George Osborne's Autumn Statement

[GrimsbyPacer]

Although I want major spending in the North, Newcastle-upon-Tyne just isn't as important mainly because of its population and decline in economy. London has 8 million people living there. Tyneside has under 900,000. Yes the decline in the economy should be the catalyst for regeneration, but unless devolution happens like what happened in London (which most of England seems to be against) I just don't see it happening.

I'm all for devolution for all the regions, the problem is no one wants more politicians.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The Tories are the ones you want to blame then.
Shutting coalfields and selling off other nationsl infrastructure like Steel, Electricity, water and gas. All are essential for factories and became more expensive. The cheaper labour overseas has little to do with it, Germany has been increasing exports since the 50s. Also many a great many industries were state owned before being shut down through ideology.

Why has the selling off of gas, electric and water providers caused job losses in the North? The coalfields were uneconomic. My eldest son is half German. Germany has proved to be so successful with its exports because it has always made quality products / high value products that people wanted to buy. However too much of the UK production was shoddy and not worth buying.

Water, gas and electricity would have become more expensive no matter who owned them. That no way caused manufacturing plants in the North to close. In terms of say steel production and ship building the reasons were high costs and inefficient working practices.

 

[LLivery]

So why did some of the manufacturing plants disappear. Is it perhaps because it was cheaper to make things in the Far East. Or perhaps its because Labour militants ruined everything. Please note that I'm a life long Labour voter.

Because our Governments decided to have war against unions, sell off every flipping thing it could and make everyone rely on private companies. Germany did the complete opposite and look how they are specialist in pretty much every to do with manufacturing, have great (compered to ours) union relationships, own one of the largest transport companies in the world, while at the same time grew its financial sector.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Does anyone expect there will be a "rabbit out of the hat" type announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that has been carefully screened from all these "leaks" that so far have been discussed in depth upon this thread?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because our Governments decided to have war against unions, sell off every flipping thing it could and make everyone rely on private companies. Germany did the complete opposite and look how they are specialist in pretty much every to do with manufacturing, have great (compered to ours) union relationships, own one of the largest transport companies in the world, while at the same time grew its financial sector.

To give a balanced view on the point you raise, may I ask you if you thought that the unions themselves never declared war on the British Government at any time ? I remember times in the 1970s and 1980's when such a matter seemed to be a politically motivated premise.

 

[LLivery]

Does anyone expect there will be a "rabbit out of the hat" type announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that has been carefully screened from all these "leaks" that so far have been discussed in depth upon this thread?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


To give a balanced view on the point you raise, may I ask you if you thought that the unions themselves never declared war on the British Government at any time ? I remember times in the 1970s and 1980's when such a matter seemed to be a politically motivated premise.

Oh of course it was 100% both ways. But the job of a union is to protect the workers interests and Thatcher didn't exactly like it. I highly respect her, never would vote for her, but respect Ms Thatcher fully. The Germans take a different approach and their workers are much more happy and their economy works better.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Because our Governments decided to have war against unions, sell off every flipping thing it could and make everyone rely on private companies. Germany did the complete opposite and look how they are specialist in pretty much every to do with manufacturing, have great (compered to ours) union relationships, own one of the largest transport companies in the world, while at the same time grew its financial sector.

As a Labour voter I have to say that the unions declared war with the Government! Germany has always produced quality products which is why people have always wanted to buy them. This is not a new phenomenon. It’s also worth mentioning that German manufacturing has always been in private hands.

I would agree that the privatisation of utilities was a bad idea but costs would still have risen no matter who owned them due to the need to import energy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh of course it was 100% both ways. But the job of a union is to protect the workers interests and Thatcher didn't exactly like it. I highly respect her, never would vote for her, but respect Ms Thatcher fully. The Germans take a different approach and their workers are much more happy and their economy works better.

However powerful unions such as IG Metal and the railway unions are still capable of holding the country to ransom. The DB network sees its fair share of strikes which damage the economy.

 

[LLivery]

As a Labour voter I have to say that the unions declared war with the Government! Germany has always produced quality products which is why people have always wanted to buy them. This is not a new phenomenon. It’s also worth mentioning that German manufacturing has always been in private hands.

I would agree that the privatisation of utilities was a bad idea but costs would still have risen no matter who owned them due to the need to import energy.

Alright, yes I might of phased it wrong, but a Union vs Government battle happened. As for German manufacturing, yes they have always been private but they had vision. Instead of selling our companies, the government should have taken a lead and make things worth selling. Utilities selling was bad, especially water but of course bills would have risen, but the government would have never of made £1.5 billion profit in six months like National Grid have!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However powerful unions such as IG Metal and the railway unions are still capable of holding the country to ransom. The DB network sees its fair share of strikes which damage the economy.

Yes, every country has strikes but overall the workers in Deutschland are happier. You say DB, I could say Royal Mail, London Underground or the NHS.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Alright, yes I might of phased it wrong, but a Union vs Government battle happened. As for German manufacturing, yes they have always been private but they had vision. Instead of selling our companies, the government should have taken a lead and make things worth selling. Utilities selling was bad, especially water but of course bills would have risen, but the government would have never of made £1.5 billion profit in six months like National Grid have!

Ask yourself this question. Why would a coal industry union be so stupid as to start a strike in the Spring?

The problem is Government is useless at making things / running organisations! That kind of thing is always best left to private companies. That is why the Mini is now sold all over the world. That is why Jaguar Land Rover is now so successful, especially Land Rover.

The Germans had a vision that a state run organisation could never have had. And yes I agree that selling off utilities was a stupid idea
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, every country has strikes but overall the workers in Deutschland are happier. You say DB, I could say Royal Mail, London Underground or the NHS.

The Royal Mail is a victim of competition. In terms of the London Underground the closure of ticket offices is a stupid idea. Boris has dropped a gonad here.

However with the NHS we currently have too much national debt to give them a decent wage increase and that goes for all of the public sector. Its worth pointing out here that my wife is a Police Officer so I know all about public sector pay!

 

[WatcherZero]

So why in your opinion has economic wealth moved to the South East? I would argue that it has nothing to do with the Government as the Palace of Westminster has existed for hundreds of years.

The wealth of the country didn't used to be around London, it used to be in the large estates of the North and Midlands, southern Lords always had to turn to people like the Earl of Warwick to lend them money. This continued through the Elizabethan period where wealth started to move south, shifted back during the industrial revolution with the mills then shifted back to the south again in the late Victorian/early 20th century.

If you ask what caused wealth to shift to London then the answer was international trade, particularly at the height of empire and increasing centralisation of government as counties became less and less self governing and stopped setting their own taxes or running their own courts.

As for the coal mining balance that's an interesting one, yes it was subsidised to the tune of 25% below true market value though that was among the lowest subsidy in Europe. However behind the scenes it was more complex, firstly it was becoming vastly more efficient, Government set targets to increase production by around a third to meet predicted demand, demand that never materialised resulting in a large oversupply, the increased pace of extraction also led to seams being mined out much faster reducing the economics of extraction, i.e. a pit that could have stayed open for a decade with a reasonable extraction rate was instead exhausted in half the time. When you dig into the figures in 1983/84 the industry received £1,334m in subsidy, however £634m was historic pension liability and the cost of redundancies, £407m was interest charges on the debt the Government had transferred from itself to the industry and £245 million to account for liability of subsidence and the cost of closing the mines safely and restoring the environment, costs that wouldn't be paid if they were still open. The net result was they were in reality very close to breaking even and the costs of the closure program were the main reason the coal board was unprofitable.

 

[Robertj21a]

Alright, yes I might of phased it wrong, but a Union vs Government battle happened. As for German manufacturing, yes they have always been private but they had vision. Instead of selling our companies, the government should have taken a lead and make things worth selling. Utilities selling was bad, especially water but of course bills would have risen, but the government would have never of made £1.5 billion profit in six months like National Grid have!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Yes, every country has strikes but overall the workers in Deutschland are happier. You say DB, I could say Royal Mail, London Underground or the NHS.

It may be me but when I think back to all those Union leaders demanding ever more strikes I can only recall thinking that it was high time that they stopped moaning and actually got back to producing quality goods. Union leaders like Scargill etc did everything possible to bring down the government of the day - it didn't matter who was Prime Minister, they just wanted even more Union power.

I just found it rather amusing that these loud-mouthed Union bosses were eventually shut up by a female grocer from Grantham.

 

[Clip]

Well that wasn't too bad - 3 pages before it became an all out North V South thread again. Im impressed.

Also I notice those who mentioned that its those nasty Tories looking after their construction mates again haven't really piped up again after the rail projects were eventually posted in the thread. Guess I was right.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I never said London should lose its funding. All I'm saying is some areas need it urgently. All MPs care about Lobdon transport because they use it to get to work. No MP cares about a distant constituancy.

Are you sure you're not letting cynicism get the better of you there? Most MPs represent constituencies some distance from London, and most MPs do need to spend quite a lot of time in their constituencies - Parliament only accounts for some of the work MPs do - so most of them will definitely be regularly using some sort of transport outside London. (Admittedly, that's going to be less true of Government ministers who'll need to spend more time in London, and won't be true at all of many civil servants).

Besides, those MPs I've known actually appear to care quite considerably about their constituencies and the people who live in them. I would say this constant desire by many people to rubbish MPs and make out that MPs have no interest in helping others really has no basis in reality.

 

[CdBrux]

Centralised government has caused this - look that countries that are federal. All major cities in Australia for example have a decent suburban rail network, buses and a trams. You mention Scotland - that further backs up the stupid way the government works here but regional devolution seem to be a hated idea.

I think there is more acceptance of, but not active enthusiasm for, devolution to some sort of set up based around city regions, for example the Greater Manchester agreement from a few months back. What is comprehensively rejected is regional, it's an artificial construct people have little or no identification with (see complaints that 'south-west' includes Stonehenge from those in Devon & Cornwall who also don't want to have a regional decision making in Bristol). English do not want either another layer of politicians and bureaucracy.

I personally think deals along the lines of GM is a good way to start in order to help get a decent local transport solution.

 

[LLivery]

I think there is more acceptance of, but not active enthusiasm for, devolution to some sort of set up based around city regions, for example the Greater Manchester agreement from a few months back. What is comprehensively rejected is regional, it's an artificial construct people have little or no identification with (see complaints that 'south-west' includes Stonehenge from those in Devon & Cornwall who also don't want to have a regional decision making in Bristol). English do not want either another layer of politicians and bureaucracy.

I personally think deals along the lines of GM is a good way to start in order to help get a decent local transport solution.

That may help the major cities but it won't help towns like Wilmslow or my hometown of Wellingborough! Its just not practical to devolve transport to every flipping borough council. I think a regional solution would be better as it would be more co-ordinated across a larger area. But the map should be redrawn to reflect peoples appetite. Northamptonshire is in the East Midlands region, however historically it was Anglian, most people see it more Anglian than the Midlands and still today they have Anglian Water and BBC Look East/ITV Anglia from Norwich! Devon and Cornwall should be their own from Wiltshire, any government should know that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ask yourself this question. Why would a coal industry union be so stupid as to start a strike in the Spring?

The problem is Government is useless at making things / running organisations! That kind of thing is always best left to private companies. That is why the Mini is now sold all over the world. That is why Jaguar Land Rover is now so successful, especially Land Rover.

The Germans had a vision that a state run organisation could never have had. And yes I agree that selling off utilities was a stupid idea
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The Royal Mail is a victim of competition. In terms of the London Underground the closure of ticket offices is a stupid idea. Boris has dropped a gonad here.

However with the NHS we currently have too much national debt to give them a decent wage increase and that goes for all of the public sector. Its worth pointing out here that my wife is a Police Officer so I know all about public sector pay!

Every company the government owned the British public loved to hate. Royal Mail got right on my nerves sometimes as did British Rail, British Telecom and British Gas for everyone else. However I believe if Thatcher wanted to improve all the companies, she could have. I'm not saying keep everything nationalised, but Mini and Bently being owned by the Germans is frankly wrong. As is Cadburys being owned by Americans (who make awful chocolate).

As with LU - agreed. Boris is an odd one. Bang on about staff being everywhere and then scrap guards on the North London Line, even though time and time again people are saying they want staff on trains. Its the one thing I envy SWT over.

The NHS has been terribly managed, no doubt. But if MPs can find the money for a pay rise they can find it for the most valuable people in our country.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It may be me but when I think back to all those Union leaders demanding ever more strikes I can only recall thinking that it was high time that they stopped moaning and actually got back to producing quality goods. Union leaders like Scargill etc did everything possible to bring down the government of the day - it didn't matter who was Prime Minister, they just wanted even more Union power.

I just found it rather amusing that these loud-mouthed Union bosses were eventually shut up by a female grocer from Grantham.

But that Female Grocer from Grantham was not for turning! At the end of the day of course government as strong has Thatchers would have "won".

I believe I am right in saying that even Thacher herself said privatising BR was too big at first.

 

[northwichcat]

That may help the major cities but it won't help towns like Wilmslow or my hometown of Wellingborough! Its just not practical to devolve transport to every flipping borough council. I think a regional solution would be better as it would be more co-ordinated across a larger area.

Well yes some towns in the North West have a significant number of people commuting to both Liverpool and Manchester. Wigan's under the control of TfGM despite having a significant number of people commuting to Liverpool, while Warrington is independent.

However, even with regions you'd still need co-ordination between areas as some commuter trains would serve two regions.

 

[LLivery]

Well yes some towns in the North West have a significant number of people commuting to both Liverpool and Manchester. Wigan's under the control of TfGM despite having a significant number of people commuting to Liverpool, while Warrington is independent.

However, even with regions you'd still need co-ordination between areas as some commuter trains would serve two regions.

Wigan is part of Greater Manchester so I would expect it to be controlled by TfGM. Wimslow isn't and no one will fight its corner unless devo is done on a larger level.

The Greater Manchester, Warrington and Merseyside local rail services should be jointly run by the three counties. Or a larger joint transport body should be made to cover all the transport in this city region. Of course you would need co-ordination with areas that are not in that said region but those rail lines won't really be devolved anyway - it would still be Northern.

But even so countries all around the world manage it. Look at the New Haven Line - its run by New York City even though hardly any of it is in New York State, let alone New York City. While in New South Wales everything is just run by the state government and everyone is covered. Cities tend to just look after the city. I remember Transport for London wanting Thameslink to terminate in Luton and at Gatwick Airport!

 

[northwichcat]

The Greater Manchester, Warrington and Merseyside local rail services should be jointly run by the three counties.

Warrington isn't a county. Pre-1974 it was part of Lancashire, along with Manchester and Liverpool. From 1974 to 1998 Warrington was part of Cheshire. In 1998 Warrington became independent but more recently a Warrington & Cheshire LEP was established. Halton, which was also in Cheshire until 1998 isn't part of the Warrington & Cheshire LEP but is part of the Liverpool LEP.

Or a larger joint transport body should be made to cover all the transport in this city region. Of course you would need co-ordination with areas that are not in that said region but those rail lines won't really be devolved anyway - it would still be Northern.

They'll be some problem services though - the LM services to Liverpool (which provides the only service at stations between Crewe and Runcorn) and the Northern services to Stoke. These could be services that the North West and West Midlands bodies have different ideas for.

 

[CdBrux]

which just goes to show wherever you have a border there will always be cross border issues to tackle

 

[muddythefish]

So why in your opinion has economic wealth moved to the South East? I would argue that it has nothing to do with the Government as the Palace of Westminster has existed for hundreds of years.

My view is that the govt of the day from 1979 decided to smash the unions and in the process they unnecessarily destroyed whole swathes of manufacturing which of course had a devastating effect on the north.

At the same time they decided to focus on the service economy and financial services in particular, which were mainly based in the south. The 1980s Big Bang and deregulation of the City accelerated the process.

Anyway, back to Gideon and his Statement and his £15bn spending on roads while I am forced to go to work on a decrepit old Pacer.

 

[LLivery]

Warrington isn't a county. Pre-1974 it was part of Lancashire, along with Manchester and Liverpool. From 1974 to 1998 Warrington was part of Cheshire. In 1998 Warrington became independent but more recently a Warrington & Cheshire LEP was established. Halton, which was also in Cheshire until 1998 isn't part of the Warrington & Cheshire LEP but is part of the Liverpool LEP.

They'll be some problem services though - the LM services to Liverpool (which provides the only service at stations between Crewe and Runcorn) and the Northern services to Stoke. These could be services that the North West and West Midlands bodies have different ideas for.

I know Warrington is unitary which is as good as a county. I just didn't want to complicate things.

My New Haven example above shows that it can work, with sensible plans. I rarely would use the US as an good example, but clearly the Metro North Railroad model is something that could work well. Although I wouldn't expect the Liverpool to Birmingham service to be devolved anyway.

 

[fowler9]

My view is that the govt of the day from 1979 decided to smash the unions and in the process they unnecessarily destroyed whole swathes of manufacturing which of course had a devastating effect on the north.

At the same time they decided to focus on the service economy and financial services in particular, which were mainly based in the south. The 1980s Big Bang and deregulation of the City accelerated the process.

Anyway, back to Gideon and his Statement and his £15bn spending on roads while I am forced to go to work on a decrepit old Pacer.

I completely agree, the move to a service based economy devastated the North.

 

[LLivery]

My view is that the govt of the day from 1979 decided to smash the unions and in the process they unnecessarily destroyed whole swathes of manufacturing which of course had a devastating effect on the north.

At the same time they decided to focus on the service economy and financial services in particular, which were mainly based in the south. The 1980s Big Bang and deregulation of the City accelerated the process.

Anyway, back to Gideon and his Statement and his £15bn spending on roads while I am forced to go to work on a decrepit old Pacer.

According to Gideon the decrepit Pacers seem to be on the way out in the new Northern!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Pacers to be replaced with "new and modern trains" in next Northern franchise.
Doesn't appear to cover FGW/ATW Pacers.

 

[Howardh]

Pacers to be replaced with "new and modern trains" in next franchise.

You mean trains that were "new and modern" when they were built 25 years ago, so in another 5 years they will be ready to pass on to Northern?!

 

[muddythefish]

Pacers to be replaced with "new and modern trains" in next Northern franchise.
.

Class 170 cast-offs from Scotland ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You mean trains that were "new and modern" when they were built 25 years ago, so in another 5 years they will be ready to pass on to Northern?!

They were not my words, they were George Osborne's.
Who knows what he meant (if he knows).
The DfT still has to go through the procurement process.
I think the only signal is to the Roscos that they can forget the TSI Pacer upgrades.

 

[northwichcat]

Pacers to be replaced with "new and modern trains" in next Northern franchise.
Doesn't appear to cover FGW/ATW Pacers.

FGW Pacers will likely drop out of the franchise as a result of EMUs on Thames Valley - given there's only 8 of them.

ATW Pacers should be replaced as a result of Valley Lines electrification.

Unless of course either operator chose to keep them for extra capacity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pacers to be replaced with "new and modern trains" in next Northern franchise.
Doesn't appear to cover FGW/ATW Pacers.

What was the exact term he used? BBC News have reported "Old pacer carriages on Northern Rail and the Trans-Pennine Express replaced with new and modern trains"

TPE don't have any Pacers or even any old trains. The North TPE semi-fasts will replace the Victoria-Huddersfield service, which sees Pacers but other than that I can't think of any relevance to TPE.

 

[LateThanNever]

So who is making those companies stay in the South East? Surely office space (in fact it is) is cheaper outside of the SE so why isn't there a huge stampede north?

Economists call it agglomeration I think. And moving is very disruptive, particularly over long distances, where you may well need to recruit fresh staff which will mean you don't concentrate on the company trade but its internal workings....

 

[ainsworth74]

Does anyone have a summary of what was said in relation to railways? BBC News' summary is good on just about everything else but the railways!

 

[LateThanNever]

I think there is more acceptance of, but not active enthusiasm for, devolution to some sort of set up based around city regions, for example the Greater Manchester agreement from a few months back. What is comprehensively rejected is regional, it's an artificial construct people have little or no identification with (see complaints that 'south-west' includes Stonehenge from those in Devon & Cornwall who also don't want to have a regional decision making in Bristol). English do not want either another layer of politicians and bureaucracy.
I personally think deals along the lines of GM is a good way to start in order to help get a decent local transport solution.

I agree we have to make what we've got work better with more powers to them, not have more talking shops and bureaucracy - like the mind numbingly abysmal standard of debate in the Scottish Parliament for example!