North vs. South divide...

[SeriousSam]

Whilst re-watching various TV programs* by one of my childhood heroes, Fred Dibnah, I was struck by something that I hadn't considered before. Although I understood and appreciated the role the North had in building the empire (it's where my family roots are), mostly through blood sweat and toil. What I had not fully appreciated was the way in which (a) it was never fully recognised by those in power and (b) that nothing was done to ameliorate their situation when the technologies it was built upon became increasingly obsolete. Basically - thanks for the work chaps but we don't need you any more, so crawl back into whatever hovel we dragged you out of.

*BBC I-player has so much more interesting programs on it than the current channel output

Set against that backdrop it is hardly surprising that a great deal of resentment festered in these communities. Further exacerbated in the post war years and then again in the 70's. That they were just as much the architects of their own demise by the time we got to the 70's is somewhat a moot point in this respect. The damage had been done long before that. It was just an escalation in the them and us mentality to the point of violent conflict. A mini civil war in some respects which boiled over into other areas of the country.

So if you'll accept the somewhat simplified generalisation; North = Hung up on the iniquities of the past and South = Blithely ignoring their responsibility for the iniquities of the past...

How the heck do we move past this?

[jim]

My opinion is that it's broadly an economic issue. In highly federal nations, i.e. US, Germany, you get a better spread of industries around the cities.

So in the US, you've got NY for banking and commerce, Washington for government, etc.

In the UK, we've got London for everything. I'm not saying that because I love London... I have no great love of it. But you can't deny that it's the centre of government, finance, trade, retail, culture, etc. I'm not saying that others cities don't have those things, but that the bulk of the investment for them goes into London.

And I don't think that's crazily uncommon for nations that don't have a federal structure.

A key part of it in the UK is that many northern cities built their economies on manufacturing, much of which is doomed to failure in such a globalised economy. For a lot of jobs these days, it's much cheaper to get them done somewhere with lower costs and pay the tiny extra for transportation.

My view is that the discontent isn't so much a vague concept of a lack of respect, but economic inequality. So the only way to move past it would be to spread the investment more.

The BBC moving up north isn't a bad start... could we set up government departments in Birmingham? If HS2 is all it's cracked up to be, why not? MPs are already travelling the length of the country to get to London, Birmingham or Manchester might actually make a bit more sense.

I agree that there would be a lot of resistance, and some institutions need to stay - the BoE, FCA and PRA for example should probably be near all of the big banks. But could DEFRA be shifted elsewhere? It wouldn't be easy, and I think most of the people working there would hate the idea, but in the long run I don't see why not. Even if we don't always realise it, we live in a very small country - we don't need to have everything piled into a few square miles of one city.

[SeriousSam]

I agree that economics plays a part, especially now, but that doesn't diminish the emotional impact and it's consequences. We are self aware feeling animals after all.

That said I do agree about moving some of the infrastructure out of London. As an example in Germany the Federal Constitutional Court is located in Karlsruhe rather than Berlin. Intentionally apart from the government apparatus.

[Smudger]

Wasn't there a drive to move more government work out to the regions? I can't remember what happened to it though.

[MrJim]

Wasn't there a drive to move more government work out to the regions? I can't remember what happened to it though.

Government agencies like the Passport Office (Glasgow) and the DVLA (Swansea) are located outside of the south east. I'm sure there are others too.

[SeriousSam]

Government agencies like the Passport Office (Glasgow) and the DVLA (Swansea) are located outside of the south east. I'm sure there are others too.

Perhaps the perception is that these are merely part of the apparatus rather than a body with any real bite, i.e. real impact on our daily lives. Or like me you'd completely forgotten about them and where they are

[stevie lee]

Government agencies like the Passport Office (Glasgow) and the DVLA (Swansea) are located outside of the south east. I'm sure there are others too.

yup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Hydro
general register office is in Southport.

contains the details of everybody born, married, died in the UK.

[Zak33]

I think what SeriousSam is saying rings true on a level I'd not really pondered.

If we asusme that an industry has to focus on doing what it does best, and not trying to change it's core business, then all the graft put in really could be put into that category of "thanks for all the work... cya"

It's not like a shop expanding it's range and removing non selling items over time.. it's more like a fisherman fishing, improving his fishing.. getting better boats and better nets and taking on more staff, and those staff getting better.. and then over a short time someone inventing a fish substitute that everyone prefers and that's that.

In fact.. that happended too and while it wasn't entirely north/south... it was more north



that's a lot of boats.. not needed now

The heavy engineering of the north uite simply died.

But the community and families.. and houses.. they are still there.

[RobbieRoy]

Having been mainly brought up and educated in Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne and North Wales but have lived and worked in London and East Anglia I see two main reasons for the divide.

1. The early capitalistic approach to industry in Victorian times was building industries from textiles to steel to ships to coal mines were where available industry enabling physical resources included local populations. These industries were mostly owned by southern families or families that relocated south when they became rich. When economic forces made it cheaper to make goods elsewhere then those businesses moved them elsewhere, with no regard at all for the effect on the local, northern, populations. Similar economic forces, including the growth of service and financial industries and the takeover of northen businesses by southern based and run businesses has meant that little industry has gone to the north in recent decades (Nissan being an honourable exception).

2. The thing to replace lacking private business investment and growth is public investment. This could be in the form of infrastructure development and siting of governnment functions, including civil service and defence functions. This has happened to some extent, although governments have tended to favour southern investment.

The other form of government help is old fasioned pump priming. Recent goverments (since Thatcher) have been very idealogically against this, as well as seeking to reduce the size of the state.

These two main areas have persistently impeded the north while favouring the south and the way to change it is, I think, full federalisation with tax raising powers alongside a fairer, more ballanced distribution of national resources.

Also, get up and shout!

[wasabi]

Although not always the case, often successful people move to where the money is. Usually big cities and financial centres. This leaves pools of the less successful behind. A vicious cycle develops, especially when it goes on for generations.

[TheAnimus]

These two main areas have persistently impeded the north while favouring the south and the way to change it is, I think, full federalisation with tax raising powers alongside a fairer, more ballanced distribution of national resources.

Also, get up and shout!

Hahaha. That's a joke right?

What do you think the 'richer' states would do? Vote to send money to places that don't benefit them? Would they heck!

These economies were wrecked heavily when subsidies were ended, these subsidies relied on outside areas funding them. Subsidies destroy efficiency, they distort things, they make it worse for those who foot the bill. Sometimes it's worth doing this, to provide capacity, to provide long term strategy that is beyond single entities.

They would struggle heavily.

These areas are the 'net cost' areas.

Federalisation will certainly not help those.

[RobbieRoy]

Hahaha. That's a joke right?

Er, sorry, no Animus...

What do you think the 'richer' states would do? Vote to send money to places that don't benefit them? Would they heck!

That would depend entirely on the way a federal system is set up, given that there would still need to be a national government responsible for certain strategic and national things. Also, all regions would have equal say at that level. So what you say is an oversimplification.

These economies were wrecked heavily when subsidies were ended, these subsidies relied on outside areas funding them. Subsidies destroy efficiency, they distort things, they make it worse for those who foot the bill. Sometimes it's worth doing this, to provide capacity, to provide long term strategy that is beyond single entities.

Would you mind providing examples of such subsidies wrecked the north as it would help the debate better.

Also, why state that it is 'other' areas that pay subsisies to the north. Isn't that the ethic and function of our redistributive taxation system and so a good thing?

And by saying 'stand up and shout', I was putting forward the idea that we need to make our different views and voices heard.

[Saracen]

A lot of the basic inequalities between North and South come from one pretty simple fact. A LOT of the past wealth of the North, and even the Midlands, came from industrial revolution industry. And these industries were based were essential resources were. Like plenty of cheap labour. But also, water, transport (canals and ports), etc.

Sadly, in some ways at least, the world has moved on. What was the driving force for the location of those industries, cheap labour, is now the driving force for why so many of them are dead, which is dirt cheap labour in China, etc. The exact thing that took those industries to the North has now taken it away. And, it ain't coming back.

Then, to add insult to injury, militant unionism killed off a lot of manufacturing and heavy industry in the 60 and 70s. Productivity, and product quality, was a world-wide laughing stick. British Leyland, anyone? I'm personally aware (know the family) of one cutlery manufacturer that used to ge based, well, let's say, in the North. They had so many labour disputes with idiot union officials demanding ridiculous and unaffordable pay increases that were simply unaffordable.

The problem with the unions of those days was that they were pig-ignorant of market forces. Customers determine what you can charge for product, and the limit is set by what they can pay your competitors. Many costs (power, raw materials, rates, etc) are outside the businesses control. If union repeatedly jack up labour costs without and corresponding increase in productivity, you end up where costs of producing a product exceed what you can sell it for. And that's is precisely what they did. ain a closed shop environment, unions could simply dictate terms, or "all out, brothers". And they did. After repeated warnings, all ignored by unions, that further pay rises were simply not affordable, the result was inevitable .... closure. The company uprooted, lock, stock and barrel, and moved to the Far East where it is still, 40 years later, successfully manufacturing. But several hundred people here didn't get a pay rise, they got a redundancy notice. Of course, then, the unions wanted to "talk". Well, too late. But the unions were right about one thing .... it was indeed "all out, brothers". Permanently.

And that type of thing, to one degree or another, is largely behind the economic divide. And it's not easy to fix. Not easy at all.

Oh, and just for balance, it isn't only the North that got clobbered by cheap global Labour. Take Luton. Traditionally, the centre of the hat industry, with 100+ companies and employing a large part of the town. Now, what, half a dozen companies and maybe a hundred people doing little more than design work, ans sales and marketing. Almost all, or now probably all, actual manufacturing is in the Far East.

That factor clobbered labour-intensive work, even relatively high-skilled labour intensive work, wherever it found it. The North's problem was that it had far, FAR more of it than the South, so had far more to lose. And lose it, it did.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If you are earning £25000 to £30000 in Manchester you will have a FAR better standard of living than earning the same in London. People forget how much living and travelling costs in London and Kent.