|
|
Post by housesparrow on May 10, 2009 9:15:12 GMT
A lot depends on where "down south" was, Patrick!
In the course of my job I meet people who have moved down to the south coast from London without checking on wages first . They say they were expecting a fall of a few thousand, but in a few quoted cases wages are 70% or even 60 % of the London equivalent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on May 10, 2009 10:10:14 GMT
A lot depends on where "down south" was, Patrick! In the course of my job I meet people who have moved down to the south coast from London without checking on wages first . They say they were expecting a fall of a few thousand, but in a few quoted cases wages are 70% or even 60 % of the London equivalent. Good point. I know what you mean. Many people may lump the likes of Kent and East Sussex together in one big rich 4x4 driving second home owning wasteland. I know though that Dover and Folkestone have more in common with Scunthorpe and Grimsby than their own county relatives Of Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells. I walked through Dover some eight years or so ago. It feels different to any other town along that coastline. It feels poorer. On a dry warm day no-one looked happy there! Probably my imagination - but first impressions and all that.... Even with the Channel Tunnel Station - Ashford in Kent is still crying out for regeneration - and whilst the "DFL's" mover to swanky converted flats in Whitstable, Hastings and St Leonards, many will probably never realise that just a few years before the latter was known as the suicide capital of the UK! Even those moving to their Ivory towers in Brighton will never realise how sleazy, dirty and dark the place was in the 1980's - with more in common with the dark underworld of Richard Attenborough fame than it's "London By the Sea" moniker. I was looking recently at the history of a house bought by someone I know in Eastbourne for £50,000 odd in 1995. It sold recently for £100,000 more. The rise was actually slower than here in the North where (in my road for instance houses were around £35,000 then rising to £144,000 at the peak last year. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 10, 2009 13:01:31 GMT
OK, let's go for this. Accepting that I'm probably making this up as I go along.
People in cities pay higher council taxes. That's what I meant by higher tax. Obviously income tax and other taxes make no odds whether you're rural or urban.
We have to pay more, as we have more need of services such as police, social work, etc. Why?
Because the countryside and rural areas ridded themselves of poor peasants during the industrial revolution, sending them into the cities to live. The trend continues; Say there is a man who commits a sex crime in a little village and is jailed for 10 years. After those 10 years, that sex offender will be housed in the city, and all the costs of the services he needs to monitor him (assuming he's under lifelong order) come from the city dwellers. Say there's a teenager in a rural village that wants to go to University - she'll move into the city to do so, a city she and her family have never contributed to in terms of council tax, and make use of the services here. In Glasgow, all the museums and art galleries are free to visit, so the city dwellers pay for the country people to have a day out.
You can probably drive a coach and horses through my argument here . . . I'm still thinking it through for the sake of discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on May 10, 2009 13:50:56 GMT
Patrick
Hastings and St Leonards are still fairly socially deprived, for all the tarting up that has been done!
You mention Dover and Folkestone, but some of the North Kent towns are fairly shabby. Gillingham, Chatham are sometimes likened to northern industrial towns.
It will be fun watching the Apprentice on Wednesday, as the teams have to promote Margate - another eye-opener of a town.
|
|
|
|
Post by swl on May 10, 2009 14:29:18 GMT
People in cities pay higher council taxes. That's what I meant by higher tax. No they don't, as two people have already said. Oh, so people in the country don't get sick, don't have accidents, don't become victims of crime and have marvellously perfect families? Says who? Is it written down somewhere that sex offeders have to be housed in cities? Got any stats on the rehousing records of offenders to back that up? "Cities" like St Andrews and Cambridge I suppose? Sorry Riot, normally you talk a lot of sense but on this one you're just demonstrating that the limits to your life experience are based on living in a city. |
|
|
|
Post by everso on May 10, 2009 14:47:34 GMT
oh yes for sure. The South of England is disgracefully over-subsidised in both hidden and obvious expenditure by the rest of the UK. Absolutely. For sure. Be it 'London allowances' for civil servants, or company profits being spent on headquarters . . all the way Pats. Unity and Personhood. All you northerners bang on about how wonderful it is north of Watford, how you wouldn't touch the south with a bargepole and how dreadful London is. Well, maybe, if it's such a crap-hole, we in the south deserve a few concessions. If you choose to live in the beautiful north with its wonderful scenery and far friendlier people, then perhaps it should cost you more.  |
|
|
|
Post by everso on May 10, 2009 14:48:00 GMT
everso waits for the ton of bricks to descend.
|
|
|
|
Post by swl on May 10, 2009 14:53:54 GMT
People have a right to live where they were born, brought up and where they work. It doesn't matter if it's North or South, city or country, this is a tiny bloody country after all and pitting one lot against another is a bit pathetic.
It's not so much to ask that everyone gets equal access to the frankly pitiful level of services provided out of our substantial taxes, is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by everso on May 10, 2009 14:56:12 GMT
People have a right to live where they were born, brought up and where they work. It doesn't matter if it's North or South, city or country, this is a tiny bloody country after all and pitting one lot against another is a bit pathetic.It's not so much to ask that everyone gets equal access to the frankly pitiful level of services provided out of our substantial taxes, is it? Precisely. |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 10, 2009 15:07:38 GMT
Just a technical question...isn't council tax spent within the borough?
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on May 10, 2009 15:39:11 GMT
I wonder if there should be some sort of standardisation between councils? Surely if the Government bought vehicles en masse for each council that would be better value for money than them picking and choosing there own? You could say the same for the police! I suppose the arguement goes that this way all manufacturers benefit. In Herne Bay in Kent - the bloke picking up the bins along the seafront uses an Industrial Pedal tricycle!!! In Tunbridge Wells the franchise holders use left hand drive Nissan trucks. On Contract presumably as you never see an old one. Here in Lancaster it's Transit vans. They buy'em new and run them into the ground. It's not uncommon to see our council vehicles peppered with rust holes, and making some very odd noises. Every now and then they have a sale and even the Dustbin lorries can be picked up (as non runners!)
In contrast to some of the places I've lived elsewhere who swear by contracting out maintenance and refuse services - when the tried it up here the ruling group were condemned by Labour and Conservative alike for wasting money! Yet contracting out is advocated by both in other areas!
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 10, 2009 16:05:29 GMT
People have a right to live where they were born, brought up and where they work. It doesn't matter if it's North or South, city or country, this is a tiny bloody country after all and pitting one lot against another is a bit pathetic. It's not so much to ask that everyone gets equal access to the frankly pitiful level of services provided out of our substantial taxes, is it? Don't be ridiculous. How could someone living in an isolated croft on the Outer Hebrides (say) possibly have 'equal access' to services? Should every rural hamlet have a state-subsidised post office, or hospital even? There is always going to be swifter access, to a wider range of services in urban areas than rural. But my point is that the urban areas shoulder the costs of providing these services for those from out-of-town. Tell me why you should be allowed into Kelvingrove Art Gallery free of charge? You are, but why the hell should you be? If you want to go for a swim in a Glasgow swimming pool (unlikely I know), why the hell should you pay the same subsidised entrance charge as I do? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 10, 2009 16:08:05 GMT
People in cities pay higher council taxes. That's what I meant by higher tax. No they don't, as two people have already said. Oh, so people in the country don't get sick, don't have accidents, don't become victims of crime and have marvellously perfect families? Says who? Is it written down somewhere that sex offeders have to be housed in cities? Got any stats on the rehousing records of offenders to back that up? "Cities" like St Andrews and Cambridge I suppose? Sorry Riot, normally you talk a lot of sense but on this one you're just demonstrating that the limits to your life experience are based on living in a city. Re. housing the sex offenders . . . oh guess what, you don't have any social housing in rural and remote areas . . or if you do and started housing sex offenders ahead of local people there would be an outcry. The city of Glasgow basically warehouses sex offenders for most of the rest of Scotland, at the local council taxpayers expense. How many residential accommodation units are there in rural hamlets for children who have to be taken into care? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 10, 2009 16:09:00 GMT
Of course people have a right to live where they want.
But when those who have chosen to live in rural areas start suggesting they should have their wages, or their fuel costs, or whatever subsidised by those who live in cities . . . they can F Off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on May 10, 2009 16:19:57 GMT
Does "London Weighting" still exist - anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by swl on May 10, 2009 16:28:49 GMT
By that argument Riot - why should England subsidise Scotland?
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 10, 2009 17:36:31 GMT
By that argument Riot - why should England subsidise Scotland? They shouldn't. Thankfully then, they don't.  |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on May 11, 2009 7:34:26 GMT
Some time ago I saw figures saying that per head of population, Scotland gets more central government money than England. From memory (which isn't good) this was blamed on the Scottish Parliament which was presented as a sort of bottonelss pit.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 11, 2009 16:11:01 GMT
Some time ago I saw figures saying that per head of population, Scotland gets more central government money than England. From memory (which isn't good) this was blamed on the Scottish Parliament which was presented as a sort of bottonelss pit. Yet strangely the Barnett formula which governs public expenditure to all the various regions of the UK has not changed since 1999 (when the Scottish Parliament reconvened) . . . .so the idea that somehow the Scottish Parliament 'costs more' is just silly. It's just that now the Scottish people, rather than Westminster, decide how the block grant is spent. Yes, the block grant per head is higher in Scotland than in most regions of England (but not as high as Northern Ireland or London). But a higher block grant per head is not the same as 'subsidising'. One has to look at where the money comes from in the first place, and also to look at the 'hidden' public expenditure figures which are not included in the calculations. |
|
A.P.P.S
S C