The Economist view of the North : Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:57 pm  

I read this secondhand in the torygraph; it seems The Econmist magazine believes the North-South gap is now so wide that whole towns in the North should be "closed" and local residents helped to find employment elsewhere. It argues that pouring Government money in as investment hasn't worked. Burnley, Hull, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool were apparently cited, among others. As a teenager I lived near Burnley, and on a recent visit it did seem a shadow of its former self, yet I think I can recall the town winning an award for enterprise recently. Is this just economic reality or another condescending article by lazy journalists out to perpetuate out of date stereotypes?

Re: The Economist view of the North : Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:09 pm  

Thatcher tried to close a lot of Northern towns.
They are still open I believe but just full of kids pushing prams, druggies and lazy benefit claimants.
We could try bombing them I suppose?

Re: The Economist view of the North : Sat Oct 12, 2013 1:18 pm  

...because there are no successful companies in Hull ?

How do they measure the success of investing tax payers money into development areas, (and its not always hard cash its often in the form of tax relief), is it when companies that southern based finance writers have heard of then open businesses in those areas or do they actually go and visit the area and have a look around for themselves ?

I can't say that Hull looks anymore or any less derelict than any other city I've been in recently.

Re: The Economist view of the North : Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:34 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

Thatcher tried to close a lot of Northern towns.
They are still open I believe but just full of kids pushing prams, druggies and lazy benefit claimants.
We could try bombing them I suppose?

Nice one!!

Re: The Economist view of the North : Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:06 pm  

Its not just the condescending view of lazy journalists its also the view of most of the rugby league supporting community.

On rlfans I see loads of posts saying Bradford, Hull, Salford, Wakey, Widnes, St Helens etc are just a dump and a poophole and why would anyone want to live there?

Re: The Economist view of the North : Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:38 pm  

1) The Economist is somewhat better than "lazy journalism", whether one agrees with its opinions or not. It's also a quite serious reflection of what some quite powerful people are thinking.

2) It was Willie Whitelaw who talked about the 'managed decline' of Liverpool. The difference here is that it's apparently being discussed in a rather more open way.

Re: The Economist view of the North : Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:21 pm  

With the UK's apparent obssession with being part of the EU, what has happened to the North will happen to London and the SE within the next 30 years. We are too far from the centre of power in the EU to be anything other than a backwater in the future.

Re: The Economist view of the North : Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:35 pm  

Did they mention insular, tribal and less tolerant than the south too?

Re: The Economist view of the North : Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:58 pm  

Dally wrote:

With the UK's apparent obssession with being part of the EU, what has happened to the North will happen to London and the SE within the next 30 years. We are too far from the centre of power in the EU to be anything other than a backwater in the future.

EU funding and grants have often been the only or biggest source of funds for projects in some of the poorest areas of Britain.

Re: The Economist view of the North : Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:05 am  

Him wrote:

EU funding and grants have often been the only or biggest source of funds for projects in some of the poorest areas of Britain.

A point that I make over and over again and one of the principal aims of the EU, take a country lacking in or with poor infrastructure, invest in it with new roads, attract businesses to invest in it, then draw the levy some years later and repeat for the next impoverished country - the UK was that impoverished country once.