Close Hull and Burnley and help the locals escape, ministers told Close Hull and Burnley and help the locals escape, ministers told
Posts 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1

    More fingers than teeth

    scooterscot is a fount of knowledge

    scooterscot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Anywhere that is not broken Brexit Britain
    Posts
    19,558

    Default Close Hull and Burnley and help the locals escape, ministers told

    The Tory graph is spot on here for once. I should say we add Southampton & Swindon to the list, how else will London continue to prosper if we don't start closing those sink estates?


    Ministers urged to forget about saving 'failing' cities and towns such as Hull, Hartlepool and Burnley - Telegraph


    Ministers urged to forget about saving 'failing' cities and towns such as Hull, Hartlepool and Burnley

    The Economist magazine said that despite years of Government money and "heroic" efforts the towns were decaying and it was time for a change in policy.

    The globally-respected publication, in an editorial entitled 'City Sicker', said the fate of the once confident places was "sad".

    But it urged ministers to forget about using tax breaks or spending money to encourage people to go the cities and towns as it diverted them from areas where "they would be more successful".

    The Economist cited the example of the Cotswolds, once an industrial engine and now so pretty because "centuries ago, huge numbers of people fled them".

    In a withering verdict, the magazine said: "Despite dollops of public money and years of heroic effort, a string of towns and smallish cities in Britain's former industrial heartlands are quietly decaying.

    "Middlesbrough, Burnley, Hartlepool, Hull and many others were in trouble even before the financial crisis.

    It added: "That so many well intentioned people are trying so hard to save them suggests how much affection they claim.

    "But these kindly efforts are misguided, Governments should not try to rescue failing towns. Instead they should support the people who live in them.

    "That means helping them to commute or move to places where there are jobs - and giving them the skills to get those jobs."

    The Economist argued more money should go in schools in the "urban ghost towns" and the transport network should be upgraded so it's possible to run more regional services to each of them.

    The controversial article comes as Hull bids to be voted the 2017 City of Culture. The city is down to the last four in a race even locals thought they would never win.

    And Burnley two months ago was voted the most enterprising area of the UK for its "pioneering" culture and economic prospects.

    Despite these successes, experts claim the north-south divide is growing with house prices in southern England now more than £100,000 more expensive than those in the north.

    The Economist argued that unemployment rates in the "failing" cities and towns were double the national averge and the high streets are dominated with betting shops and payday lenders. Wolverhampton, it said, was among the worst have "condemned parts of its town centre for a shopping mall that never came".

    It said that in Wolverhampton 22 per cent of the people have no qualifications - and the overall performance of schools in Hull and Hartlepool is "appalling".

    It added: "Even with growth, the most ambitions and best-educated people will still tend to leave places like Hull. Their size, location and demographics means theat they will never offer the sorts of restaurants or shops that the middle classes like."

    Michelle Dewberry, the Hull-born winner of BBC's The Apprentice in 2006, told the Daily Telegraph the article was an "insult".

    She said: "For people to give up on an entire city, it's insulting to the people. We have the BBC there, Siemens, there's lots more investment.

    "The people shouldn't be told to get out but they should be helped, the entrepreneurial spirit should come from within. The city deserves a say when the ambition for it dies."

    A spokesman for Hartlepool County Council added: "We know unemployment is high but there are tremendous amount of positives. We know what the problems are."
    “We've always defined ourselves by the ability to overcome the impossible. And we count these moments. These moments when we dare to aim higher, to break barriers, to reach for the stars, to make the unknown known. We count these moments as our proudest achievements. But we lost all that. Or perhaps we've just forgotten that we are still pioneers. And we've barely begun. And that our greatest accomplishments cannot be behind us, because our destiny lies above us.”

  2. #2

    More fingers than teeth

    DodgyAgent is NOT a disguised employee


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    17,455

    Default

    Remove welfare and these areas will be fine
    Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone

  3. #3

    I live on CUK

    SueEllen is a fount of knowledge

    SueEllen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the Park
    Posts
    29,066

    Default

    People are already leaving those towns and others like them.

    BTW Swindon and Southampton do actually have jobs.
    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

  4. #4

    More time posting than coding

    socialworker is too good to be a permie


    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    West Country
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Sounds fab idea. All those able to work can come to the south east where the work is and compete with the E. Europeans and Somali refugees. We could house them, er, well something will come up. Who needs a green belt anyway. The rest, and their children and aged relatives can stay along with the career criminals and the mentally ill. Key workers such as nurses, doctors, firemen etc will flee as their lives and jobs become intolerable.... Oh this is a joke isn't it? Please?

  5. #5

    Contractor Among Contractors

    CoolCat has more data than eek


    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,035

    Default

    It is certainly true that the state subsidy to “social”, i.e. council and housing association houses, should be stopped. It should be replaced by extra money to needy people so that they are no worse off.

    This would have several affects, it would stop the many wealthy people living in social housing from getting such subsidy on their housing.

    It would allow people to make their own compromises about size of property, distance from potential jobs, etc rather than have a house imposed upon them.

    It would stop the subsidy to bricks and mortar, much of it in places built to house workers for shipyards and mines etc which have long since shut and never been replaced by a ready jobs market. The way the system works at the moment pretty much consigns large numbers of people to live on big housing estates with no potential job market within travelling distance.

    It would take the power away from the housing associations that often provide terrible service to their tenants, they are just a state monopoly using state subsidy to stifle competition. We should encourage large commercial landlords to emerge as is common in Germany etc.

    It would stop the rationing and corrupt way that houses are assigned in the social housing sector at the moment.

    If we stopped new house builders having to provide free social housing as a condition of gaining planning permission it would significantly drop the cost of new houses.

    Market rents would allow rents to drop in areas with little jobs market, and potentially attract new business to the area able to take advantage of people prepared to work for less as their housing costs would drop.

    And yes people with the freedom to spend their housing subsidy where they want will lead to some big sink estates shutting.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •