Off Topic Northern Powerhouse...

No it isn't.

 

When I wrote "southern government/bullshitters", I was being political in the sense of criticizing London-centric bullshitters who almost always sell the North short. Manchester seems to be exceptional.

The way the Allams have split City fans/supporters into two camps (plus don't knows/don't cares); the ludicrous Name Change 'vote'; the Airco shame - that is POLITICAL in football club terms.

 

If you say so.

 

It isn't however, politics.

 

Yes. I know. Not as per dictionary definition.

But you know what I mean.

 

Transport spend per head is £2,700 for London but £5 per head in North East

Transport spending system is broken

Londoners benefit from more money per head on transport spending than all of the other regions combined, a new report by the think tank IPPR North published next week reveals. Despite London being the UK capital and the host for the 2012 Olympics, the report says transport investment is still unbalanced.

IPPR North analysis shows transport spending is:

• £2731 per head in London
• £792 per head in the South East
• £311 per head in the East Midlands
• £269 per head in the West Midlands
• £201 per head in Yorkshire & Humber
• £134 per head in the North West
• £43 per head in the East
• £19 per head in the South West
• £5 per head in the North East

Analysis by IPPR North shows that almost half of major transport projects involving public funding benefit only London and the South East accounting for 84 per cent of planned spending. This is compared to 6 per cent in the North of England as a whole and only 0.04 per cent in the North East.

Twelve out of the top 20 major infrastructure projects involving public funding benefit only London and the South East compared with just 5 of the top 20 in the North of England.

The report argues that, as a result, any short-term boost to the economy is likely to be concentrated in the South as 20 major transport projects have already started in London and the South East.

This is compared to one in the North West, two in Yorkshire & Humber and none in the North East despite infrastructure improvement being the second most important factor in driving growth in lagging regions.

IPPR North argue that the 'cost benefit analysis' equation that is currently used to decide where investment is targeted is wrong and reinforces the dominance of London and the South East while constraining growth in the North of England.

The report concludes that if decisions about transport spending continue to be made in this way it will lead to more congestion and a reduced quality of life for people in the capital.

IPPR North is calling for:

• A review all post-2014 major infrastructure projects ahead of the 2014 Spending Review in order to place greater emphasis on achieving its own stated objective of rebalancing the economy between the North and the South;
• A review the guidelines used to decide on transport spending to reduce the emphasis on 'cost-benefit analysis' in favour of the wider economic productivity effects;
• The devolving of a significant proportion of post-2014 infrastructure funding to Local Enterprise Partnerships who can drive economic growth in their areas.

Ed Cox, Director of IPPR North said:

"Skewed spending benefiting London and the South East is nothing new but these new figures are truly shocking and will strike most people as deeply unfair. Of course every country has a capital city and some of London's transport infrastructure wouldn't be happening without the Olympics. But if the government continue to use a system that reinforces the dominance of London and the South East we'll all be worse-off in the long-run as the South becomes more congested while the North continues to fall behind in terms of growth.

"There may be short term gains to be made in the capital but if we want the UK economy to be firing on all cylinders there needs to be a focus on growth in cities like Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle. If the government really wants to rebalance our economy then investment in infrastructure in the North would be a good place to start, after all, a National Infrastructure Plan should be just that - at the moment it clearly is not."


http://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/...2700-for-london-but-p5-per-head-in-north-east

 

But it's still the same.

Face it or **** off...

 

Ooh, look! Something from 2015!


February 19, 2015 11:01 am

London and the southeast see fewer public sector job losses
Sarah O’Connor, Employment Correspondent

London and the southeast — Britain’s most prosperous regions — have been relatively unscathed by the public sector job losses that have swept the rest of the country.

Office for National Statistics figures analysed by Sheffield university show public sector employment has fallen only 2.5 per cent in London and the southeast since the second quarter of 2010, compared with 6.8 per cent across the UK as a whole.

Wales, Scotland, the northeast, the northwest and the southwest of England have all seen more than 8 per cent of their public sector jobs disappear.

Britain’s jobs-rich recovery means private sector employment growth has more than made up for the loss of public sector jobs in every region, confounding critics of the government who had warned that public spending cuts would push up unemployment.

Nonetheless, the uneven distribution of the public sector job losses are likely to fuel the debate over regional inequalities, particularly between the capital and the rest of the country.

London has enjoyed by far the biggest increase in private sector jobs — 16.8 per cent compared with the UK total of 8.2 per cent — as well as the smallest reduction in public sector employment. However, it still has a relatively high unemployment rate of 6.4 per cent compared with the UK rate of 5.7 per cent.

The northeast, in contrast, has experienced the deepest public sector job losses and one of the smallest percentage increases in private sector employment. Its unemployment rate is 8 per cent.

The figures exclude the distorting effect of recent reclassifications of workers between the public and private sectors.

Scott Lavery of the Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute said the figures showed public sector employment could be complementary to, rather than in conflict with, the goal of boosting private sector job creation. “Simplistic assertions about the public sector ‘crowding out’ private sector job creation need to be challenged if we are to build a more sustainable and equitable economic settlement for the UK,” he said.

The latest data show there were about 386,000 fewer public sector jobs in the third quarter of 2014 than there were when the coalition government came to power in 2010.

The Office for Budget Responsibility, the official fiscal watchdog, estimates the government’s plans for deeper spending cuts in the next parliament would translate into another 1m public sector job losses.

please log in to view this image

Economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies said it was difficult to know why London and the southeast had seen relatively small drops in public sector employment.

However, the IFS noted there was a similar pattern in the civil service employment statistics, which show an 11 per cent fall in London since 2010 compared with a 17 per cent fall across the civil service as a whole.

Data on public services spending by region do not suggest London and the southeast have escaped with lighter cuts, although the figures stop at 2012-13.

The ONS jobs data show public sector employment in London fell in the early years of the parliament, but started to rise again after mid-2013.

Tony Travers, a professor at the London School of Economics, said one explanation could be the relatively fast population growth in London and the southeast. “Things like schools and the NHS, where there is a population-driven element of their funding, will be growing, other things being equal,” he said.

Mr Lavery said spending on transport and arts and culture was focused disproportionately on London and the southeast, which could also be a factor.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5017b444-b612-11e4-a577-00144feab7de.html#axzz3fIxgA1yY

 

....and your (real) point?

 

please log in to view this image

 

Had to shoot off to a funeral.

Two things you can't escape, eh?


Death and taxes...

 

Lewis Hamilton avoids one of them along with Button , Froome Philip Greene

 

Careful, Southy...You'll get branded 'political'!

 

Yeah I know
I think a name change for me is in the pipeline
I no longer sit in the southwest corner, Any suggestions ??

 

Yeah I know

 

Dunno, mate. Do you want it to be based on where your seat is? Where you come from/are?

Time to call on that old inspiration and imagination.

 

Anyway...

Smashing budget by Gideon.

*economics; not politics*