WTF Southport?

[Son of Mathonwy]

Modern societies are unequal. The degree will differ but I’m less concerned by inequality as a concept than you are. I’m all for creating an environment where people can better themselves, which requires jobs, transport , housing etc.

Re inequality as a concept, I won't get into a big discussion on that but please, if you haven't already done so, read The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Picket, for how, in developed countries, inequality (and not average wealth) is a big driver of violence, imprisonment, drug abuse, mental illness, obesity, teenage pregnancy, and, negatively, on life expectancy, infant mortality, trust, educational attainment and social mobility (ie an environment where people can better themselves, as you put it ).

But you agree that poverty is a big driver of support for the far right and the current riots. So (leaving aside arguments for reducing inequality) we should try to reduce poverty. My argument is this:

There are two broad methods for reducing poverty: 1) increase the size of the economy so that we all get more wealthy, and 2) redistribute (some of) the wealth that we have from the rich to the poor.

1) Growth. We're already trying to do this, the Tories were trying to do this, everyone always tries to do this. Of course we should do our best to grow the economy (without destroying the planet's capacity to support human life). But who has any confidence the Labour will do a significantly better job than the Tories (using the same fiscal rules)? Even if they are better at it, or luckier, the increase in GDP will take a long time to be noticed by the poor. In the meantime support for the far right will grow.

2) Redistribution. The government can increase this today. To whatever degree they want. Whether it's through more progressive income taxes and benefits, a wealth tax, reduction in VAT, or more indirectly by increasing local government budgets, educational and health spending, consumer price controls etc this can begin to make a difference the moment the button is pressed. This can improve the life of the poor quite quickly making them less susceptible to the bullshit easy answers and scapegoats of the far right.
(Additionally, making the poorest more wealthy will boost the economy because the poor are more likely to spend any extra money they have whereas the rich are more likely to save it.)

Therefore we should redistribute more.

And you can reduce property by developing jobs and opportunities, which is why the focus should be on levelling up.

Assuming 'leveling up' means reducing regional inequality, I agree this should be done as much as possible.

But should that really be the focus? Rather than reducing inequality in general?

Even if successful, reducing regional inequality may do nothing for the poor, any more than being poor in London is somehow made better by sharing the city with billionaires. Even if it does benefit the poor in deprived areas, it will obviously not help equally poor people in richer areas.

And it's been shown that more equal societies are more socially mobile societies. Isn't that something you'd want?

So I don't think you've made a case for concentrating on regional equality rather than overall equality.

[Sandydragon]

Re inequality as a concept, I won't get into a big discussion on that but please, if you haven't already done so, read The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Picket, for how, in developed countries, inequality (and not average wealth) is a big driver of violence, imprisonment, drug abuse, mental illness, obesity, teenage pregnancy, and, negatively, on life expectancy, infant mortality, trust, educational attainment and social mobility (ie an environment where people can better themselves, as you put it ).

But you agree that poverty is a big driver of support for the far right and the current riots. So (leaving aside arguments for reducing inequality) we should try to reduce poverty. My argument is this:

There are two broad methods for reducing poverty: 1) increase the size of the economy so that we all get more wealthy, and 2) redistribute (some of) the wealth that we have from the rich to the poor.

1) Growth. We're already trying to do this, the Tories were trying to do this, everyone always tries to do this. Of course we should do our best to grow the economy (without destroying the planet's capacity to support human life). But who has any confidence the Labour will do a significantly better job than the Tories (using the same fiscal rules)? Even if they are better at it, or luckier, the increase in GDP will take a long time to be noticed by the poor. In the meantime support for the far right will grow.

2) Redistribution. The government can increase this today. To whatever degree they want. Whether it's through more progressive income taxes and benefits, a wealth tax, reduction in VAT, or more indirectly by increasing local government budgets, educational and health spending, consumer price controls etc this can begin to make a difference the moment the button is pressed. This can improve the life of the poor quite quickly making them less susceptible to the bullshit easy answers and scapegoats of the far right.
(Additionally, making the poorest more wealthy will boost the economy because the poor are more likely to spend any extra money they have whereas the rich are more likely to save it.)

Therefore we should redistribute more.

And you can reduce property by developing jobs and opportunities, which is why the focus should be on levelling up.

Assuming 'leveling up' means reducing regional inequality, I agree this should be done as much as possible.

But should that really be the focus? Rather than reducing inequality in general?

Even if successful, reducing regional inequality may do nothing for the poor, any more than being poor in London is somehow made better by sharing the city with billionaires. Even if it does benefit the poor in deprived areas, it will obviously not help equally poor people in richer areas.

And it's been shown that more equal societies are more socially mobile societies. Isn't that something you'd want?

So I don't think you've made a case for concentrating on regional equality rather than overall equality.
[/

I’d have assumed it was obvious that inequality across regions has been cause d y significant industrial decline and focus on certain sectors ? Your life chances in deprived areas are far worse than in say the south east. Developing those areas and encouraging job creation will lift thousands out of poverty without leaving them dependent on benefits.

Improve the situation in deprived regions and reduce the need for younger people to move elsewhere to find work, give those regions pride in themselves again and also reduce poverty. Improving regional inequality also improves individual inequality.

The alternative is to what? Reduce inequality by taxation. How does that fix employment issues in old industrial areas? You still have the underlying problems to deal without growing incomes from an expanding economy.

[Son of Mathonwy]

And you can reduce property by developing jobs and opportunities, which is why the focus should be on levelling up.

Assuming 'leveling up' means reducing regional inequality, I agree this should be done as much as possible.

But should that really be the focus? Rather than reducing inequality in general?

Even if successful, reducing regional inequality may do nothing for the poor, any more than being poor in London is somehow made better by sharing the city with billionaires. Even if it does benefit the poor in deprived areas, it will obviously not help equally poor people in richer areas.

And it's been shown that more equal societies are more socially mobile societies. Isn't that something you'd want?

So I don't think you've made a case for concentrating on regional equality rather than overall equality.

I’d have assumed it was obvious that inequality across regions has been cause d y significant industrial decline and focus on certain sectors ? Your life chances in deprived areas are far worse than in say the south east. Developing those areas and encouraging job creation will lift thousands out of poverty without leaving them dependent on benefits.

Improve the situation in deprived regions and reduce the need for younger people to move elsewhere to find work, give those regions pride in themselves again and also reduce poverty. Improving regional inequality also improves individual inequality.

The alternative is to what? Reduce inequality by taxation. How does that fix employment issues in old industrial areas? You still have the underlying problems to deal without growing incomes from an expanding economy.

(Just to be clear, I'm arguing for a reduction in inequality of wealth, not for absolute wealth equality.)

Obviously I agree that regional inequality should be reduced as much as possible (much more than the Tories have done or Labour seem interested in doing).

Can I assume that you're not disagreeing that greater equality of wealth would improve things (socially and economically)? Just that achieving this by taxation is not a good way of doing it (because it doesn't fix regional employment issues)?

Firstly, I don't say that this should be done solely through tax. Increasing local government funding, and educational and health spending, will help the poor (or I should say, the non-rich) more because they rely on these things more than the rich. Similarly for policy ideas like consumer price controls, ending the right to buy council homes, forcing developers to build more social homes.

Secondly, this isn't just about unemployment. A lot of the poor aren't suffering from lack of work - they are working hard but still can't get by.

Tax and benefit changes - ie progressive income taxes and benefits, a wealth tax, reduction in VAT - would help to grow the economy (in all regions) because making the poorest more wealthy will boost the economy because the poor are more likely to spend any extra money they have whereas the rich are more likely to save it. It will increase demand. It will naturally target poorer regions.

Also (see The Spirit Level), no matter how greater equality is achieved (eg redistribution by tax, in this case), the positive effects on society are similar. Letting the poor stay poor while the rich get richer is an inefficient use of the wealth of the country. We can all have a good life.

[Sandydragon]

Assuming 'leveling up' means reducing regional inequality, I agree this should be done as much as possible.

But should that really be the focus? Rather than reducing inequality in general?

Even if successful, reducing regional inequality may do nothing for the poor, any more than being poor in London is somehow made better by sharing the city with billionaires. Even if it does benefit the poor in deprived areas, it will obviously not help equally poor people in richer areas.

And it's been shown that more equal societies are more socially mobile societies. Isn't that something you'd want?

So I don't think you've made a case for concentrating on regional equality rather than overall equality.

I’d have assumed it was obvious that inequality across regions has been cause d y significant industrial decline and focus on certain sectors ? Your life chances in deprived areas are far worse than in say the south east. Developing those areas and encouraging job creation will lift thousands out of poverty without leaving them dependent on benefits.

Improve the situation in deprived regions and reduce the need for younger people to move elsewhere to find work, give those regions pride in themselves again and also reduce poverty. Improving regional inequality also improves individual inequality.

The alternative is to what? Reduce inequality by taxation. How does that fix employment issues in old industrial areas? You still have the underlying problems to deal without growing incomes from an expanding economy.

(Just to be clear, I'm arguing for a reduction in inequality of wealth, not for absolute wealth equality.)

Obviously I agree that regional inequality should be reduced as much as possible (much more than the Tories have done or Labour seem interested in doing).

Can I assume that you're not disagreeing that greater equality of wealth would improve things (socially and economically)? Just that achieving this by taxation is not a good way of doing it (because it doesn't fix regional employment issues)?

Firstly, I don't say that this should be done solely through tax. Increasing local government funding, and educational and health spending, will help the poor (or I should say, the non-rich) more because they rely on these things more than the rich. Similarly for policy ideas like consumer price controls, ending the right to buy council homes, forcing developers to build more social homes.

Secondly, this isn't just about unemployment. A lot of the poor aren't suffering from lack of work - they are working hard but still can't get by.

Tax and benefit changes - ie progressive income taxes and benefits, a wealth tax, reduction in VAT - would help to grow the economy (in all regions) because making the poorest more wealthy will boost the economy because the poor are more likely to spend any extra money they have whereas the rich are more likely to save it. It will increase demand. It will naturally target poorer regions.

Also (see The Spirit Level), no matter how greater equality is achieved (eg redistribution by tax, in this case), the positive effects on society are similar. Letting the poor stay poor while the rich get richer is an inefficient use of the wealth of the country. We can all have a good life.

I agree about being employed and still being unable to afford to survive. That’s unacceptable. Work must always pay. My wariness with the redistribution it ion approach is that unless jobs are created then too many people will be not gainfully employed and have plenty of time to fester resentments. Many people in deprived areas feel left behind and they have expressed that during the Brexit vote and more recently in rioting. The best way to reduce that resentment is to fix the problem regions where they face no perceived positive future.

I’m not against a bit of tax redistribution and equality, but I’m more concerned that we don’t end up with loads of benefits and think that’s fixed the problem.

[Puja]

I’d have assumed it was obvious that inequality across regions has been cause d y significant industrial decline and focus on certain sectors ? Your life chances in deprived areas are far worse than in say the south east. Developing those areas and encouraging job creation will lift thousands out of poverty without leaving them dependent on benefits.

Improve the situation in deprived regions and reduce the need for younger people to move elsewhere to find work, give those regions pride in themselves again and also reduce poverty. Improving regional inequality also improves individual inequality.

The alternative is to what? Reduce inequality by taxation. How does that fix employment issues in old industrial areas? You still have the underlying problems to deal without growing incomes from an expanding economy.

(Just to be clear, I'm arguing for a reduction in inequality of wealth, not for absolute wealth equality.)

Obviously I agree that regional inequality should be reduced as much as possible (much more than the Tories have done or Labour seem interested in doing).

Can I assume that you're not disagreeing that greater equality of wealth would improve things (socially and economically)? Just that achieving this by taxation is not a good way of doing it (because it doesn't fix regional employment issues)?

Firstly, I don't say that this should be done solely through tax. Increasing local government funding, and educational and health spending, will help the poor (or I should say, the non-rich) more because they rely on these things more than the rich. Similarly for policy ideas like consumer price controls, ending the right to buy council homes, forcing developers to build more social homes.

Secondly, this isn't just about unemployment. A lot of the poor aren't suffering from lack of work - they are working hard but still can't get by.

Tax and benefit changes - ie progressive income taxes and benefits, a wealth tax, reduction in VAT - would help to grow the economy (in all regions) because making the poorest more wealthy will boost the economy because the poor are more likely to spend any extra money they have whereas the rich are more likely to save it. It will increase demand. It will naturally target poorer regions.

Also (see The Spirit Level), no matter how greater equality is achieved (eg redistribution by tax, in this case), the positive effects on society are similar. Letting the poor stay poor while the rich get richer is an inefficient use of the wealth of the country. We can all have a good life.

I agree about being employed and still being unable to afford to survive. That’s unacceptable. Work must always pay. My wariness with the redistribution it ion approach is that unless jobs are created then too many people will be not gainfully employed and have plenty of time to fester resentments. Many people in deprived areas feel left behind and they have expressed that during the Brexit vote and more recently in rioting. The best way to reduce that resentment is to fix the problem regions where they face no perceived positive future.

I’m not against a bit of tax redistribution and equality, but I’m more concerned that we don’t end up with loads of benefits and think that’s fixed the problem.

Redistribution is better done through public services than benefits in most situations. Improved help and support,for the kind of things that rich people would just spend money on without thinking about it, would do the most to close the gap - schooling, health, social services, dentistry, transport, school meals, childcare, public facilities and areas, energy.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Puja,

And that’s exactly how I would see levelling up working. Particularly transport and industrial support to build new career opportunities and the right support (including training) to replace those lost.

[Son of Mathonwy]

(Just to be clear, I'm arguing for a reduction in inequality of wealth, not for absolute wealth equality.)

Obviously I agree that regional inequality should be reduced as much as possible (much more than the Tories have done or Labour seem interested in doing).

Can I assume that you're not disagreeing that greater equality of wealth would improve things (socially and economically)? Just that achieving this by taxation is not a good way of doing it (because it doesn't fix regional employment issues)?

Firstly, I don't say that this should be done solely through tax. Increasing local government funding, and educational and health spending, will help the poor (or I should say, the non-rich) more because they rely on these things more than the rich. Similarly for policy ideas like consumer price controls, ending the right to buy council homes, forcing developers to build more social homes.

Secondly, this isn't just about unemployment. A lot of the poor aren't suffering from lack of work - they are working hard but still can't get by.

Tax and benefit changes - ie progressive income taxes and benefits, a wealth tax, reduction in VAT - would help to grow the economy (in all regions) because making the poorest more wealthy will boost the economy because the poor are more likely to spend any extra money they have whereas the rich are more likely to save it. It will increase demand. It will naturally target poorer regions.

Also (see The Spirit Level), no matter how greater equality is achieved (eg redistribution by tax, in this case), the positive effects on society are similar. Letting the poor stay poor while the rich get richer is an inefficient use of the wealth of the country. We can all have a good life.

I agree about being employed and still being unable to afford to survive. That’s unacceptable. Work must always pay. My wariness with the redistribution it ion approach is that unless jobs are created then too many people will be not gainfully employed and have plenty of time to fester resentments. Many people in deprived areas feel left behind and they have expressed that during the Brexit vote and more recently in rioting. The best way to reduce that resentment is to fix the problem regions where they face no perceived positive future.

I’m not against a bit of tax redistribution and equality, but I’m more concerned that we don’t end up with loads of benefits and think that’s fixed the problem.

Redistribution is better done through public services than benefits in most situations. Improved help and support,for the kind of things that rich people would just spend money on without thinking about it, would do the most to close the gap - schooling, health, social services, dentistry, transport, school meals, childcare, public facilities and areas, energy.

Puja

In this country we're not likely to achieve a significant enough increase in equality of wealth or decrease in poverty from improvements to public services (although I am 100% in favour of massive improvements to public services), because there's too great a disparity in pay, and current levels of wealth are grossly unequal. I would favour a top up payment to give everyone a minimum basic income, paid for by a wealth tax in the richest and higher tax on the highest paid.

Re Sandy's point about those not gainfully employed having plenty of time to fester resentment - I don't think resentment is coming from idleness. Was it the unemployed that rioted this Summer? More likely it was coming from people who are struggling, don't think they get enough for the work they do and then read the Mail/Express/Sun and listen to Farage/Robinson/Braverman/Jenrick/Musk.

[Stom]

I agree about being employed and still being unable to afford to survive. That’s unacceptable. Work must always pay. My wariness with the redistribution it ion approach is that unless jobs are created then too many people will be not gainfully employed and have plenty of time to fester resentments. Many people in deprived areas feel left behind and they have expressed that during the Brexit vote and more recently in rioting. The best way to reduce that resentment is to fix the problem regions where they face no perceived positive future.

I’m not against a bit of tax redistribution and equality, but I’m more concerned that we don’t end up with loads of benefits and think that’s fixed the problem.

Redistribution is better done through public services than benefits in most situations. Improved help and support,for the kind of things that rich people would just spend money on without thinking about it, would do the most to close the gap - schooling, health, social services, dentistry, transport, school meals, childcare, public facilities and areas, energy.

Puja

In this country we're not likely to achieve a significant enough increase in equality of wealth or decrease in poverty from improvements to public services (although I am 100% in favour of massive improvements to public services), because there's too great a disparity in pay, and current levels of wealth are grossly unequal. I would favour a top up payment to give everyone a minimum basic income, paid for by a wealth tax in the richest and higher tax on the highest paid.

Re Sandy's point about those not gainfully employed having plenty of time to fester resentment - I don't think resentment is coming from idleness. Was it the unemployed that rioted this Summer? More likely it was coming from people who are struggling, don't think they get enough for the work they do and then read the Mail/Express/Sun and listen to Farage/Robinson/Braverman/Jenrick/Musk.

This is an important point. Either there are no opportunities, they feel like there are no opportunities, or the opportunities that are available want to treat them like crap.

So, the answer...

It's complicated.

I still think the starting point HAS to be finding a way to increase corp. tax, introduce revenue taxes, and dividend tax.

On a broader note, I think that these massive infrastructure projects connecting London to Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds, et al., need to stop. That's not the problem. The problem is the local connections, and that's where the money should be spent.

[Puja]

I agree about being employed and still being unable to afford to survive. That’s unacceptable. Work must always pay. My wariness with the redistribution it ion approach is that unless jobs are created then too many people will be not gainfully employed and have plenty of time to fester resentments. Many people in deprived areas feel left behind and they have expressed that during the Brexit vote and more recently in rioting. The best way to reduce that resentment is to fix the problem regions where they face no perceived positive future.

I’m not against a bit of tax redistribution and equality, but I’m more concerned that we don’t end up with loads of benefits and think that’s fixed the problem.

Redistribution is better done through public services than benefits in most situations. Improved help and support,for the kind of things that rich people would just spend money on without thinking about it, would do the most to close the gap - schooling, health, social services, dentistry, transport, school meals, childcare, public facilities and areas, energy.

Puja

In this country we're not likely to achieve a significant enough increase in equality of wealth or decrease in poverty from improvements to public services (although I am 100% in favour of massive improvements to public services), because there's too great a disparity in pay, and current levels of wealth are grossly unequal. I would favour a top up payment to give everyone a minimum basic income, paid for by a wealth tax in the richest and higher tax on the highest paid.

In general I'd agree with your destination, but I think there's a lot of steps inbetween that can't be skipped over. Providing the essentials free-of-charge or greatly subsidised would require a lot less political upheaval than UBI and would achieve a lot of the same goals. Note that I would consider energy, water, internet, transport, and rental housing to be public services in this context.

Puja

[Stom]

Redistribution is better done through public services than benefits in most situations. Improved help and support,for the kind of things that rich people would just spend money on without thinking about it, would do the most to close the gap - schooling, health, social services, dentistry, transport, school meals, childcare, public facilities and areas, energy.

Puja

In this country we're not likely to achieve a significant enough increase in equality of wealth or decrease in poverty from improvements to public services (although I am 100% in favour of massive improvements to public services), because there's too great a disparity in pay, and current levels of wealth are grossly unequal. I would favour a top up payment to give everyone a minimum basic income, paid for by a wealth tax in the richest and higher tax on the highest paid.

In general I'd agree with your destination, but I think there's a lot of steps inbetween that can't be skipped over. Providing the essentials free-of-charge or greatly subsidised would require a lot less political upheaval than UBI and would achieve a lot of the same goals. Note that I would consider energy, water, internet, transport, and rental housing to be public services in this context.

Puja

Bringing transport, energy, and water under public control would lead to either lower bills or more money in government coffers for changes elsewhere.

I don't think internet comes under that umbrella, but I would put more rules in place around quality of service, as the standard in the UK is abysmal. Get some Romanians in to do it, their internet is incredibly good. Don't ask them about their 5G, though, that's not so good...

[Puja]

In this country we're not likely to achieve a significant enough increase in equality of wealth or decrease in poverty from improvements to public services (although I am 100% in favour of massive improvements to public services), because there's too great a disparity in pay, and current levels of wealth are grossly unequal. I would favour a top up payment to give everyone a minimum basic income, paid for by a wealth tax in the richest and higher tax on the highest paid.

In general I'd agree with your destination, but I think there's a lot of steps inbetween that can't be skipped over. Providing the essentials free-of-charge or greatly subsidised would require a lot less political upheaval than UBI and would achieve a lot of the same goals. Note that I would consider energy, water, internet, transport, and rental housing to be public services in this context.

Puja

Bringing transport, energy, and water under public control would lead to either lower bills or more money in government coffers for changes elsewhere.

I don't think internet comes under that umbrella, but I would put more rules in place around quality of service, as the standard in the UK is abysmal. Get some Romanians in to do it, their internet is incredibly good. Don't ask them about their 5G, though, that's not so good...

You wouldn't regard the internet as a vital public service nowadays?

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Redistribution is better done through public services than benefits in most situations. Improved help and support,for the kind of things that rich people would just spend money on without thinking about it, would do the most to close the gap - schooling, health, social services, dentistry, transport, school meals, childcare, public facilities and areas, energy.

Puja

In this country we're not likely to achieve a significant enough increase in equality of wealth or decrease in poverty from improvements to public services (although I am 100% in favour of massive improvements to public services), because there's too great a disparity in pay, and current levels of wealth are grossly unequal. I would favour a top up payment to give everyone a minimum basic income, paid for by a wealth tax in the richest and higher tax on the highest paid.

In general I'd agree with your destination, but I think there's a lot of steps inbetween that can't be skipped over. Providing the essentials free-of-charge or greatly subsidised would require a lot less political upheaval than UBI and would achieve a lot of the same goals. Note that I would consider energy, water, internet, transport, and rental housing to be public services in this context.

Puja

It would be great to do all those things and UBI. I don't really see one as better that the other, or as a necessary step to the other. I'd certainly argue that the economic stimulus and poverty reducing effect of UBI (or enhanced universal credit in the short term?) would be something we need immediately.

Of course, with the current government uninterested in any of those things (although Starmer did pretend to be when he ran for Labour leadership) it's all academic, resembling a golden liquid suspended in the breeze.

I agree that the internet is a public service (we're just not used to thinking of it that way) we should all have a right to access easily. I'd also add legal services - ie at the very least legal aid should be improved significantly.

[Mikey Brown]

I’ve not got the first clue what the answer would be, but I’d be interested to know how much money is spent on accounting for those people that don’t have internet access. It seems a bit ridiculous in this age.

[Stom]

In general I'd agree with your destination, but I think there's a lot of steps inbetween that can't be skipped over. Providing the essentials free-of-charge or greatly subsidised would require a lot less political upheaval than UBI and would achieve a lot of the same goals. Note that I would consider energy, water, internet, transport, and rental housing to be public services in this context.

Puja

Bringing transport, energy, and water under public control would lead to either lower bills or more money in government coffers for changes elsewhere.

I don't think internet comes under that umbrella, but I would put more rules in place around quality of service, as the standard in the UK is abysmal. Get some Romanians in to do it, their internet is incredibly good. Don't ask them about their 5G, though, that's not so good...

You wouldn't regard the internet as a vital public service nowadays?

Puja

It's just different. If a service can only be provided by one provider in an area, nationalise it. If it can be provided by multiple, regulate it.

So internet should be regulated, not nationalised.

The cables, though...the infrastructure...that needs nationalising, as BT are a complete s**t show.

[Mellsblue]

Bringing transport, energy, and water under public control would lead to either lower bills or more money in government coffers for changes elsewhere.

I don't think internet comes under that umbrella, but I would put more rules in place around quality of service, as the standard in the UK is abysmal. Get some Romanians in to do it, their internet is incredibly good. Don't ask them about their 5G, though, that's not so good...

You wouldn't regard the internet as a vital public service nowadays?

Puja

It's just different. If a service can only be provided by one provider in an area, nationalise it. If it can be provided by multiple, regulate it.

So internet should be regulated, not nationalised.

The cables, though...the infrastructure...that needs nationalising, as BT are a complete s**t show.

Cos public infrastructure projects are such a roaring success. Not that I think Openreach are doing a competent job.
IMO, it’s not who is providing the leading the infrastructure, it’s the system that everyone has to work in.
The whole planning system needs an overhaul, from a single dwelling to multibillion infrastructure projects. For all the talk of the Conservatives stripping back regulations, the opposite is true in construction. When Gove tried to implement some sensible streamlining - not less rigorous just subtle manipulations - to get house building numbers up he got his legs chopped from underneath him by the hysterical green lobby and, most laughably, the Lib Dems campaigning against it in a by election the Tories lost leading to the blue wall MPs soiling their pants and the policy being dropped.
I’ve worked in property/construction for just over 20 years and it all becomes more difficult and expensive to get stuff built by the year. There’s a happy medium but that is long in the rear view mirror, imo.

[Stom]

You wouldn't regard the internet as a vital public service nowadays?

Puja

It's just different. If a service can only be provided by one provider in an area, nationalise it. If it can be provided by multiple, regulate it.

So internet should be regulated, not nationalised.

The cables, though...the infrastructure...that needs nationalising, as BT are a complete s**t show.

Cos public infrastructure projects are such a roaring success. Not that I think Openreach are doing a competent job.
IMO, it’s not who is providing the leading the infrastructure, it’s the system that everyone has to work in.
The whole planning system needs an overhaul, from a single dwelling to multibillion infrastructure projects. For all the talk of the Conservatives stripping back regulations, the opposite is true in construction. When Gove tried to implement some sensible streamlining - not less rigorous just subtle manipulations - to get house building numbers up he got his legs chopped from underneath him by the hysterical green lobby and, most laughably, the Lib Dems campaigning against it in a by election the Tories lost leading to the blue wall MPs soiling their pants and the policy being dropped.
I’ve worked in property/construction for just over 20 years and it all becomes more difficult and expensive to get stuff built by the year. There’s a happy medium but that is long in the rear view mirror, imo.

Yes, I completely agree with this.

And then the people who "play by the rules" feel aggrieved when their neighbors construct abominations without permission, only to get retrospective permission. And then if they're in London...they blame it on Khan, because sure, it's always Khan's fault.

This is 14 years of Tory government, just like it's 14 years of Fidesz government here: things are falling apart and it just seems to be getting worse and worse.

[Mellsblue]

It's just different. If a service can only be provided by one provider in an area, nationalise it. If it can be provided by multiple, regulate it.

So internet should be regulated, not nationalised.

The cables, though...the infrastructure...that needs nationalising, as BT are a complete s**t show.

Cos public infrastructure projects are such a roaring success. Not that I think Openreach are doing a competent job.
IMO, it’s not who is providing the leading the infrastructure, it’s the system that everyone has to work in.
The whole planning system needs an overhaul, from a single dwelling to multibillion infrastructure projects. For all the talk of the Conservatives stripping back regulations, the opposite is true in construction. When Gove tried to implement some sensible streamlining - not less rigorous just subtle manipulations - to get house building numbers up he got his legs chopped from underneath him by the hysterical green lobby and, most laughably, the Lib Dems campaigning against it in a by election the Tories lost leading to the blue wall MPs soiling their pants and the policy being dropped.
I’ve worked in property/construction for just over 20 years and it all becomes more difficult and expensive to get stuff built by the year. There’s a happy medium but that is long in the rear view mirror, imo.

Yes, I completely agree with this.

And then the people who "play by the rules" feel aggrieved when their neighbors construct abominations without permission, only to get retrospective permission. And then if they're in London...they blame it on Khan, because sure, it's always Khan's fault.

This is 14 years of Tory government, just like it's 14 years of Fidesz government here: things are falling apart and it just seems to be getting worse and worse.

Yep, that’s right, it’s all the government’s fault. It’s as simple as that.

[Puja]

Bringing transport, energy, and water under public control would lead to either lower bills or more money in government coffers for changes elsewhere.

I don't think internet comes under that umbrella, but I would put more rules in place around quality of service, as the standard in the UK is abysmal. Get some Romanians in to do it, their internet is incredibly good. Don't ask them about their 5G, though, that's not so good...

You wouldn't regard the internet as a vital public service nowadays?

Puja

It's just different. If a service can only be provided by one provider in an area, nationalise it. If it can be provided by multiple, regulate it.

So internet should be regulated, not nationalised.

The cables, though...the infrastructure...that needs nationalising, as BT are a complete s**t show.

Hmmm. I can see your point on that one and also the potential efficiencies of competing providers in a market where such competition is possible, but this is in the context of reducing inequality by providing essential services cheap or free and I'd count broadband as one of those.

It's all irrelevant anyway, cause it'd never get past the current positioning of the Overton window in this country:



Puja

[Stom]

Cos public infrastructure projects are such a roaring success. Not that I think Openreach are doing a competent job.
IMO, it’s not who is providing the leading the infrastructure, it’s the system that everyone has to work in.
The whole planning system needs an overhaul, from a single dwelling to multibillion infrastructure projects. For all the talk of the Conservatives stripping back regulations, the opposite is true in construction. When Gove tried to implement some sensible streamlining - not less rigorous just subtle manipulations - to get house building numbers up he got his legs chopped from underneath him by the hysterical green lobby and, most laughably, the Lib Dems campaigning against it in a by election the Tories lost leading to the blue wall MPs soiling their pants and the policy being dropped.
I’ve worked in property/construction for just over 20 years and it all becomes more difficult and expensive to get stuff built by the year. There’s a happy medium but that is long in the rear view mirror, imo.

Yes, I completely agree with this.

And then the people who "play by the rules" feel aggrieved when their neighbors construct abominations without permission, only to get retrospective permission. And then if they're in London...they blame it on Khan, because sure, it's always Khan's fault.

This is 14 years of Tory government, just like it's 14 years of Fidesz government here: things are falling apart and it just seems to be getting worse and worse.

Yep, that’s right, it’s all the government’s fault. It’s as simple as that.

Well, yes, it does boil down to that.

Without strong leadership on an issue, it can be tough to push it through. Without reform of electoral systems or local government, we get silly things happening at local level. And without a plan to deal with NIMBYism, we don't get anywhere.

Here, we have a great local mayor, a good metropolitan mayor, and our local MP is a friend. Yet can they do everything that could be needed? No, because they're blocked by government.

[Mellsblue]

Yes, I completely agree with this.

And then the people who "play by the rules" feel aggrieved when their neighbors construct abominations without permission, only to get retrospective permission. And then if they're in London...they blame it on Khan, because sure, it's always Khan's fault.

This is 14 years of Tory government, just like it's 14 years of Fidesz government here: things are falling apart and it just seems to be getting worse and worse.

Yep, that’s right, it’s all the government’s fault. It’s as simple as that.

Well, yes, it does boil down to that.

Without strong leadership on an issue, it can be tough to push it through. Without reform of electoral systems or local government, we get silly things happening at local level. And without a plan to deal with NIMBYism, we don't get anywhere.

Here, we have a great local mayor, a good metropolitan mayor, and our local MP is a friend. Yet can they do everything that could be needed? No, because they're blocked by government.

The planning system here is incredibly decentralised and decisions can even come down to the opinion of a single planning officer or conservation officer. So I suppose you can blame govt for devolving power but then aren’t we all in favour of them doing that. They are also beholden to quangos such as Natural England, Historic England etc some of which, particularly Nat Eng recently, actively hamper govt objectives to increase housing supply. But aren’t we supposed to listen to experts. Add in shenanigans from the Lib Dems, as referenced above, and Labour, who are now claiming they will get Britain building (headline policy being exactly the same as the one Gove was forced to abandon after the Lib Dem by-election win) and it’s really not just as simple as it’s all the Tories fault.

[Mikey Brown]

Fascist.

[Mellsblue]

Finally, a sensible and well thought through argument.

You, Commie. You.

[Stom]

Yep, that’s right, it’s all the government’s fault. It’s as simple as that.

Well, yes, it does boil down to that.

Without strong leadership on an issue, it can be tough to push it through. Without reform of electoral systems or local government, we get silly things happening at local level. And without a plan to deal with NIMBYism, we don't get anywhere.

Here, we have a great local mayor, a good metropolitan mayor, and our local MP is a friend. Yet can they do everything that could be needed? No, because they're blocked by government.

The planning system here is incredibly decentralised and decisions can even come down to the opinion of a single planning officer or conservation officer. So I suppose you can blame govt for devolving power but then aren’t we all in favour of them doing that. They are also beholden to quangos such as Natural England, Historic England etc some of which, particularly Nat Eng recently, actively hamper govt objectives to increase housing supply. But aren’t we supposed to listen to experts. Add in shenanigans from the Lib Dems, as referenced above, and Labour, who are now claiming they will get Britain building (headline policy being exactly the same as the one Gove was forced to abandon after the Lib Dem by-election win) and it’s really not just as simple as it’s all the Tories fault.

Thanks. I’m not very well versed in the ins and outs of planning in the UK, I only have anecdotal evidence to go on.


My comment on the gov is more around the lack of interest in infrastructure projects that make a difference to people facing inequality, which is common to both the UK and Hungary. Focus on big projects that look good on paper but don’t make a big difference to the “working man” is a big problem and is not just a Tory problem, just it’s been worse the past decade. Not helped by Boris, as that’s his default setting.

[Sandydragon]

Yep, that’s right, it’s all the government’s fault. It’s as simple as that.

Well, yes, it does boil down to that.

Without strong leadership on an issue, it can be tough to push it through. Without reform of electoral systems or local government, we get silly things happening at local level. And without a plan to deal with NIMBYism, we don't get anywhere.

Here, we have a great local mayor, a good metropolitan mayor, and our local MP is a friend. Yet can they do everything that could be needed? No, because they're blocked by government.

The planning system here is incredibly decentralised and decisions can even come down to the opinion of a single planning officer or conservation officer. So I suppose you can blame govt for devolving power but then aren’t we all in favour of them doing that. They are also beholden to quangos such as Natural England, Historic England etc some of which, particularly Nat Eng recently, actively hamper govt objectives to increase housing supply. But aren’t we supposed to listen to experts. Add in shenanigans from the Lib Dems, as referenced above, and Labour, who are now claiming they will get Britain building (headline policy being exactly the same as the one Gove was forced to abandon after the Lib Dem by-election win) and it’s really not just as simple as it’s all the Tories fault.

Yeah, this is complicated. Government can and should encourage house building but it’s absolutely right that local government has the decision rights in most cases. There’s too much centralised power as it is.

[Sandydragon]

You wouldn't regard the internet as a vital public service nowadays?

Puja

It's just different. If a service can only be provided by one provider in an area, nationalise it. If it can be provided by multiple, regulate it.

So internet should be regulated, not nationalised.

The cables, though...the infrastructure...that needs nationalising, as BT are a complete s**t show.

Cos public infrastructure projects are such a roaring success. Not that I think Openreach are doing a competent job.
IMO, it’s not who is providing the leading the infrastructure, it’s the system that everyone has to work in.
The whole planning system needs an overhaul, from a single dwelling to multibillion infrastructure projects. For all the talk of the Conservatives stripping back regulations, the opposite is true in construction. When Gove tried to implement some sensible streamlining - not less rigorous just subtle manipulations - to get house building numbers up he got his legs chopped from underneath him by the hysterical green lobby and, most laughably, the Lib Dems campaigning against it in a by election the Tories lost leading to the blue wall MPs soiling their pants and the policy being dropped.
I’ve worked in property/construction for just over 20 years and it all becomes more difficult and expensive to get stuff built by the year. There’s a happy medium but that is long in the rear view mirror, imo.

Open reach is the sorts of both worlds. It’s basically a monopoly and one of the worst companies to deal with.

Equally rail franchises could work well. Virgins west coast franchise was excellent. You can keep private involvement but increase regulation. British rail was hardly a roaring success and I’ve little faith that government could effectively run a national railway service.