Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/26/battle-of-the-botanic-garden-the-horticulture-war-roiling-the-isle-of-wight

England vs an American: garden wars.

Curious situation where everything is the opposite of usual.
Its the American who is supporting the natural approach and upsetting the Brits who want everything neatly trimmed.
He's letting the garden develop wild...but its a thoroughly unnatural garden full of plants from distant lands. Is it really rewilding something which is absolutely not natural?

Seems dumb to me the idea that he's just cheap and neglectful. You don't buy a botanic garden if thats the case. Can't stand those people who think you need to mow your lawn every week or it looks scruffy.

[Sheilbh]

As "nepo babies" is a subject in the US, I found this piece in Vice interesting (but sadly not surprising - though still enraging) on the UK equivalent, or basically the entire creative sector:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/3adgnk/american-nepo-babies-have-nothing-on-the-british

[Admiral Yi]

it's been an active government decision to ...focus all investment around London

Do you mean public investment, private investment, or both?

Both

That's the thing.  I don't claim an exhaustive knowledge of British economic policy, but I've never heard of schemes that were intended to or had the side effect of funneling private investment to the south.  Britain has one nationwide regulatory regime, one legal system, and I've never heard of any special investment subsidies directed toward the south.  So I'm left wondering what it is you're talking about.

My suspicion is you're looking at a result (the booming of the south and the stagnation of the north) and ascribing it to a nonexistent policy.

[mongers]

..

You cannot see attachments on this board.
...

What a terrible choice of colours for the categories on that map, two blues for up and down and two hard to distinguish pink/purples for other categories.

[Josquius]

it's been an active government decision to ...focus all investment around London

Do you mean public investment, private investment, or both?

Both

That's the thing.  I don't claim an exhaustive knowledge of British economic policy, but I've never heard of schemes that were intended to or had the side effect of funneling private investment to the south.  Britain has one nationwide regulatory regime, one legal system, and I've never heard of any special investment subsidies directed toward the south.  So I'm left wondering what it is you're talking about.

My suspicion is you're looking at a result (the booming of the south and the stagnation of the north) and ascribing it to a nonexistent policy.

Really?
You've never heard of the financial markets big bang, the Docklands Development Corporation, Crossrail, TFL, Thameslink, Tech City/Silicon Roundabout, etc... There's enough big name examples of London getting prioritised government interest even before we look down into raw numbers like government funding for science and general transport spending per head. I don't think there's a single measure on which London  doesn't come out ahead.

[Syt]

For Josq

[Josquius]

For Josq

Yes. I saw that. Thankfully Labour actually did their job and called out how offensive it was to talk of the reason we're in this shit as the solution.

[HVC]

She was Britain's  greenest PM. Truly a environmental visionary ahead of her time

[Sheilbh]

It is typical Gove in being provocative but aimed as much at Truss and her (ex?) supporters:

And the experience of successful economic transformation demonstrates that growth is not secured by absent government but by active government.

A government that plays a strategic role, irrigating the soil for growth. As Mrs Thatcher did. Specifically in the Docklands.

When the Thatcher government took office in 1979 London's Docklands were a derelict economic desert. Their economic rationale had gone as containerisation had taken shipping away from the historic wharves of Bermondsey and Poplar to new purpose built ports. Jobs had disappeared, housing was slum-level, schools were places of narrow horizons and fading hopes.

The original vision for regeneration of the area – from the Treasury of the time – was simple. Just cut taxes and de-regulate and a thousand flowers would bloom in the dusty and contaminated soil of the Docklands. But while lower taxes and smarter regulation are certainly powerful ingredients in any growth package they just weren't enough.

Margaret Thatcher, and her then Industry Secretary Keith Joseph tasked the then Environment Secretary Michael Heseltine with bringing together a wider range of interventions through the London Docklands Development Corporation – land was assembled and remediated through government agencies, new transport links were built, including the DLR and what was to become London City Airport, new housing was commissioned and in due course cultural, sporting and educational investment followed. The area thus irrigated became fertile ground for massive commercial investment. Government created the environment, the private sector created the jobs. London Docklands today is an economic success story – one of the most signal success stories we owe to Mrs Thatcher's government.

Meanwhile as Gaby Hinsliff put it, can't think of a better legacy of the last twelve years than a new high speed rail line connecting London and the North that doesn't go to London, or to the bits of the North originaly planned

HS2 may not reach central London as cost of project soars, say reports
Officials reportedly considering terminating high-speed rail link at Old Oak Common in western suburbs
Jamie Grierson
@JamieGrierson
Fri 27 Jan 2023 08.38 GMT
Last modified on Fri 27 Jan 2023 09.24 GMT

The high-speed rail link HS2 may not reach central London, and instead terminate in the western suburbs of the capital, according to reports.

HS2 officials are reportedly considering scaling back the multibillion pound project by delaying to 2038 – or scrapping completely – the Euston terminus, the Sun reports.

Soaring inflation has forced bosses to look again at the costly proposals with trains instead stopping at a new hub at Old Oak Common in west London's suburbs.

Commuters would have to finish their journeys into central London by using the Elizabeth line instead, the report said.

The paper also reported that a two to five-year delay to the entire project is being considered.

The government has not denied the reports.

A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "The government remains committed to delivering HS2 to Manchester, as confirmed in the autumn statement.

"As well as supporting tens of thousands of jobs, the project will connect regions across the UK, improve capacity on our railways and provide a greener option of travel."

The project has been dogged by criticism over its financial and environmental impact.

In October of last year, Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, suggested capital investment for HS2 would be reviewed, but the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, subsequently backed the project.

The target cost of phase one between London and Birmingham was £40.3bn at 2019 prices.

A budget of £55.7bn for the whole of HS2 was set in 2015.

HS2 should be scrapped "in its entirety", a leading campaigner said in response to the reports.

Penny Gaines, of the campaign group Stop HS2, said it was "not at all surprising" costs are spiralling out of control.

She added: "These reports just show that there are so many problems with HS2. It's being delayed further and further so the cost is going up, it should be cancelled in its entirety as soon as possible.

"Stop spending money building a railway people don't need. Use the money to restore the countryside and the areas that are being devastated by HS2 and look at the solutions that people need in the 21st century.

"It's London-centric and now it turns out that it's not even going to manage to get to the centre of London."

Lord Berkeley, who in 2019 was deputy chairman of a government-commissioned review into HS2, believes the entire project should be scrapped.

The Labour peer told the PA news agency: "The alternative in the news this morning is using Old Oak Common as a terminal station, which would work for half the number of trains that they want with a bit of redesign, but it wouldn't do the lot.

"There's not enough space for it so they couldn't do it except maybe a shuttle service from Birmingham.

"What's the point of building HS2 just to get to Birmingham?

"I think the whole thing should be cancelled."

He claimed investment in the project would be "much better spent on improving the railway lines in the north, east and west, than going to London a bit quicker".

Trains in the North absolutely need improving. But it's worth flagging (again) that positioning it as "high speed" was a mistake. It's not about "going to London a bit quicker" but that the West Coast Mainline is running at close to capacity and HS2 would free up time and space on the network.

She was Britain's  greenest PM. Truly a environmental visionary ahead of her time

Weirdly she was actually one of the first world leaders to give a set of big speechs on climate change in the late 80s. So definitely a little ahead of her time:

The environmental challenge that confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out. Those countries who are industrialised must contribute more to help those who are not.

[Josquius]

Meanwhile as Gaby Hinsliff put it, can't think of a better legacy of the last twelve years than a new high speed rail line connecting London and the North that doesn't go to London, or to the bits of the North originaly planned

Wait what?
I thought the construction in central London was already at a very advanced stage. Didn't I see it?

Trains in the North absolutely need improving. But it's worth flagging (again) that positioning it as "high speed" was a mistake. It's not about "going to London a bit quicker" but that the West Coast Mainline is running at close to capacity and HS2 would free up time and space on the network.

Trouble is, as we've seen a lot in recent years people are attracted by flashy one liners. They could well have put more effort into explaining it (We need more capacity for local services and whilst we're doing that it costs just as much to build a high speed line as extra slow lines so its just common sense really) but there would need to be a snappy title.

He claimed investment in the project would be "much better spent on improving the railway lines in the north, east and west, than going to London a bit quicker".

This bad faith complaint needs to be called out. You see it a lot, but we all know if HS2 is cancelled then that money is going to vanish as far as transport investment is concerned. Its definitely getting nowhere near the north.

[Sheilbh]

To be honest that last point is also why I tend to be reluctant with the idea that we should cancel x spending in London because we could improve services in the rest of the country instead because - I think that tends not to happen. It just gets cancelled and the Treasury just doesn't spend that money.

[Admiral Yi]

Really?
You've never heard of the financial markets big bang, the Docklands Development Corporation, Crossrail, TFL, Thameslink, Tech City/Silicon Roundabout, etc... There's enough big name examples of London getting prioritised government interest even before we look down into raw numbers like government funding for science and general transport spending per head. I don't think there's a single measure on which London  doesn't come out ahead.

I purposely focused on private investment because that's the part I wanted to dispute.

[Josquius]

Really?
You've never heard of the financial markets big bang, the Docklands Development Corporation, Crossrail, TFL, Thameslink, Tech City/Silicon Roundabout, etc... There's enough big name examples of London getting prioritised government interest even before we look down into raw numbers like government funding for science and general transport spending per head. I don't think there's a single measure on which London  doesn't come out ahead.

I purposely focused on private investment because that's the part I wanted to dispute.

You don't think any of these things encouraged private investment?

[Admiral Yi]

You don't think any of these things encouraged private investment?

The Big Bang I've read about so that I can discuss.

The Big Bang was not the granting of special favors to finance, it was removing regulatory barriers.  It was the removal of a handicap.

[Josquius]

You don't think any of these things encouraged private investment?

The Big Bang I've read about so that I can discuss.

The Big Bang was not the granting of special favors to finance, it was removing regulatory barriers.  It was the removal of a handicap.

ie greatly encouraging a industry where London was traditionally strong.
Along with this were numerous actions that hurt industries where other regions were strong.
And actions to directly help the development of the city.
You can't look at any one thing alone. Its all part of the holistic whole.