Re: The Economist view of the North : Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:36 am  

Euclid wrote: ... Is this just economic reality or another condescending article by lazy journalists out to perpetuate out of date stereotypes? My guess is lazy journalists, possibly with a rightward leaning. "The North" is a problem for the right wing electorally because, in the North, proportionally more middle-class people vote Labour than working class do in the South (source? ... er ... The Economist last year http://www.economist.com/node/21562938). Many in the North still haven't forgiven the acts of the 1980's, which they still see as an attempt to close down non-Tory regions, a notion that is not entirely untrue. Many more resent what they perceive as the Southern attitude. There is an erroneous school of thought in London (it frequently crops up in the Evening Standard) that London supports the rest of the UK. Those who subscribe to that view conveniently forget that a lot of the wealth that London "creates" is actually extracted via trading that could not occur were it not for the efforts of the rest of the country (and world). To suggest that the rest of the country should therefore be managed downwards is to imagine that the financial sector and the other sectors that service it are all we have, and that trickle-down economics works. Which is a) nonsense and b) undesirable in a balanced economy. The Economist often fails in genuine economic thinking.

Euclid wrote: ... Is this just economic reality or another condescending article by lazy journalists out to perpetuate out of date stereotypes? My guess is lazy journalists, possibly with a rightward leaning. "The North" is a problem for the right wing electorally because, in the North, proportionally more middle-class people vote Labour than working class do in the South (source? ... er ... The Economist last year http://www.economist.com/node/21562938). Many in the North still haven't forgiven the acts of the 1980's, which they still see as an attempt to close down non-Tory regions, a notion that is not entirely untrue. Many more resent what they perceive as the Southern attitude. There is an erroneous school of thought in London (it frequently crops up in the Evening Standard) that London supports the rest of the UK. Those who subscribe to that view conveniently forget that a lot of the wealth that London "creates" is actually extracted via trading that could not occur were it not for the efforts of the rest of the country (and world). To suggest that the rest of the country should therefore be managed downwards is to imagine that the financial sector and the other sectors that service it are all we have, and that trickle-down economics works. Which is a) nonsense and b) undesirable in a balanced economy. The Economist often fails in genuine economic thinking.

Re: The Economist view of the North : Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:04 pm  

The problem with the North is that the people there are fundamentally lazy. They prefer to sit at home moaning about a government from 30 years ago than going out to get a job. They seem to think that just because their grandfathers worked in coal mines, and those mines are no longer in operation, they are therefore unable to do any job in the world. Jobs such as working in supermarkets/ fast food outlets are viewed as being either (a) beyond their skills remit (even though many have never been in a coal mine that is the only job they can possibly do and since bloody Thatcher closed them down they are doomed to a life of unemployment), (b) beneath them (for some reason digging up a lump of carbon from the ground is heroic and noble whereas putting a lump of carbon on a shelf is degrading) or (c) not being worthwhile because they pay less than £1m per year.

People have slated the Evening Standard, but what it says is absolutely true. People in the South work hard - often 11-12 hours per day - and are entrepreneurial. They look for jobs and try their best. If they cannot find a job they set up their own business. They make the money that funds the idleness of the North - either through benefits to the unemployed or through the salaries of public sector non-jobs.

Why is it that immigrants are able to move to the North and get jobs, yet the indigenous locals have been unable to do so for 30 years? Given the national minimum wage, the argument that immigrants are cheaper doesn't really wash.

What is even worse is that they seem to think that they have some sort of inane right to be given the hard-earned money of people in the South. If the nation elects a Tory government that decides to steal less money from the hard-working people in the South there is uproar at the policies of the nasty Tories. Why should 4 hours of my labour each day be used to provide the funds for the unemployed to sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle, smoking and getting high?

Re: The Economist view of the North : Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:12 pm  

David Titan wrote:

Why is it that immigrants are able to move to the North and get jobs, yet the indigenous locals have been unable to do so for 30 years?

Because most immigrants can speak better English.

Re: The Economist view of the North : Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:13 am  

David Titan wrote:

The problem with the North is that the people there are fundamentally lazy. They prefer to sit at home moaning about a government from 30 years ago than going out to get a job. They seem to think that just because their grandfathers worked in coal mines, and those mines are no longer in operation, they are therefore unable to do any job in the world. Jobs such as working in supermarkets/ fast food outlets are viewed as being either (a) beyond their skills remit (even though many have never been in a coal mine that is the only job they can possibly do and since bloody Thatcher closed them down they are doomed to a life of unemployment), (b) beneath them (for some reason digging up a lump of carbon from the ground is heroic and noble whereas putting a lump of carbon on a shelf is degrading) or (c) not being worthwhile because they pay less than £1m per year.

People have slated the Evening Standard, but what it says is absolutely true. People in the South work hard - often 11-12 hours per day - and are entrepreneurial. They look for jobs and try their best. If they cannot find a job they set up their own business. They make the money that funds the idleness of the North - either through benefits to the unemployed or through the salaries of public sector non-jobs.

Why is it that immigrants are able to move to the North and get jobs, yet the indigenous locals have been unable to do so for 30 years? Given the national minimum wage, the argument that immigrants are cheaper doesn't really wash.

What is even worse is that they seem to think that they have some sort of inane right to be given the hard-earned money of people in the South. If the nation elects a Tory government that decides to steal less money from the hard-working people in the South there is uproar at the policies of the nasty Tories. Why should 4 hours of my labour each day be used to provide the funds for the unemployed to sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle, smoking and getting high?

Nowhere near subtle enough if you want a bend in the rod.
Must try harder.

Re: The Economist view of the North : Sat Oct 19, 2013 6:03 am  

There is one part of Titans monologue that is absolutely true - the bit about how up here in the North we refuse to put lumps of carbon on shop shelves because its beneath us.

Why just this morning I was down our local co-op for some coal fo't bairns snap box and the shelves were bare, when I asked Arkwright WTF he was doing he just folded his arms in that most stubborn of ways and shouted out the back for Tomas the Pole to shift his idle backside out here and get some co-il on these ere bloody shelves and while the bloody idle Pole dragged a sack in from the yard me and Arkwright had a right good chinwag about how you can't get the staff these days and in his fatha's time you'd never have seen empty coal shelves like that, bloody disgrace I tell you, don't know what this worlds coming to, my bairns nearly missed first bell waiting for their snap boxes.

Re: The Economist view of the North : Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:35 pm  

David Titan wrote:

Why should every hour of my labour each day be used to provide the funds for the idle rich to sit at home watching financial indices, smoking and getting high?

Typos changed and highlighted in RED just to make it easier for you to comprehend.

I know that it may be a lost cause, but at least I still have humanity and don't mind helping people out less fortunate than myself. In your case it is helping you in understanding how to apply common sense and logic, but I must admit it is a struggle but then perseverance and hard work pays off in the long run dosn't it?

Or is that just right wing froth?

Re: The Economist view of the North : Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:34 am  

David Titan wrote:

The problem with the North is that the people there are fundamentally lazy ... <snip> ... People in the South work hard ...

Titan, old chap, you need to change your bait.