New Tory Leader

[horsefly 4,351]

13 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

If I recall the forces i.e. RAF do offer some gradate or officer training payment scheme whereby you sign up at 18 for an engineering degree with some expectation that you will do a further 2 years or so for them once you graduate. You'd have to love being in the forces though ! Works for some.

Can't see it working for the NHS beyond a year or two (and junior doctors will be working in the NHS  2 year plus even after the 5 years basic MBBS degree anyway).

The real truth is that as we now expect students of all professions to leave University with what by our boomer standards are huge debts - we are going to have to get used to paying them a lot more for their services going forward else other countries beckon.

Indeed! They are very limited places, and only require a couple of years service. The overwhelming majority of graduate applicants into the armed service are not sponsored. The idea that the whole of our NHS staff could be recruited on a scheme that enforces 10-years service is utterly insane and will never even be contemplated because so.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Indeed! They are very limited places, and only require a couple of years service. The overwhelming majority of graduate applicants into the armed service are not sponsored. The idea that the whole of our NHS staff could be recruited on a scheme that enforces 10-years service is utterly insane and will never even be contemplated because so.

You are lying to yourself at this point.

Rewards and incentivises 10 years service, not enforce. For the sixth or seventh time.

Edited July 22, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[horsefly 4,351]

13 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

NHS vacancies in June 2021 stood at over 93,000. The job is no longer enticing and the rewards are very poor. Something needs to change. 

It certainly does. Pay, working conditions, etc, etc. all need to improve. One thing guaranteed to increase vacancies on a massive scale would be a scheme that forced prospective applicants to medical and nursing degrees to contemplate 10-years of forced labour in those very conditions. 

[horsefly 4,351]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

You are lying to yourself at this point.

Rewards and incentivise 10 years service, not enforce. For the sixth or seventh time.

Hahaha! you can play with words all you like, but a student bright enough to contemplate doing a medical degree will know full well that the prospect of incurring a £300,000 debt or working for 10-years looks very much like enforced labour when it comes to actual reality. That same bright student will also know full well that they will have the prospect of applying abroad, or applying for an entirely different degree that might offer better pay, better conditions and the normal freedom of labour enjoyed by other graduates. Yeah! those options would really incentivise a student to apply for medicine wouldn't they, FFS!

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

31 minutes ago, horsefly said:

It certainly does. Pay, working conditions, etc, etc. all need to improve. One thing guaranteed to increase vacancies on a massive scale would be a scheme that forced prospective applicants to medical and nursing degrees to contemplate 10-years of forced labour in those very conditions. 

You really are a massive pr*ck and @MidlandsYellow knows full well that I wasn't advocating for that, as does anybody else literate, and I'm sure he could tell you that loads of his colleagues would be chuffed to have no tuition fee debt in return for 10 years of service.

Edited July 22, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

21 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Yes, a similar scheme could also exist for Maths teachers, that's the most difficult type of teacher to recruit.

10 years service as a maths teacher, tuition fees wiped. Good idea. 

Most mathematics graduates go into lucrative computer programming or banking jobs, and that example works perfectly. We could and should use incentives like this to recruit where there are severe labour shortages, like in nursing and maths teachers.

I wasn't agreeing with you, I was just extrapolating your idea across areas where fess are involved in training.

It just doesn't and wouldn't work. I was apprenticed in Printing at Jarrold. After my five years training I waan't told I had to work for them for another five years. I was free to leave them. They as a Company had trained me for an industry, not just for them. After two years, and after completing a Graphic Design Course at their expense, I upped sticks at went to NZ.

You cannot morally tie someone to a narrow field.

Extrapolating your theory, should we look at how many females are trained or educated and then after two or three years have a child. There are incentives for that female to return but no compulsion.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

13 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I wasn't agreeing with you, I was just extrapolating your idea across areas where fess are involved in training.

It just doesn't and wouldn't work. I was apprenticed in Printing at Jarrold. After my five years training I waan't told I had to work for them for another five years. I was free to leave them. They as a Company had trained me for an industry, not just for them. After two years, and after completing a Graphic Design Course at their expense, I upped sticks at went to NZ.

You cannot morally tie someone to a narrow field.

Extrapolating your theory, should we look at how many females are trained or educated and then after two or three years have a child. There are incentives for that female to return but no compulsion.

I wouldn't be tying anybody to anything.

At the moment nurses pay £27000 in tuition fees for their nursing degree, that's subjected to high interest rates and they have no real prospect of ever paying it off. 

I'm advocating that they have the option to pay £0 in tuition fees, but there would be a 10 year service expectation. They can leave after 5 years and f*ck off to New Zealand, but I'd suggest that they'd be on the hook proportionately for those tuition fees, so £13500 in that example, but they wouldn't need to find a big lump sum to buy themselves out of the contract... this could simply be a conventional £13500 SLC student loan.

At the moment if they get a nursing degree and f*ck off to New Zealand, they'll still be on the hook for the whole £27000 plus interest.

As for women having children, these days most mothers still have to work, at least part-time, and if having a second child aren't going to be leaving employment and walking away from maternity entitlement, particularly if enhanced as in public sector.

The average age of a first time mother in the UK now is 29.1 years old and rising fast, so as for "how many females are trained or educated then after two or three years have a child", I'd argue very few, more like 8 years post-graduation and rising. 

But if female did graduate at 21, leave the NHS at 24 to start a family with no intention of returning, they'd still be better off in my system as they'd be on the hook for 70% of their tuition fees, rather than the 100% they are currently on the hook for. Its a simple means of rewarding loyalty by reducing debt burden.

Something radical needs to happen, at the moment above-inflation pay increases are unrealistic, there needs to be other methods explored to improve recruitment and retention of nurses.

Edited July 22, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

10 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I wouldn't be tying anybody to anything.

At the moment nurses pay £27000 in tuition fees for their nursing degree, that's subjected to high interest rates and they have no real prospect of ever paying it off. 

I'm advocating that they have the option to pay £0 in tuition fees, but there would be a 10 year service expectation. They can leave after 5 years and f*ck off to New Zealand, but I'd suggest that they'd be on the hook proportionately for those tuition fees, so £13500 in that example, but they wouldn't need to find a big lump sum to buy themselves out of the contract... this could simply be a conventional £13500 SLC student loan.

At the moment if they get a nursing degree and f*ck off to New Zealand, they'll still be on the hook for the whole £27000 plus interest.

As for women having children, these days most mothers still have to work, at least part-time, and if having a second child aren't going to be leaving employment and walking away from maternity entitlement, particularly if enhanced as in public sector.

The average age of a first time mother in the UK now is 29.1 years old and rising fast, so as for "how many females are trained or educated then after two or three years have a child", I'd argue very few, more like 8 years post-graduation and rising. 

But if female did graduate at 21, leave the NHS at 24 to start a family with no intention of returning, they'd still be better off in my system as they'd be on the hook for 70% of their tuition fees, rather than the 100% they are currently on the hook for. Its a simple means of rewarding loyalty by reducing debt burden.

Something radical needs to happen, at the moment above-inflation pay increases are unrealistic, there needs to be other methods explored to improve recruitment and retention of nurses.

Are above inflation increases only unrealistic for public service employees, and private sector for that matter. The same can apply to shareholders and bosses?

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

15 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Are above inflation increases only unrealistic for public service employees, and private sector for that matter. The same can apply to shareholders and bosses?

I personally believe that CEO salaries should be capped at a multiple of the lowest paid employees in a business, at a level which would see a lot of FTSE 100 CEOs having to give their salaries a big haircut.

Not sure what point you are making about shareholders, as dividend growth definitely isn't outpacing inflation right now. Its a more complex issue as 14 million normal people rely on money purchase pensions which are invested in FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies and index trackers.

It is shareholders who are able to vote against CEO remuneration though, and often do, shareholders are becoming increasingly militant and there have been numerous examples recently of shareholders voting against executive salary proposals. Huge CEO salaries = robbing from shareholders and pensions.

My pay award this year was below inflation, I think this is the norm at the moment.

Did you have nothing to say about the rest of my post? Or are you just looking to point score like Horsefly?

Edited July 22, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[Herman 9,911]

7 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

What will change regarding Brexit under Labour? 

I think Purple covered it but I feel that Labour will be less belligerent, more pragmatic and far less xenophobic. We may then get our economy into better shape. 

[Yellow Fever 3,881]

8 minutes ago, Herman said:

I think Purple covered it but I feel that Labour will be less belligerent, more pragmatic and far less xenophobic. We may then get our economy into better shape. 

Simply grown up, thought through policies coupled with not digging ever deeper European holes to fall into - and not the current Tory make believe, fairy-tale self-contradicting economics which we've had since 2016 and apparently so beloved of Truss.

At the moment Labour not the Tories are the party of sound money and economic competence besides much else!

Edited July 22, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[KiwiScot 1,505]

I think with the The Tory leadership race the main question or want is.

Everyone can take part in the Rays Funds/Pups threads this season. Pick a team to win in any week you want to and it helps raise money for charity. Starts 3rd August.

This spam was brought to you by the muchmoreinterestingthantoriestryingtobeatlabour company.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

38 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I personally believe that CEO salaries should be capped at a multiple of the lowest paid employees in a business, at a level which would see a lot of FTSE 100 CEOs having to give their salaries a big haircut.

Not sure what point you are making about shareholders, as dividend growth definitely isn't outpacing inflation right now. Its a more complex issue as 14 million normal people rely on money purchase pensions which are invested in FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies and index trackers.

It is shareholders who are able to vote against CEO remuneration though, and often do, shareholders are becoming increasingly militant and there have been numerous examples recently of shareholders voting against executive salary proposals. Huge CEO salaries = robbing from shareholders and pensions.

My pay award this year was below inflation, I think this is the norm at the moment.

Did you have nothing to say about the rest of my post? Or are you just looking to point score like Horsefly?

I have tried to genuinely debate with you so am not about scoring points. So I am giving up on the rest of your post. I am never going to get you to change your mind and I have let you post your thoughts and they are there for everyone to see. I have tried to point out where you are completely wrong about it but you still keep banging on about restraint of trade against someone who has graduated no matter what field they are in.

Simple really. All education and training should be free to the user. Whether that be sponsorship by a company or by the state. Why on earth are we letting standards slip because we are penalising the less well off.

And shareholders demands for greater profits rather than providing a service is what is spoiling this country and the World. That is why Blair was an idiot for getting Conference to delete Clause 4. Energy, if nothing else, should be publicly owned. For instance, explain to me why in 2008 when oil was $144 a barrel, a litre of fuel in the UK was £1.08. Last week, oil was $113 a barrel and it was £1.98 a litre. Not shareholders driving profits higher?

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

All education and training should be free to the user. Whether that be sponsorship by a company or by the state. Why on earth are we letting standards slip because we are penalising the less well off.

The cost of scrapping tuition fees was calculated at being £7.53bn a year when Labour proposed this in 2017, that's the amount that the treasury would need to find to make up the shortfall in university funding.

Up thread you asked me what I would cut to fund a £12bn decrease in National Insurance (reversing the Sunak increase, as advocated for by Truss); I couldn't give you a fully costed answer, but trimming the fat from HMRC and the DWP is a starting point. 

So only fair that I direct the same question at you; who or what are you depriving of £7.53bn to fund this? 

[Yellow Fever 3,881]

9 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

The cost of scrapping tuition fees was calculated at being £7.53bn a year when Labour proposed this in 2017, that's the amount that the treasury would need to find to make up the shortfall in university funding.

Up thread you asked me what I would cut to fund a £12bn decrease in National Insurance (reversing the Sunak increase, as advocated for by Truss); I couldn't give you a fully costed answer, but trimming the fat from HMRC and the DWP is a starting point. 

So only fair that I direct the same question at you; who or what are you depriving of £7.53bn to fund this? 

There is a very real argument that tertiary education is an investment in the countries future. Much more sensible to borrow for this than for tax cuts!

The deeper point though is that if I recall there is also an argument that the tuition fees and student loans have not in reality saved much if any money for the state - as many who graduate on lower pay (the nurses and so on) don't in effect ever pay it back and much then gets written off.

Ergo it make much more sense in the round to return to free tuition!

Edited July 22, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

20 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

There is a very real argument that tertiary education is an investment in the countries future. Much more sensible to borrow for this than for tax cuts!

The deeper point though is that if I recall there is also an argument that the tuition fees and student loans have not in reality saved much if any money for the state - as many who graduate on lower pay (the nurses and so on) don't in effect ever pay it back and much then gets written off.

Ergo it make much more sense in the round to return to free tuition!

But that's £7.5bn each year that needs to be found to fund the existing number of higher education students, not for an increase in the number of graduates.

There would of course be an additional increase in demand for places, which would require a substantial investment in new universities to build and fund, and much more than £7.5bn a year if allowed to happen, and you then have other arguments about whether the economy needs more people spending 3 years studying full time rather than working full time at this time of low unemployment and labour shortages, a better argument could probably be made for government funding of HGV licenses, considering there is a measurable shortage of HGV drivers and a direct link to recent food price inflation. Is it really more honours graduates that we need?

I otherwise partially agree with the sentiment, that I want to live in a well educated society and penalising people for attempting to become well educated feels a bit backwards. 

We still need to find £7.5bn a year from somewhere today though to fund it, with no increase in student numbers, so asking how it would be funded is a valid question.

Edited July 22, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

27 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

The cost of scrapping tuition fees was calculated at being £7.53bn a year when Labour proposed this in 2017, that's the amount that the treasury would need to find to make up the shortfall in university funding.

Up thread you asked me what I would cut to fund a £12bn decrease in National Insurance (reversing the Sunak increase, as advocated for by Truss); I couldn't give you a fully costed answer, but trimming the fat from HMRC and the DWP is a starting point. 

So only fair that I direct the same question at you; who or what are you depriving of £7.53bn to fund this? 

Maybe I wouldn't be depriving anyone. It was a short term and frankly daft idea to impose fees on education. And how many people have neither entered full or part time further education, gained degrees or certificates let alone training to enjoy well paid jobs and pay it back in increased taxes. Yes Taxes. Whether on income or increased spending ability. Let alone the non intrinsic value to the economy.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

22 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Maybe I wouldn't be depriving anyone. It was a short term and frankly daft idea to impose fees on education. And how many people have neither entered full or part time further education, gained degrees or certificates let alone training to enjoy well paid jobs and pay it back in increased taxes. Yes Taxes. Whether on income or increased spending ability. Let alone the non intrinsic value to the economy.

Tuition fees were introduced by Labour in 1998, at which point there were around 1.2 million 18-24 year olds in full-time education of some description. Today that figure is around 2.3 million. 

Don't make the mistake of thinking that scrapping tuition fees would result in greater levels of participation in higher education, the reality is that free higher education means there will be restrictions on the number of places available and a situation where institutions are a lot more selective / raise the academic barriers to entry. That won't benefit the poor, it will benefit the students of £30k a year A*A*A*A* factory's. 

Personally I think the Open University should be much cheaper than it is, and receive a higher government subsidy, its been a lifeline to many as a means of escaping a situation or improving your lot, single mothers etc who can't attend an institution.

I think free higher education is an unrealistic goal for a country £2 trillion in debt with no sovereign wealth fund, and I don't think it would have the results that you think it would.

Edited July 22, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[Nuff Said 5,307]

39 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

But that's £7.5bn each year that needs to be found to fund the existing number of higher education students, not for an increase in the number of graduates.

Is that £7.5 billion per year, or £7.5 billion to pay all student debt accrued since loans were introduced? Genuine question as I suspect it’s the latter but don’t know (and TBH can’t be 4rsed to search right now as I’m looking at something else).

[horsefly 4,351]

2 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

You really are a massive pr*ck and @MidlandsYellow knows full well that I wasn't advocating for that, as does anybody else literate, and I'm sure he could tell you that loads of his colleagues would be chuffed to have no tuition fee debt in return for 10 years of service.

And you're a tiny p*rick, hence your need to spout utterly ludicrous ideas to compensate. I really don't know I'm bothering to respond to an "idea" that is so stupid, but I'll do a deal. You send your "idea" to all the healthcare professional recruiting bodies, and to all the political parties, and to all the civil servants,  who have so far never managed to hit upon such a genius proposal. You can post their responses on here, and if they write back declaring your idea a masterstroke I will be the first to acknowledge your brilliance. Maybe they will even reward you with a knighthood for being the sole human being in the country to come up with such a gamechanger. As it stands I think it would only be proper for you to post to them in green ink so that they have fair warning of what to expect.

[Nuff Said 5,307]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

I have tried to genuinely debate with you so am not about scoring points. So I am giving up on the rest of your post. I am never going to get you to change your mind and I have let you post your thoughts and they are there for everyone to see. I have tried to point out where you are completely wrong about it but you still keep banging on about restraint of trade against someone who has graduated no matter what field they are in.

Simple really. All education and training should be free to the user. Whether that be sponsorship by a company or by the state. Why on earth are we letting standards slip because we are penalising the less well off.

And shareholders demands for greater profits rather than providing a service is what is spoiling this country and the World. That is why Blair was an idiot for getting Conference to delete Clause 4. Energy, if nothing else, should be publicly owned. For instance, explain to me why in 2008 when oil was $144 a barrel, a litre of fuel in the UK was £1.08. Last week, oil was $113 a barrel and it was £1.98 a litre. Not shareholders driving profits higher?

For the majority of those still working, company profit=pension scheme growth. So for people who, like in the Mick Lynch interview posted earlier, want to hammer company profits, they need to be aware of the impact on future pensioners and the degree to which they will need to rely on the state if their pensions prove to be inadequate due to poor investment performance.

 

There’s a whole other debate about executive pay and perks but let’s not confuse/conflate the two different things.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

6 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Is that £7.5 billion per year, or £7.5 billion to pay all student debt accrued since loans were introduced? Genuine question as I suspect it’s the latter but don’t know (and TBH can’t be 4rsed to search right now as I’m looking at something else).

It is £7.527bn per year cost to the treasury of scrapping tuition fees.

https://wonkhe.com/blogs/the-costs-of-labours-tuition-fee-pledge/

The total outstanding student debt is something more like £150bn.

Edited July 22, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

Just now, Nuff Said said:

For the majority of those still working, company profit=pension scheme growth. So for people who, like in the Mick Lynch interview posted earlier, want to hammer company profits, they need to be aware of the impact on future pensioners and the degree to which they will need to rely on the state if their pensions prove to be inadequate due to poor investment performance.

There’s a whole other debate about executive pay and perks but let’s not confuse/conflate the two different things.

Completely agree.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,634]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

It certainly does. Pay, working conditions, etc, etc. all need to improve. One thing guaranteed to increase vacancies on a massive scale would be a scheme that forced prospective applicants to medical and nursing degrees to contemplate 10-years of forced labour in those very conditions. 

Whether it's forced or not depends on the terms. If the terms are that you effectively have your student debt, repayment doesn't begin while you're working for the NHS, and it's paid off by the NHS after 10 years service, then there's no coercion, rather if the person leaves for something better then they're free to do so and simply have to pay off their debt themselves. If it's done that way then it's an incentive scheme. 

[Nuff Said 5,307]

The problem with the “work to pay off the costs of your training” scheme for medical staff (and it’s not so unlikely, my son was given several months of free IT training which included food and board, but had to agree to be placed into a two year contract once complete by the company which trained him) is that if it is effective, then it’s likely that a similar measure would be introduced by the countries which currently send us 15% of NHS staff. We’re struggling now, imagine if we lose 15% of the workforce.

[horsefly 4,351]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Whether it's forced or not depends on the terms. If the terms are that you effectively have your student debt, repayment doesn't begin while you're working for the NHS, and it's paid off by the NHS after 10 years service, then there's no coercion, rather if the person leaves for something better then they're free to do so and simply have to pay off their debt themselves. If it's done that way then it's an incentive scheme. 

A very different and far more sensible proposal than T's suggestion. Whether a political party would commit to the cost is another matter. I take it you're only suggesting they be responsible for tuition fees (as they are now) and not the full cost of their education as he proposed?

[horsefly 4,351]

Looking forward to this prospect:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-faces-by-election-humiliation-as-mps-try-to-dance-on-his-political-grave/ar-AAZPLkb?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5f19442d49604eb1afb0d489519c01f3

Boris Johnson faces by-election humiliation as MPs try to ‘dance on his political grave’

Boris Johnson faces the embarrassment of fighting an autumn by-election to save his political career if he is found to have misled the House of Commons and is banned for 10 days. A committee investigating whether the Prime Minister lied to Parliament over lockdown-breaking parties in 10 Downing Street has been told that it only needs to prove that Mr Johnson "misled" the House, rather than that he "deliberately" did so. 

This makes it much easier for the MPs on the privileges committee - which is chaired by Harriet Harman, the Labour MP - to find him guilty and suspend him from the Commons when it reports as expected later this year.

In a further blow Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, has ruled that a ban of 10 sitting days or more could trigger a “recall” by-election if more than 10 per cent of Mr Johnson’s constituents in Uxbridge and South Ruislip sign a petition calling for one.

[sonyc 5,542]

22 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Have you ever considered moving to a sh*thole like Barnsley, or Merthyr Tydfil, to be around more of your type

I've been reading about your solutions on NHS training and thoughts on taxation TVB. What would be your advice then for people living in Barnsley and Merthyr Tydfil? And by the way there are Norwich fans living in the former. Plus some posters on here have relatives living in Merthyr.

Lot of industrial history there and levelling up has not been felt in these two places for maybe 100 years. You're someone wanting Truss so just wondered how you might tackle these "sh*tholes" as you've called them.

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

15 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I've been reading about your solutions on NHS training and thoughts on taxation TVB. What would be your advice then for people living in Barnsley and Merthyr Tydfil? And by the way there are Norwich fans living in the former. Plus some posters on here have relatives living in Merthyr.

Lot of industrial history there and levelling up has not been felt in these two places for maybe 100 years. You're someone wanting Truss so just wondered how you might tackle these "sh*tholes" as you've called them.

"Levelling Up" is a phrase coined by the Boris Johnson government isn't it? 

Bit of an awkward one that whole "coal not dole" thing really isn't it, now that society broadly accepts that man-made climate change is a thing, that burning fossil fuels is bad and that we're all better off for the coal mines being closed rather than poisoning us all. 

Sometimes I think the inhabitants of these towns should be careful what they wish for in terms of "levelling up" though, they may find that when their area is gentrified and popular as a commuter town to suit wearers from the nearest big city they can't afford the beer prices in the pubs or for their kids to buy a house on their street. Often these things are all relative.

I believe I've already said what I'd do though, I'd decentralise to the regions, make the UK parliament a federal model like Germany, Canada, Austria, Switzerland and many other successful and well run countries and give each region more control over their spending.

Wales already has its own parliament and devolved powers, and Merthyr is allegedly on the 'up' as a commuter town serving Cardiff. For Barnsley, I would devolve powers and spending decisions to a Yorkshire and Humber region Parliament, it is time for a radical change and decentralisation. And yes, that does mean that there would be an Eastern Region Parliament.

Edited July 22, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[sonyc 5,542]

19 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

"Levelling Up" is a phrase coined by the Boris Johnson government isn't it? 

Bit of an awkward one that whole "coal not dole" thing really isn't it, now that society broadly accepts that man-made climate change is a thing, that burning fossil fuels is bad and that we're all better off for the coal mines being closed rather than poisoning us all. 

Sometimes I think the inhabitants of these towns should be careful what they wish for in terms of "levelling up" though, they may find that when their area is gentrified and popular as a commuter town to suit wearers from Leeds they can't afford the beer prices in the pubs or for their kids to buy a house on their street. Often these things are all relative.

I believe I've already said what I'd do though, I'd decentralise to the regions, make the UK parliament a federal model like Germany, Canada, Austria, Switzerland and many other successful and well run countries. 

Wales already has its own parliament and devolved powers, and Merthyr is allegedly on the 'up' as a commuter town serving Cardiff. For Barnsley, I would devolve powers and spending decisions to a Yorkshire Parliament, it is time for a radical change and decentralisation. And yes, that does mean that there would be an Eastern Region Parliament.

Quite a Liberal Democratic position then. And nothing wrong with devolved decisions. Levelling Up as it's called is a bit of marketing spin though. Those places need long term investment similar to the amounts that many parts of London have received. I guess that aligns with decentralisation of power too.

The new town plan of the 1960s and 70s worked in getting new towns built but then they were cast adrift and housing policy was not aligned or well integrated.

We need a national policy of 'place' backed by serious investment and then the running and administration devolved. It needs decades. Pure devolution could be  seen otherwise as a way of pretending to solve a structural issue. Local authorities though have been hammered over decades now by Westminster and especially by the 'austerity' loving Tories.

Edited July 22, 2022 by sonyc