-
@Oliver Schick - isn't there also a double standard here?
Lots of people were up in arms about London councils moving their tenants to other places because they couldn't house them locally. What's the difference? If they all did that wouldn't it be a great way to free London and SE housing stock and relocate the population to less populated areas?
It comes across as thought you're talking about forceably dispersing the population.
I categorically would never support that. It's wrong and always hits poor and vulnerable people.
Personally speaking I'd ideally live in London proper rather than just outside. I wouldn't mind living on the south cost. I wouldn't want to live in the Middlands or North because it would put me away from family, and tbh I just don't want to. Although I know I often make digs about Norfolk if they built a fuck off big motorway and high speed railway I'd really like to live in one of the nice bits.
I've lived in London for nearly 26 years and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. But just look at the number of people in the 'Moving out of London' thread or in this very thread who are looking to move out of London. Plenty of people would prefer to live in smaller places and are tired of/stressed out by London. No-one needs to be 'forcibly' relocated.
To spell out a little more of what's missing: The UK needs more regional government, not necessarily devolution as it's been pursued for some time, but federalism, with regional authorities having real powers about their areas and economic development, as well as a crucial role as authorities emblematic of local and regional civic pride. Keeping it all centralised in Whitehall is simply nonsense. It needs clear policies to support manufacturing industries and other ways of diversifying and re-diversifying the economy. It needs to give people other things to invest in than just property. It obviously (but won't under the Tories) needs to reduce injustice and inequality. And so forth. Without these corrective measures, the British economy will remain extremely vulnerable.
living on the south cost.
Sounds pricey. :)
£5 says that shit loads of people feel exactly the same way which is exactly why it's about more than just jobs and housing stock.
Well, yes, it definitely is. However, this is the issue we were talking about and it's also the subject of this thread.
You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Oliver Schick
@Oliver Schick - isn't there also a double standard here?
Lots of people were up in arms about London councils moving their tenants to other places because they couldn't house them locally. What's the difference? If they all did that wouldn't it be a great way to free London and SE housing stock and relocate the population to less populated areas?
It comes across as thought you're talking about forceably dispersing the population.
Personally speaking I'd ideally live in London proper rather than just outside. I wouldn't mind living on the south cost. I wouldn't want to live in the Middlands or North because it would put me away from family, and tbh I just don't want to. Although I know I often make digs about Norfolk if they built a fuck off big motorway and high speed railway I'd really like to live in one of the nice bits.
£5 says that shit loads of people feel exactly the same way which is exactly why it's about more than just jobs and housing stock.