Social engineering or too good an opportunity to miss

LydiaJ

Didn't they decentralise a whole load of civil service jobs to Leeds some time in the 1990s? My brother was working for the Department of Health at the time and moved to Leeds.

Sapphire

CLAPTON wrote: »

or we could build some flood defences

Don't think those will be enough, ultimately. Sea levels are certainly rising (there's massive coastal erosion all along the eastern coast as a result), and there's also the plan to build masses of intensive housing downriver on the Thames, on land that is actually marsh land. Additionally, an archaeologist told me that Britain is tilting to the south-east (though this is quite a gradual process). In any case, without anywhere for the water to go when everything is being built upon, that's bound to affect the flooding risk.

And if the Montgomery does finally blow up in the estuary, it will take out Southend and cause a massive tidal wave to roll right up the Thames. :T:rotfl:

zagubov

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.

Very much agree. I've long claimed on here that England needs a parliament, and I've no idea why the political capital needs to be the biggest city:many other cities could accommodate it and the more central the better.
The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Scotland, Switzerland, Turkey all have smaller cities as their political capitals. Even the Netherlands has its government miles from Amsterdam (and I'd love to know in what sense Amsterdam's "the capital").
As for the UK's parliament it might as well be in the NW, closer to the population centre of gravity of the country.

CLAPTON

Sapphire wrote: »

Don't think those will be enough, ultimately. Sea levels are certainly rising (there's massive coastal erosion all along the eastern coast as a result), and there's also the plan to build masses of intensive housing downriver on the Thames, on land that is actually marsh land. Additionally, an archaeologist told me that Britain is tilting to the south-east (though this is quite a gradual process). In any case, without anywhere for the water to go when everything is being built upon, that's bound to affect the flooding risk.

And if the Montgomery does finally blow up in the estuary, it will take out Southend and cause a massive tidal wave to roll right up the Thames. :T:rotfl:

probably a geologist is a better authority but yes the west is rising and the SE is falling : this is due to the 'relaxation ' of the land after the ice melted a while back : doubtless rising sealevels aren't helping either.
but I see no reason (not an expert or any special knowledge) why South and East London couldn't be protected for the next few hundred years.

But having a political, cultural and business centre in the midlands or Manchester area would do a lot to rebalance the UK economy

Sapphire

CLAPTON wrote: »

probably a geologist is a better authority but yes the west is rising and the SE is falling : this is due to the 'relaxation ' of the land after the ice melted a while back : doubtless rising sealevels aren't helping either.
but I see no reason (not an expert or any special knowledge) why South and East London couldn't be protected for the next few hundred years.

But having a political, cultural and business centre in the midlands or Manchester area would do a lot to rebalance the UK economy

The archaeologist I spoke to is heavily involved in preserving finds along Britain's coast before they disappear forever due to the encroachment of the sea (it is happening very fast), so is very much an authority on coastal erosion and the effect of building on marsh land, floodplains and the like.

I too think it would be a good idea to have cultural and business centres elsewhere in Britain. The great cities like Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool were once affluent and thriving, and should be again. All the wealth should not be centred in one place. However, the great northern cities grew up when British industry thrived there. Now that Britain has been priced out of such industry (and it appears unlikely that British workers would want to work in it again anyway, given that it would not pay them to), I'm not sure how those cities can be made 'great' again…

zagubov

As Sapphire points out, we' may have placed too many eggs in the Uk's most easternmost basket. Almost everywhere else we could relocate the capital would be northward or westward (and in my opinion all the better for that).

North of the Tweed, the political and financial capital is on the easternmost city (albeit being to the west of Bristol), Edinburgh. The industrial, business, cultural media and retail capital is the western rival, Glasgow.

As England is more generously endowed with habitable lowlands and plains, I can only suggest that we relocate more government and state offices and departments to more appropriate quarters of the land.

sammyjammy

As has been said already Civil service had the Lyons review, I work for DWP and a lot of our London centric roles were moved up North to other parts of our Head Office, trouble is it slowly crept back into London again. In our main London Head Office building we have ministers offices/support and associated policy areas that need to be nearby parliament so all the while thats in Westminster so will we be, saying that there are many roles that don't need to be there.

I worked on a team where a number of staff relocated from London, they are all still up North 15 years later.

LHW99

Well as the Houses of Parliament need a major renovation project, perhaps they should at least send the department in charge of the "Northern Powerhouse" up north, so they can find out what its like.

zagubov

Years (no, decades) ago we used to generate new towns of various sizes all the way up to Milton Keynes, and resettle people from bigger cities to more spacious housing in more roomy parts of the country. We need more of the gumption we had back then, and the get-up-and-go that got things done.

Now all we seem to have are cutbacks, austerity, wishful thinking, and a pathetic fatalism insisting we're incapable of solving the country's problems.

MacMickster

LHW99 wrote: »

Well as the Houses of Parliament need a major renovation project, perhaps they should at least send the department in charge of the "Northern Powerhouse" up north, so they can find out what its like.

Don't be daft. Start talking like that and pretty soon you'll have people suggesting that those responsible for rural affairs should be in the country, the department dealing with the prison service should be based in a jail (oh, and the MPs expenses committee while we're at it) and the department responsible for renewable energy should be based somewhere sunny - say Greece.

At this moment I'm not entirely sure whether there actually was an episode of Yes Minister about the idea of moving government jobs out of London, or whether I've merely imagined Sir Humphrey Appleby's arguments against the proposal.