The Off Topic Topic

[Admiral Yi]

Deregulation of the banking industries and massive focus on redevelopment in the City of London whilst the rest was left to rot with very minimal efforts to make up for lost jobs.
Closure of even profit making industries due to their union associations.
Removing the power of the metropolitan counties (hit London to an extent too but it was far more devastating for the north).
Proof- can't find the 10x, maybe mis-remembered. It's 'only' 5x
https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/new-transport-figures-reveal-north-to-receive-indefensible-2-555-less-per-person-than-london

Look at what deregulation is.  It's the lifting of previous restrictions.  It's not a use of public funds.  It's not a subsidy.

Massive focus on redevelopment in the City.  I don't know what that means.

I don't really know enough about how transportation spending works in the UK to comment, but one thing I noticed missing from your link was any mention of revenues.  I.e. subway and bus fares, road tolls, congestion charges. 

[Tonitrus]

  They're just giving her the attention she wants.

How do you know her intentions?

She is wearing General Hooker type boots. She wants attention from American Civil War buffs. It couldn't be more obvious what she is about.

I didn't know Uggs made Hooker thigh-highs.

[crazy canuck]

You accuse me of straw manning your position then in the very next sentence you talk about Thatcher "favoring" London.  How did she favor London?  Did she smile more at Londoners?

By any chance do you have a link for that 10X claim?

No one is disputing that London is richer than the rest of England.  It's the why that we're arguing about.

Deregulation of the banking industries and massive focus on redevelopment in the City of London whilst the rest was left to rot with very minimal efforts to make up for lost jobs.
Closure of even profit making industries due to their union associations.
Removing the power of the metropolitan counties (hit London to an extent too but it was far more devastating for the north).
Proof- can't find the 10x, maybe mis-remembered. It's 'only' 5x
https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/new-transport-figures-reveal-north-to-receive-indefensible-2-555-less-per-person-than-london

When Britain's first female prime minister was in her pomp, northern football fans travelling to away games in London would be taunted by home supporters waving wads of £10 and £20 notes. The brutal repartee of the terraces expressed a fundamental truth of the Thatcher period: the north suffered the worst of the deep recession and high unemployment of the early years; and it benefited least from the eventual boom of the late 1980s.

It would be wrong to say that Thatcher planned the decline of the north's most vital industries and sources of employment. In fact, northern England suffered precisely from the absence of a plan in Westminster.

In 1985, explaining why she believed regional planning in Britain was a non-starter, Thatcher said: "If we try to discourage development and economic growth in large parts of the south of England, in the hope that it will happen in the large cities in the north, we risk losing them altogether."

Left to its own devices, the British economy rebalanced irrevocably to the south. Employment in the manufacturing industry, vital to the north's wellbeing, slumped, falling from 7.1 million in 1979 to 4.4m in 1993. Services and the booming City eventually took up much of the economic slack, but the good times were happening in the south.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/14/margaret-thatcher-20-changes-britain

It doesn't square with her actions.
[/quote]

What action are you referring to?  I think you mean her non action - which is really the point Yi and the Guardian article are making.  All things being equal the City was always going to dominate.  Btw there is also an article about how cities have come to dominate the world economy in last weeks edition of the Guardian magazine that is worth a read.  After the age of deregulation and globalization it was inevitable, for the reasons Yi has explained.

[Valmy]

I know. It is kind of weird because I thought the growth of the internet meant you could basically do many jobs from anywhere, which would actually create an incentive to live where it is cheapest. But that just has not happened.

[crazy canuck]

I know. It is kind of weird because I thought the growth of the internet meant you could basically do many jobs from anywhere, which would actually create an incentive to live where it is cheapest. But that just has not happened.

The synergies of being near universities, business hubs, transportation hubs, all the goods and services etc are just too great a magnet.

[garbon]

I know. It is kind of weird because I thought the growth of the internet meant you could basically do many jobs from anywhere, which would actually create an incentive to live where it is cheapest. But that just has not happened.

Why would someone want to live in the boonies just because it was cheap?

[crazy canuck]

I know. It is kind of weird because I thought the growth of the internet meant you could basically do many jobs from anywhere, which would actually create an incentive to live where it is cheapest. But that just has not happened.

Why would someone want to live in the boonies just because it was cheap?

Not just because it is cheap but because of the fact it is away from the city.  A good friend of mine has a very nice place by a river in south central British Columbia - right in the middle of nowhere.  He telecommutes from there 4 weeks out of 6 and comes back to the city the other 2 out of necessity.  But he is in an enviable position most people cannot replicate.

[garbon]

I know. It is kind of weird because I thought the growth of the internet meant you could basically do many jobs from anywhere, which would actually create an incentive to live where it is cheapest. But that just has not happened.

Why would someone want to live in the boonies just because it was cheap?

Not just because it is cheap but because of the fact it is away from the city.  A good friend of mine has a very nice place by a river in south central British Columbia - right in the middle of nowhere.  He telecommutes from there 4 weeks out of 6 and comes back to the city the other 2 out of necessity.  But he is in an enviable position most people cannot replicate.

Enviable to some.

[Eddie Teach]

I know. It is kind of weird because I thought the growth of the internet meant you could basically do many jobs from anywhere, which would actually create an incentive to live where it is cheapest. But that just has not happened.

Why would someone want to live in the boonies just because it was cheap?

More space, less traffic and noise.

[derspiess]

Less crime, more greenspace...

[Tamas]

Hells yeah.

[Syt]

[celedhring]

I'd say that's a softening of Wolfenstein games' traditional stance on Nazis though 

[Valmy]

It is like they have created a humorless buzzkill anti-PC movement to compliment the humorless buzzkill PC movement

But, granted, that has always been around.

[Oexmelin]

OMG WOLFENSTEIN IS ANTIFA