Regional Preference in the UK?

[Racheya]

I'm talking about the UK specifically, but if this sort of thing happens (or you think it happens) in your country then go ahead and post :)

 

For many people (particularly us up north) it feels like there is an ever-growing focus on the South East & London. It's very rare you'll find something of importance going on outside of the SE and a significant amount of jobs and government spending is focused down there.

 

Yet, there are still a LOT of us people out here in the the rest of the country who are feeling a significant lack of funding and prosperity. I'll give you an example:

 

A £1 billion programme to hugely improve train services in Manchester and across the North is unlikely to go ahead because the Government says it cannot afford it. But within hours of saying it was having problems spending money on the electrification of lines because of the state of the public finances, ministers backed Londons Crossrail improvement, which will cost £16 billion.

 

Last night campaigners condemned out-of-touch politicians for neglecting Bolton and its overcrowded carriages, and instead spending all their money in the south. Preva Crossley, a local rail campaigner, said: Again and again we are seeing everything good going south. If we were hosting the 2012 Olympics in Manchester, then we may have had a chance of getting some much-needed improvements here but everything is centred on the south and it is not good enough."

 

The Department for Transport and the ministers need to come up and have a look at how bad the problem is with over-crowding because they seem very out of touch. Responding to a question in the House of Lords, Lord Atlee a Conservative peer claimed that the coalition government remained committed to High Speed 2, which included electrification of lines through Bolton. But he indicated that the plan, which had been mooted by the previous Labour government, would not be going ahead in the near future. You will understand the problems about expenditure on electrification in the current economic climate, he said.

 

As Lord Atlee delivered the news, Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said his government would find the £16 billion to spend on further improving Londons rail infrastructure over the next seven years.

 

Article link

 

Also, in today's Budget it was mentioned that the government will be putting incentives in place that will encourage businesses to operate outside of the South/London zone, so the government does recognise that there is a problem, but will their measures be enough? Or do you think that London should be given more preference - it *is* the Capital?

[Blutters]

In the US, there always seems to be a focus on California, Florida, and New York. However, I don't think it's the government's doing, so maybe this isn't similar to your issue.

[nickeley102]

In NZ the capital is not the financial or populationcentre of the country. This comes with its own problems, obviously its inconvenient that significant trading doesn't occur there. People from Wellington often work in public service and get paid significantly less, this can cause them to harbour resentment.

 

Anyhow, this relates to me from a different angle... I just recieved my UK passport and am planning on moving to London and working as a relief teacher. Teacher pay isnt regulated there like it is here and I will earn about 130-150 pounds a day. Will this be enough to live on?

[tortilliachp]

Norway has severe over-representation of the districts in national government. decentralization is therefore a huge thing in government, however there isn't much that can be done about it. the seat representation in districts was set in 1946/7 and hasn't been changed since, even adjusted to population because someone would have to relinquish power. That would be a major disservice to their electorate, and therefore political suicide.

 

Roads etc. need to have a utilitarian value; all tax projects need to maximize the return to tax payers. that's a hellishly difficult balance to find.

[Giordano]

In the US, there always seems to be a focus on California, Florida, and New York. However, I don't think it's the government's doing, so maybe this isn't similar to your issue.

It is, some of it, mostly due to the [bleep]s at Sacramento who can't keep a budget balanced.

[Lenticular_J]

Nobody much cares about the South. We make do.

[rangeor]

In America, it really depends on how you define regional preference... If you mean it in the broadest sense such as in where the government spends the most money, then GaVaTi pretty much hit the nail on the head. Though there are a couple areas he left out, those really get all the attention.

 

However if you specify, things change. If you have any hope of making a break in the gaming industry, then you wouldn't have very much luck if you didn't live in Austin, Texas, southern California, or Washington state. It's actually very interesting in the graphic design field. There are about 17,000 difference graphic design jobs in NYC, but if you looked outside of NYC in the same state, you'd rarely find a city with more than 2,000 graphic design jobs.

 

Generally if someone wants a job in the very vast entertainment industry, they'd better look at the big cities. However, it's nice that for other jobs location isn't as important. You can find a decent engineering job in most states, though Washington, D.C. does seem to be popular for that.

[Racheya]

In NZ the capital is not the financial or populationcentre of the country. This comes with its own problems, obviously its inconvenient that significant trading doesn't occur there. People from Wellington often work in public service and get paid significantly less, this can cause them to harbour resentment.

 

Anyhow, this relates to me from a different angle... I just recieved my UK passport and am planning on moving to London and working as a relief teacher. Teacher pay isnt regulated there like it is here and I will earn about 130-150 pounds a day. Will this be enough to live on?

That much a day is enough to live on, I'd say (we live on like... £200 a week). But, living in London is particularly more expensive and the sort of lifestyle that you'd want to live (housing, evenings out, furniture or whatever) would eat into into your money, likely. Then again, I'm probably not the best person for this :P

[Hobgoblinpie]

In NZ the capital is not the financial or populationcentre of the country. This comes with its own problems, obviously its inconvenient that significant trading doesn't occur there. People from Wellington often work in public service and get paid significantly less, this can cause them to harbour resentment.

 

Anyhow, this relates to me from a different angle... I just recieved my UK passport and am planning on moving to London and working as a relief teacher. Teacher pay isnt regulated there like it is here and I will earn about 130-150 pounds a day. Will this be enough to live on?

 

It depends where in London really. I'm currently renting a 5 bedroom house in Kingston (not really London, but very close) which is £1870 a month (split between 5 people). So assuming you wanted a 1 bedroom flat (and not a particularly large flat), it'd be around £500 per month. At £130 a day, you would only need to work one week to pay for it. Places in central London (and I mean central) are ridiculously expensive. For instance, a 1 bedroom flat in Canary Wharf will set you back £5695 per week. Obviously, you can find better deals if you look around.

 

In terms of being enough to live on, Housing and bills will be your biggest expenses, and working 1 week wold easily pay for that (at £130 a day for a 5 day week). Food will be around £40-£50 a week (or less if you shop around) and nights out will depend where you go really, and how often. Supposing that you go out every Friday to a pub, buying all your drinks and not getting totally drunk, around £30 is reasonable. £500+£200+£100+£120 = £920 = 6 days (and a bit) if you exclude tax.

 

Short Answer: Yes.

 

 

On Topic: Since the capital of England is London, I can't say that it is totally unfair that the South East gets the most attention (combined with the London 2012 olympics). I will say that it's not fair that other places (including the rest of south east England) don't benefit, and the country being in insane debt doesn't help matters (£1.3 Trillion was the last I heard). I live about Halfway between London and Brighton, and can safely say that a lot of the South East isn't receiving the funding it needs (along with everywhere else in the UK).

[mcneilp]

There were a couple of big issues in Scotland, Edinburgh in particular about government spending on building the Scottish parliament building. Initially, IIRC, it was supposed to cost somewhere between £20-50 million to build which, amid a [cabbage]storm of controversy, ended up costing £400+ million.

I can't really comment on the situation in England or wherever but there are always pieces in the news about good organisations and government funded schemes which shut down as they're not being funded or supported anymore.

[Sam]

London seems to be where it's at, which is stupid. My school is really quite poor, yet 20 or so miles away, I used to go to one of the best state schools in the country with a huge amount of funding. How our money is shared out around the country really needs to be addressed because I feel, as will many others, that it's problem that's rife within many communities.

[Lenticular_J]

In America, it really depends on how you define regional preference... If you mean it in the broadest sense such as in where the government spends the most money, then GaVaTi pretty much hit the nail on the head. Though there are a couple areas he left out, those really get all the attention.

 

However if you specify, things change. If you have any hope of making a break in the gaming industry, then you wouldn't have very much luck if you didn't live in Austin, Texas, southern California, or Washington state. It's actually very interesting in the graphic design field. There are about 17,000 difference graphic design jobs in NYC, but if you looked outside of NYC in the same state, you'd rarely find a city with more than 2,000 graphic design jobs.

 

Generally if someone wants a job in the very vast entertainment industry, they'd better look at the big cities. However, it's nice that for other jobs location isn't as important. You can find a decent engineering job in most states, though Washington, D.C. does seem to be popular for that.

Dallas is becoming a big center for computers, too, although not necessarily gaming. And Houston attracts tons of engineers and doctors due to oil companies and a massive medical district.

 

But Texas kicks ass.

[Giordano]

California and Texas has the biggest econmical activity than the entire eastern seaboard. The West will rise!

[Rainy_Day]

Nobody much cares about the South. We make do.

Hear hear. Nothing much of interest happens in Devon, but I don't mind. The Government doesn't turn a blind eye, and there are many people down here. Just nothing worth spreading in the media. :mrgreen:

[Will H]

They're putting the little money the government has left into London only because of the Olympics. Yes, we shouldn't have applied for the Olympics in the first place, but it's the best of a foolish idea. We can't spend any more money on big projects anywhere because we need to cut the government deficit. Hosting the Olympics in London was down to regional bias, it was a mistake, but the government will get more returns from doing it in London than anywhere else. It means that less public spending will be cut in the rest of the country.

 

The article makes the mistake in thinking that if the government can spend £16 billion on something it can spend a further £1 billion on something else. You could continue that train of thought as an argument that the government has enough money to spend on anything in the country which would cost less than £16 billion, which is pretty much everything.