The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
Breadvan72 said:
I live in Islington...
No way! I am very surprised 
Roman Rhodes said:
...Not liking affluent and enlightened seems weird....
"Affluent and enlightened" isn't a single size fits all, one flavour affair.There are many "affluent" types who I would cross the street to avoid. Equally there are those who feel they are "enlightened" but whose definition of the word is very different to mine.
London is far from exclusively "good" "affluent and enlightened". And I speak as someone who loves the city and lived in it in various places for nigh on 15yrs.
London far from exclusively "good"? Who knew? If only someone would make that claim you could set them right!
I've concluded that JagLover was being obtuse for the sake of argument.
Murph7355 said:
Sorry to hear you're being spurned. How are you being booted out? Presumably you rent?
Like many Northerners IME, I was always a south of the river kinda guy.
In fact, I sold my Islington house to a banker six years ago (A very clever thirty year old woman. She paid seven figures cash down using her bonus. In a nice bit of female empowerment, her husband was hotter than her but had less money). Thus my pledge to be the last remaining lawyer in Barnsbury was unsuccessful. I was in exile for some years in the English countryside (a Hellish place where there are no black people, no restaurants, no opera*, no Martinis, and everyone votes Tory or UKIP - shudder) . I got back into Barnsbury in a tiny rental and have just have cut a deal with someone I know to get hold of quite a good flat in Belzise Park which will probably end up as a trust for my daughter. I last lived there in the early 90s (it has not changed much, except for having more Americans).Like many Northerners IME, I was always a south of the river kinda guy.
I am not tribal about north vs south of the river, and have lived briefly in New Cross, Clapham, and Putney (and almost ended up shacking up in Norwood, of all places), but I find that the south sprawls too much, lacks fast in and out roads, has more knackered tubes and train lines, has nothing to match Hampstead Heath or Primrose Hill, and that also most (not all) of the cultural stuff is on the north side. I used to live in the east end (fine in parts, a bit gunny and stabby in others), but I know Jack about west London as I have never lived there (I do not count Ealing as west London as it is practically in Cornwall - commuting from there in the late 80s was almost as bad as commuting from the country now). My current squeeze lives in Kingston, FFS. That is somewhere near Peru and I try to avoid going there.
* Glyndebourne and Garsington do not count - they are extensions of London, as any fule kno
Breadvan72 said:
I live in Islington. It is socially and ethnically mixed. Near my house in a pleasant street there are some grotty estates that generate anti social behaviour. There are still traditional white working class communities in the area, as well as Somalis, lots of Parisians, metro elite types such as me (sadly lawyers can hardly afford Barnsbury now - we have been driven out by hedgies and other banker types), African-Caribbeans, Polish and other central and eastern Europeans, and even some (OMG run!) South Asian Muslims. The local white working class people seem to be mainly either British or Irish in origin . They tend to be Labour-voting, Arsenal-supporting, employed, and not prone to supporting racist groups. There are still families of black cab drivers living in Islington, and also some traditional dynasties of white working class crims who run various drug and robbery networks. Recently, there has been a plague of hipsters. So, a mix. Other parts of London are all poor, or all rich. Edmonton is dire. Belgravia is too, for different reasons.
The sharing that London ought to do more of is the sharing of affluence. Affluence tends to bring enlightenment. By enlightenment I do not mean monoviews or monoculture. I mean education and opportunities to enjoy the things that make life more bearable. In many parts of the UK, there is little opportunity to experience theatre, music, dance, visual arts and good cookery.
You post sums up pretty much everything that is wrong with the London Metropolitan Elite .. The sharing that London ought to do more of is the sharing of affluence. Affluence tends to bring enlightenment. By enlightenment I do not mean monoviews or monoculture. I mean education and opportunities to enjoy the things that make life more bearable. In many parts of the UK, there is little opportunity to experience theatre, music, dance, visual arts and good cookery.
Before I start I will say I used to live in Islington, in Canonbury and spent many years working in and around the borough
To say that the rest of the Uk is a cultural wasteland is astounding and shows how little you know about England
I live in the North in an area designated an area of outstanding natural beauty, which is sandwiched between two National Parks ..
Out of my window I can see in the distance a hotel restaurant which is Michelin starred .. in my village is a pub which is allegedly one of the ten best food pubs in the UK
All around me are great pubs and restaurants
I live within an hour of three cities one of which was recently European Capital of Culture .. three international airports .. the theatre and great concert and comedy venues
There is vast wealth up here .. but not shouty wealth .. there is also poverty
There are private and public schools .. one of which can even count a former US President amongst its alumni
I could go on ..but to be fair I'd rather not .. in fact where I live is not dissimilar to large swathes of the UK outside of London
It is you that needs the enlightenment.. the world is far better outside the M25
I am talking about distribution. Natural beauty is natural beauty, and that is where it is (and thanks, BTW, to the Attlee government for the National Parks and for planning law) . For human stuff, you can of course point out a good restaurant here and a theatre there, but in many areas of the UK there is little cultural capital. Have you visited places like Stockton, Darlington, Portsmouth, and Middlesborough recently, or been to the non west end bits of Glasgow? Each of those will also have a gastropub here and an art gallery there, but look at the overall picture.
I am not praising this situation. I am doing the opposite. I am not saying "London is ace and f
k everywhere else". I am saying the opposite. I am saying that the UK has erred because it has become too London-centric.
Oft said but worth saying again: one of the things about political debate at the moment is that even more than ever people seem to misunderstand and mischaracterise what others are saying.
I am not praising this situation. I am doing the opposite. I am not saying "London is ace and f
k everywhere else". I am saying the opposite. I am saying that the UK has erred because it has become too London-centric. Oft said but worth saying again: one of the things about political debate at the moment is that even more than ever people seem to misunderstand and mischaracterise what others are saying.
Breadvan72 said:
...I was in exile for some years in the English countryside (a Hellish place where there are no black people, no restaurants, no opera*, no Martinis, and everyone votes Tory or UKIP - shudder) ...
The countryside is a wonderful place. The roads are fantastic, the air is soooooo much better than the smog that you have to breath in London, the sky is beautiful etc etc etc. Not having one particular race isn't it's fault. I'm sure that will change over time. The nearest village to me has some brown people in it who are lovely. But despite everyone being ultra-racist out in the sticks, no one seems to have noticed or have a problem with them...bizarre, eh
As the word spreads about how good it is out here, so the demographics may change. But if not, so be it. It makes no difference.Good restaurants do exist, but getting to them generally involves driving which is unfortunate. I went to the opera this summer in a friend's garden which was awesome, but granted that doesn't happen every week. That said, I only went to the opera half a dozen times whilst living in London (I probably have an enlightenment issue
). And I prefer gin to Martini, and gin is thankfully available in abundance.People's voting predilections make me shudder generally. It's not a country/city thing. People in Richmond (where I last lived) voted LibDem FFS.
Breadvan72 said:
......My current squeeze lives in Kingston, FFS...
FFS indeed. They must have considerable other assets to offset the Kingston thing.Breadvan72 said:
I was in exile for some years in the English countryside (a Hellish place where there are no black people, no restaurants, no opera*, no Martinis, and everyone votes Tory or UKIP - shudder) .
Funny, our daughter goes to a rural primary school in that there English countryside. Her friends are Chinese, Pakistani, Polish, Jamaican.. it's quite a list. The small village we live in has Chinese, Italian, Indian restaurants (plus a chippy and a couple of pubs). Opera is, I'll admit, somewhat limited. You should get out more More seriously, if you wanted to reinforce the metropolitan bubble stereotype, well done, you nailed it.
This is the point about being enlightened - it involves understanding the groups beyond your own, and that they may have equally valid (and different) viewpoints. Just because people don't vote for 'your side' doesn't make their vote somehow less valid. They might just be trying to tell you something.
Breadvan72 said:
I am saying that the UK has erred because it has become too London-centric
I can't easily think of any developed or even developing nation that isn't centric to its capital or most populated cities. India, maybe.I don't think this has anything 'overtly' to do with politics. It's down to history, practicality, logistical efficiency, etc. In fact, when governments try to de-centralise, it all goes a bit wrong; the woefully daft move of the BBC to Salford, HS2, etc.
StevieBee said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am saying that the UK has erred because it has become too London-centric
I can't easily think of any developed or even developing nation that isn't centric to its capital or most populated cities. India, maybe.I don't think this has anything 'overtly' to do with politics. It's down to history, practicality, logistical efficiency, etc. In fact, when governments try to de-centralise, it all goes a bit wrong; the woefully daft move of the BBC to Salford, HS2, etc.
StevieBee said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am saying that the UK has erred because it has become too London-centric
I can't easily think of any developed or even developing nation that isn't centric to its capital or most populated cities. India, maybe.I don't think this has anything 'overtly' to do with politics. It's down to history, practicality, logistical efficiency, etc. In fact, when governments try to de-centralise, it all goes a bit wrong; the woefully daft move of the BBC to Salford, HS2, etc.
Breadvan72 said:
The sharing that London ought to do more of is the sharing of affluence. Affluence tends to bring enlightenment. By enlightenment I do not mean monoviews or monoculture. I mean education and opportunities to enjoy the things that make life more bearable. In many parts of the UK, there is little opportunity to experience theatre, music, dance, visual arts and good cookery. That seems to me a pity.
You actually believe this garbage?My home city is Manchester, you are trying to tell me that city has no culture or education opportunities? Some of the most important changes in the history of man came out of this city and continue to do so.
Our country is full of great city's with their own unique cultures and opportunities, London is the very last city in the UK I would want to live. It has it's sectors where you have to move there to thrive, which is what my brother did, but as soon as he made enough money he moved out to the commuter belt. I know some very wealthy people who live there, they have a super life, but your average working man has a pretty tough time of it. For the average worker there are much more enjoyable places to live in the UK with their vibrant culture and opportunities.
Digga said:
StevieBee said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am saying that the UK has erred because it has become too London-centric
I can't easily think of any developed or even developing nation that isn't centric to its capital or most populated cities. India, maybe.I don't think this has anything 'overtly' to do with politics. It's down to history, practicality, logistical efficiency, etc. In fact, when governments try to de-centralise, it all goes a bit wrong; the woefully daft move of the BBC to Salford, HS2, etc.
StevieBee said:
I can't easily think of any developed or even developing nation that isn't centric to its capital or most populated cities. India, maybe.
I don't think this has anything 'overtly' to do with politics. It's down to history, practicality, logistical efficiency, etc. In fact, when governments try to de-centralise, it all goes a bit wrong; the woefully daft move of the BBC to Salford, HS2, etc.
There is a risk though that politics retreats to the capital, and the rural representatives stop representing their constituents and start simply regurgitating messages from the powers on high. It used to be the case that London was dependent on the rest of the uk - steel, building materials, food and clothing etc. Now, you could argue that the link is broken, so there is less need to appease distant counties. I don't think this has anything 'overtly' to do with politics. It's down to history, practicality, logistical efficiency, etc. In fact, when governments try to de-centralise, it all goes a bit wrong; the woefully daft move of the BBC to Salford, HS2, etc.
The BBC is a case in point. It used to live in fear of all those strange people with funny accents, and put real effort into regional programming because the regions were genuinely different. Now though, the UK is meant to all be 'the same', so there's a feeling that programmes can be produced anywhere (London, Salford.. wherever is cheaper) and consumed anywhere without question. Regional programming is reduced to an increasingly superfluous 'local news' segment tacked on the end of the main news.
In the rush to treat everywhere as the same, (we're all equal now!), we stop making allowances for the differences, or valuing those different perspectives.
Enlightenment is a particularly poor choice of word. However I think breadvan is trying to be sincere in his concern rather than we are better than thou.
Wealth is generated and spent too much in too small an area and it's leaving the rest of the country in its wake.
Would London tolerate overt outward investment as it does for the EU? I think not. I think Londoners hate the idea of England.
Wealth is generated and spent too much in too small an area and it's leaving the rest of the country in its wake.
Would London tolerate overt outward investment as it does for the EU? I think not. I think Londoners hate the idea of England.
John145 said:
Enlightenment is a particularly poor choice of word. However I think breadvan is trying to be sincere in his concern rather than we are better than thou.
Wealth is generated and spent too much in too small an area and it's leaving the rest of the country in its wake.
Doesn't the tax generated in London get spread more widely to subsidise the rest of the country?Wealth is generated and spent too much in too small an area and it's leaving the rest of the country in its wake.
John145 said:
Would London tolerate overt outward investment as it does for the EU? I think not. I think Londoners hate the idea of England.
I think that's a nonsense generalisation.jsf said:
Breadvan72 said:
The sharing that London ought to do more of is the sharing of affluence. Affluence tends to bring enlightenment. By enlightenment I do not mean monoviews or monoculture. I mean education and opportunities to enjoy the things that make life more bearable. In many parts of the UK, there is little opportunity to experience theatre, music, dance, visual arts and good cookery. That seems to me a pity.
You actually believe this garbage?My home city is Manchester, you are trying to tell me that city has no culture or education opportunities? Some of the most important changes in the history of man came out of this city and continue to do so.
Our country is full of great city's with their own unique cultures and opportunities, London is the very last city in the UK I would want to live. It has it's sectors where you have to move there to thrive, which is what my brother did, but as soon as he made enough money he moved out to the commuter belt. I know some very wealthy people who live there, they have a super life, but your average working man has a pretty tough time of it. For the average worker there are much more enjoyable places to live in the UK with their vibrant culture and opportunities.
PS: I cannot help but notice that you do not know how to use an apostrophe. That is not the snide comment, that you may take it to be. I am cutting you some slack for being poorly educated, which is most likely not your fault. A good English teacher instructs pupils on apostrophes, but also on comprehension.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 26th September 13:57
Breadvan72 said:
C19 and early to mid C20 UK had vibrant metropolitan centres in the provinces. Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Edinburgh, Glasgow - all replete with art galleries, libraries, orchestras, theatres, even opera houses. These were directly or indirectly funded by industry and sponsored by municipally minded business types, and accessible by many, not just by a gilded few, with good restaurants at various price points to go to after the show. The provincial cities have all been eclipsed by London since the War, and especially since the 1980s (have a think about the 1980s and what the political vibe was back then) . The provincial cities have revived a bit in the post industrial era, but with some exceptions are still lacking in cultural pizzazz. Galleries and libraries, yes, but not as much theatre, not much opera or ballet, most cinemas blockbuster multiplexes. Good sport in some places. Edinburgh does well, especially at festival time, but Glasgow is not quite what it was, and outside its pleasant west end is riven by grot.
Some will say - we are skint, culture is expensive, and things like troops and schools and hospitals are more important; but culture is actually quite cheap (in relative terms), and it can help with some of the other things. After WW2 in Europe, when people were literally starving and had no coal to heat their roofless homes, what did they do? Some of them established big arts festivals such as Edinburgh and Aix and so on. The French revived their film industry. Orchestras in the UK and France invited German conductors to come and lead them in Beethoven and Mozart (they chose German and Austrian composers on purpose - one French musician said "it's the only way that we can learn how to talk to the Germans again"). People who had been through Hell turned to culture to help rebuild their busted up continent.
Back more on topic, another thing that some people did back then was to found what became the EU. Some will say that was a sinister elitist plot against democracy (some may even field that made up quotation by that bloke who never said that made up thing) . Others might say that there were other motives, and other effects.
You need to get out of London more. The capital city will always have some of the major cultural focal points, that's the very nature of being a capital city, but the provinces have their shining lights of culture also.Some will say - we are skint, culture is expensive, and things like troops and schools and hospitals are more important; but culture is actually quite cheap (in relative terms), and it can help with some of the other things. After WW2 in Europe, when people were literally starving and had no coal to heat their roofless homes, what did they do? Some of them established big arts festivals such as Edinburgh and Aix and so on. The French revived their film industry. Orchestras in the UK and France invited German conductors to come and lead them in Beethoven and Mozart (they chose German and Austrian composers on purpose - one French musician said "it's the only way that we can learn how to talk to the Germans again"). People who had been through Hell turned to culture to help rebuild their busted up continent.
Back more on topic, another thing that some people did back then was to found what became the EU. Some will say that was a sinister elitist plot against democracy (some may even field that made up quotation by that bloke who never said that made up thing) . Others might say that there were other motives, and other effects.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 26th September 09:07
UK film industry employs more than double the French or the German film industry.
sidicks said:
John145 said:
Enlightenment is a particularly poor choice of word. However I think breadvan is trying to be sincere in his concern rather than we are better than thou.
Wealth is generated and spent too much in too small an area and it's leaving the rest of the country in its wake.
Doesn't the tax generated in London get spread more widely to subsidise the rest of the country?Wealth is generated and spent too much in too small an area and it's leaving the rest of the country in its wake.
John145 said:
Would London tolerate overt outward investment as it does for the EU? I think not. I think Londoners hate the idea of England.
I think that's a nonsense generalisation.I get out of London all the time. Anyone who is denying that London is not having an unbalancing effect on UK economy and culture is, I suggest, ignoring reality. I have nowhere suggested that everywhere but London is a desert, but the point is that the great provincial cities (and they are great), although revived since the era of de-industrialisation, are not back to where they were in the C19 and C20, and London's unbalancing powers seem set to keep the other cities slightly off the pace.
Many parts of the UK, including places in and very close to London, are in a state. I have mentioned Edmonton (in London) and Portsmouth (near London) as two places that are pretty grim. The Medway towns aren't great either. There will always be grot spots, but there are too many of them. In many (not all) chunks of the country, if you are not lucky enough to live in or close to a big centre you have severely reduced chances to participate in rewarding economic activity and in other things that make life fun. I mention again Glasgow - go around that great city and tell me that most of its citizens are leading lives of material and cultural riches. That is despite Glasgow having great concert halls, galleries, universities, restaurants and so on. I stress again that there are huge areas of economic and cultural blight in London as well, but the topic here is the skewing effect that London has on economy, politics, and culture.
Many parts of the UK, including places in and very close to London, are in a state. I have mentioned Edmonton (in London) and Portsmouth (near London) as two places that are pretty grim. The Medway towns aren't great either. There will always be grot spots, but there are too many of them. In many (not all) chunks of the country, if you are not lucky enough to live in or close to a big centre you have severely reduced chances to participate in rewarding economic activity and in other things that make life fun. I mention again Glasgow - go around that great city and tell me that most of its citizens are leading lives of material and cultural riches. That is despite Glasgow having great concert halls, galleries, universities, restaurants and so on. I stress again that there are huge areas of economic and cultural blight in London as well, but the topic here is the skewing effect that London has on economy, politics, and culture.
Breadvan72 said:
. ...... I assume that the misreading and obtuseness is deliberate. If so, that is merely dispiritung. If not, that is a tad worrying.
PS: I cannot help but notice that you do not know how to use an apostrophe. That is not the snide comment, that you make take it to be. I am cutting you some slack for being poorly educated, which is most likely not your fault. A good English teacher instructs pupils on apostrophes but also on comprehension.
Does a good English teacher also instruct on spelling and grammar? PS: I cannot help but notice that you do not know how to use an apostrophe. That is not the snide comment, that you make take it to be. I am cutting you some slack for being poorly educated, which is most likely not your fault. A good English teacher instructs pupils on apostrophes but also on comprehension.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff