what is means to have a family with below national average income.

kabayiri

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

...
One spur might be if it is really true that the SE is sinking and/or sea levels rising, and London itself will be untenable in say 100 years time.
...

I wouldn't worry about sinking.

Air quality issues will kick in much earlier, whilst you are busy worrying about the puddles outside your door!

westernpromise

The job that I do would pay perhaps 75% less elsewhere than London. So the industry is staying here.

mrginge

westernpromise wrote: »

That's because there are no other jobs there. Changing jobs means moving house.

Provincial cities like Manchester increasingly resemble places like Australia, Canada, Scotland and New Zealand, in that if you are educated and you want a decent job, you have to leave.

That is utter nonsense.

Thrugelmir

chiefie wrote: »

am I being a bit simple in thinking this ?

Tried and tested previously for public sector generally. .

Central is the keyword. Doesn't mean that functions cannot be streamlined though.

wotsthat

Maybe instead of asking whether we should move certain government functions we should ask if we need them at all.

DVLA closed regional offices and moved to Swansea. Probably more efficient but they still employ 5,500 people!

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

DVLA closed regional offices and moved to Swansea. Probably more efficient but they still employ 5,500 people!

Savings will come from improving and streamlining online services. Austria provides a good example of automated court court services. Where 75% of the cost is funded through fees paid. project started over 20 years ago. The UK is someway behind in many areas.