Although not quite in the sense intended by the author, point 9 as of January 2025, is only too true. "Why Britain can't afford to carry on as it is."
Why Northern England is poor
11–20 of 164 posts
Re: Why Northern England is poor
#12[flagged]
And Nazir Afzal their prosecutor belonged to which ethnic group again?
Re: Why Northern England is poor
#13Interesting perspective, but it really seems like state capitals just tend to siphon money from far away to invest nearby, and consequently, grow. Selecting a major city as your capital seems to accelerate the process, but even countries which select minor towns as their capitals have had this happen.
The process is quite simple and fairly obvious. Government policy is the bedrock of all economic development. Government officials will always have the most knowledge about the capital, so all policy is tailored to it. It's no surprise that they don't make policies that benefit the North given that they don't live there.
Berlin is not like this, though.
If Berlin were removed from the map, Germany as a whole would economically (loss of people, loss of income) be on average better off.
If this is the mechanism, why is Berlin not doing better?
Re: Why Northern England is poor
#14> Limited success such as in Manchester, whose economy has nearly kept up with East German cities while the rest of North England falls behind, Woa is this a typo? I know little about England, and I hadn't realized that "keeping up with East German cities" is considered a success. I mean isn't East Germany rather well known for not keeping up all that well with the rest of Germany either?
Yes. I think the author's point is that the standards are that low up here in North England, and outside of Manchester it's worse than in East Germany.
Re: Why Northern England is poor
#15Saw the headline and thought "well, it won't give the real reason: because London".
But refreshingly, it does.
Re: Why Northern England is poor
#16> Limited success such as in Manchester, whose economy has nearly kept up with East German cities while the rest of North England falls behind, Woa is this a typo? I know little about England, and I hadn't realized that "keeping up with East German cities" is considered a success. I mean isn't East Germany rather well known for not keeping up all that well with the rest of Germany either?
I think that means growth rates, not absolute wealth.
Not all of the north is poor. Cheshire is richer than outer London or the home counties. If you adjust for the cost of living more of the north would be.
North poor, south rich is very simplistic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_the_Unite...
Re: Why Northern England is poor
#17[flagged]
From a long-time HN user: please provide a high quality source when making claims connected to a people group. This place works better when we avoid culture wars and demographic-based blame.
Re: Why Northern England is poor
#18We also shifted largely into a service based economy, shutdown a lot of mines and mills (for better or for worse) which were primarily more north based. More than 2/3rds of my graduating physics class went straight into banking, as there was no relevant industry to pick them up... and as someone with several postdoctoral degrees, yet no house or meaningful assets... who could blame them for going into banking in this…
Most developed economies have shifted to services. Its a natural progression that results from higher productivity and higher wages.
I think the big problem is too much reliance on on service sector.
Re: Why Northern England is poor
#19[dead]
Re: Why Northern England is poor
#20Interesting perspective, but it really seems like state capitals just tend to siphon money from far away to invest nearby, and consequently, grow. Selecting a major city as your capital seems to accelerate the process, but even countries which select minor towns as their capitals have had this happen.
The process is quite simple and fairly obvious. Government policy is the bedrock of all economic development. Government officials will always have the most knowledge about the capital, so all policy is tailored to it. It's no surprise that they don't make policies that benefit the North given that they don't live there.
What policy would benefit the north, without (even further) subsidising it?
If we could invest £10Bn and get £20Bn back for the economy with our money back over time then not a single politician would turn that down, there's actually been a load of support over the past ~5+ years for "levelling up" (AKA investment in the north) but we've not invested much because the returns are abysmal. Meanwhile there's a whole stack of projects with good returns in london, but politically it's really difficult to "give more money to london" so we don't really do them. Bakerloo line extension and crossrail 2 for example.
The Elizabeth line, will over time pay for itself entirely with fares alone, yet has also already added ~£2.50 to the economy for every £1 spent.
This is a absolutely classic example of chicken and egg, network effects and first mover advantage. There's perhaps a case for being absolutely ruthless and just spending an obscene amount of money on Manchester/Leeds/Liverpool. What might it look like?
-No third runway for heathrow, instead BHX gets 2 more runways (or MAN 1 more) and all the funding it needs to become an international hub, including an reduction in APD for 5 years or something. Central London in ~48Mins via HS2 is already committed and being built, frankly that's not that much different to what it practically takes to get from a random heathrow terminal to central.
-HS2 to Manchester AND Leeds (via the branch just above BHX), that would connect BHX to those cities in -Trams for Leeds, maybe a metro for Manchester.
-Liverpool>Manchester>Leeds express line (which seems committed).
-Enterprise zone covering all underdeveloped commercial areas in Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham. Give rates, or tax relief on businesses investing, or employing in the zone, planning exemptions, easier permitting.
Anything short of an absolutely insane bet like this, just isn't going to work. Chucking 1Bn to Leeds for them to buy some trams just isn't going to have a transformative effect, it might actually be a total waste because, in short, network effects.
The North of England frequently runs a combined fiscal deficit in the tens of billions, with all of that subsidy coming, effectively, from London and the SE.