General Election 2015

[Wes Tender]

I think Labour might have played this very well. As you say if they cosy up to the SNP they are effectively giving up in Scotland which would make a very fragile state of affairs should the SNP self implode over the next 5 years. The SNP went early on their anyone but Tory campaign so they really have to back Labour regardless of whether Labour invite them to the party or not. So Labour get the SNP backing, and still get a chance to fight their corner at the next election when I suspect the SNP will have a stronger devolution emphasis to their manifesto.

 

The SNP have Labour by the balls. It looks almost certain that the only way that Red Ed can take up residency in Number 10, is with their support. OK, there won't be a formal coalition, but if Labour wish to pass any contentious legislation that the other parties will not support, they will have to rely on the SNP's support. That will require Labour to return the favour on something that the SNP want. What will suit the SNP down to the ground, will be co-operating with Labour over matters that are deemed to be English legislation and where the English MPs would otherwise have voted it down, and this will cause massive resentment against them and Labour if they allow it to happen.

[pap]

The SNP have Labour by the balls. It looks almost certain that the only way that Red Ed can take up residency in Number 10, is with their support. OK, there won't be a formal coalition, but if Labour wish to pass any contentious legislation that the other parties will not support, they will have to rely on the SNP's support. That will require Labour to return the favour on something that the SNP want. What will suit the SNP down to the ground, will be co-operating with Labour over matters that are deemed to be English legislation and where the English MPs would otherwise have voted it down, and this will cause massive resentment against them and Labour if they allow it to happen.

Like the Lib Dems had the Tories by the balls?

 

It comes to something when the anti-Labour rhetoric is about the party they might be in coalition with, rather than them themselves, especially after seeing five years of Lib Dem testicular crushing pain and their consequent oblivion.

[Torres]

The Lib Dems have at least (in theory) been working on behalf of the whole nation and had candidates standing in every constituency (NI excepted).

 

The SNP would be working exclusively on behalf of a small part of the country, to the probable detriment to the country as a whole, want to break away from the country and only less than 10% of the electorate even have the chance to vote for them.

 

There is a bit of a difference, pap, even putting left/right political differences aside.

[Wes Tender]

Like the Lib Dems had the Tories by the balls?

 

It comes to something when the anti-Labour rhetoric is about the party they might be in coalition with, rather than them themselves, especially after seeing five years of Lib Dem testicular crushing pain and their consequent oblivion.

 

If you like, yes, but with some big differences. The Conservative/Lib Dem arrangement was a coalition, allowing some of their party to have ministerial responsibilities. I doubt that will apply to any arrangement that Labour and the SNP would arrive at, especially considering the West Lothian question. But neither were the Lib Dems intent on breaking up the United Kingdom.

 

I admit that to an extent the Lib Dems curtailed some of the policy objectives of the Tories, therefore one could use the analogy about them having the Tories by the balls if you like. But do you dispute that the SNP would have Labour by the balls? That the anti-Labour rhetoric is about the party they might enter into an understanding with in order to gain their support (as I understand it, it won't be a coalition without SNP cabinet seats) rather than Labour policies, reflects the potential seriousness of that scenario.

 

It was up to Labour to set the agenda for their policies and if the media have preferred to concentrate on the implications of a Labour/SNP alliance, that is Labour's fault. In any event, much of the electorate's opinions on Labour are justifiably going to based on their experience of what happened the last time they were in power, rather than what they say that they will do if they won the election. And that will be tempered by the electorate's perception of how the SNP will extract their pound of flesh in the process.

[CB Fry]

I think Labour might have played this very well. As you say if they cosy up to the SNP they are effectively giving up in Scotland which would make a very fragile state of affairs should the SNP self implode over the next 5 years. The SNP went early on their anyone but Tory campaign so they really have to back Labour regardless of whether Labour invite them to the party or not. So Labour get the SNP backing, and still get a chance to fight their corner at the next election when I suspect the SNP will have a stronger devolution emphasis to their manifesto.

 

Agree.

 

Look beyond the Daily Mail hysterical stuff (you know, fu cking idiots saying stuff like "The SNP have got Labour by the balls") and we have a situation which while clearly far from ideal for Labour is not the golden ticket the SNP/SNP fearing betwetters think it is.

 

If he gets the chance I hope Ed gets to write a Queens Speech and dares them to vote it down. I think in reality he will put nods to the SNP cause in there to respect the fact they probably have Lib Dem 2010 level of seats, but it will be a compromise the SNP will need to talk up more than Labour will need to talk down.

[pap]

The Lib Dems have at least (in theory) been working on behalf of the whole nation and had candidates standing in every constituency (NI excepted).

 

The SNP would be working exclusively on behalf of a small part of the country, to the probable detriment to the country as a whole, want to break away from the country and only less than 10% of the electorate even have the chance to vote for them.

 

There is a bit of a difference, pap, even putting left/right political differences aside.

 

Not sure that geographical clustering of their MPs is germane to anything, nor a shared gotta-have-it goal. The Guardian's political map shows that if it were up to people who lived in cities, particularly northern cities, then we'd go red every time. Do the cities have the country by the balls? And it's not like the Lib Dems didn't have their own cause to demand when going into government. They had to have a new voting system! They've got the government by the balls!

 

Facile speculation from people that seemingly can't remember the last five years. Whoever is in charge of government has the balls. The Lib Dems learned that. Why haven't some of you?

[Torres]

I think you're missing a sense of perspective there pap.

[pap]

I think you're missing a sense of perspective there pap.

 

I think not.

 

As I said before, it's telling that unsubstantiated fearmongering about the SNP is the strategy on the eve of the election. None of you Tories are voting for anything, at least anything you can defend.

[Torres]

Well that's a sweeping generalisation based on pure assumption.

 

I'm very surprised that you think the two situations are comparable. It's not even "fear mongering" - the SNP are openly only interested in working for and protecting the interests of Scotland - to hell with anyone else.

[pap]

Well that's a sweeping generalisation based on pure assumption.

 

I'm very surprised that you think the two situations are comparable. It's not even "fear mongering" - the SNP are openly only interested in working for and protecting the interests of Scotland - to hell with anyone else.

 

David Cameron in the papers today warning the British public of a "con trick" was one of the funniest, least self-aware parts of the last five years.

 

It's fear mongering. There is no defensible arm of policy in the Tory manifesto. Let's whip up fear about those Scots breaking the Union again.

 

Sorry you don't/can't see it.

[Batman]

David Cameron in the papers today warning the British public of a "con trick" was one of the funniest, least self-aware parts of the last five years.

 

It's fear mongering. There is no defensible arm of policy in the Tory manifesto. Let's whip up fear about those Scots breaking the Union again.

 

Sorry you don't/can't see it.

they all do the fear mongering.

Lost count how many times Milliband is going to save the NHS from oblivion...when it really isnt in oblivion and nor is it going to be.

The NHS will be much the same no matter which one of them is PM

[Wes Tender]

Not sure that geographical clustering of their MPs is germane to anything, nor a shared gotta-have-it goal. The Guardian's political map shows that if it were up to people who lived in cities, particularly northern cities, then we'd go red every time. Do the cities have the country by the balls? And it's not like the Lib Dems didn't have their own cause to demand when going into government. They had to have a new voting system! They've got the government by the balls!

 

Facile speculation from people that seemingly can't remember the last five years. Whoever is in charge of government has the balls. The Lib Dems learned that. Why haven't some of you?

 

I think that you'll find that not only can most of the electorate remember the last 5 years, but most of them can also remember the Labour years of government before that. A bit of a difference between clusters of Labour voting cities in the north of England and almost an entire country going to vote for a party intent of leaving the union, so a rather poor analogy.

 

That many northern cities return so many Labour MPs and indeed that Scotland and Wales also had traditionally returned so many, reflects the unfairness of the Parliamentary boundaries which should have been altered at the time of the last election. This is one area of electoral injustice that almost certainly will not be addressed in the event of a Labour/SNP alliance, as it suits neither party. If there was an English Parliament equivalent to the ones that Scotland, Wales and NI have, then that would be dominated by the Conservatives, despite the northern cities.

[Wes Tender]

they all do the fear mongering.

Lost count how many times Milliband is going to save the NHS from oblivion...when it really isnt in oblivion and nor is it going to be.

The NHS will be much the same no matter which one of them is PM

 

When the Tories do it, it is fear-mongering. When Labour does it, is it the truth, carved in stone.

[shurlock]

Well that's a sweeping generalisation based on pure assumption.

 

I'm very surprised that you think the two situations are comparable. It's not even "fear mongering" - the SNP are openly only interested in working for and protecting the interests of Scotland - to hell with anyone else.

 

Assuming you are correct, are there no policies that are in the interests of Scotland that English voters also believe are in the interests of the UK i.e. the speed, magnitude and timing of deficit reduction or reform of the welfare state, among other things?

 

You've been watching too much House of Cards, my little friend. Not all politics is zero-sum pork barrel spending where the jocks hijack and divert the budget for windfarms and other tinkets. And then, of course, there's your referendum bogeyman.

[Torres]

David Cameron in the papers today warning the British public of a "con trick" was one of the funniest, least self-aware parts of the last five years.

 

It's fear mongering. There is no defensible arm of policy in the Tory manifesto. Let's whip up fear about those Scots breaking the Union again.

 

Sorry you don't/can't see it.

Nobody needs to "whip up" any "fear". That the SNP are committed to Scottish independence and are committed to working on behalf of the people of Scotland - and nobody else - is not fear, it's blindingly obvious fact.

[pap]

I think that you'll find that not only can most of the electorate remember the last 5 years, but most of them can also remember the Labour years of government before that. A bit of a difference between clusters of Labour voting cities in the north of England and almost an entire country going to vote for a party intent of leaving the union, so a rather poor analogy.

 

That many northern cities return so many Labour MPs and indeed that Scotland and Wales also had traditionally returned so many, reflects the unfairness of the Parliamentary boundaries which should have been altered at the time of the last election. This is one area of electoral injustice that almost certainly will not be addressed in the event of a Labour/SNP alliance, as it suits neither party. If there was an English Parliament equivalent to the ones that Scotland, Wales and NI have, then that would be dominated by the Conservatives, despite the northern cities.

 

Super. That's really convinced me to vote for the part of the Conservative manifesto you're pushing. Oh, you weren't. Again.

 

We're not just talking Northern cities. Anywhere of a decent size, or remembers the industrial age, tends to go Labour. Look at my home city, consistently two little dots of red since 1997. Seems to me that people start voting Labour when they've enough people to look in the eye, or enough post-industrial blight to savour, especially if they remember the days when that industry used to provide opportunity.

 

If I had my way, I'd formalise the care/fear arrangement, move all you Tories to the south for a few years, and come back when you've finished eviscerating each other. Last man crawling gets the stock options.

[pap]

Tories got a real hard-on for SNP.

 

"Don't think about our policies. Don't even think about their policies. Think about the policies of a minority party that most won't be able to vote for."

 

"Erection" is just about right for these cocks.

 

Edited 6 May, 2015 by pap

[Wes Tender]

Super. That's really convinced me to vote for the part of the Conservative manifesto you're pushing. Oh, you weren't. Again.

 

We're not just talking Northern cities. Anywhere of a decent size, or remembers the industrial age, tends to go Labour. Look at my home city, consistently two little dots of red since 1997. Seems to me that people start voting Labour when they've enough people to look in the eye, or enough post-industrial blight to savour, especially if they remember the days when that industry used to provide opportunity.

 

If I had my way, I'd formalise the care/fear arrangement, move all you Tories to the south for a few years, and come back when you've finished eviscerating each other. Last man crawling gets the stock options.

 

We're not talking Northern Cities?

 

The Guardian's political map shows that if it were up to people who lived in cities, particularly northern cities, then we'd go red every time.

 

It was you who brought it up and then you refuse to respond to the points I made that it is unfair that they return a disproportionate number of MPs per head of electorate.

 

The current topic that started this off today was the effect that the SNP might have on Labour in government. Now I know that you would prefer to have a discourse on your own pet agenda of how nasty the Tories are and how downtrodden the masses are, but I'm not interested in debating the history of the Labour Party and how industry used to provide opportunity before the Trade Unions decimated it.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Super. That's really convinced me to vote for the part of the Conservative manifesto you're pushing. Oh, you weren't. Again.

 

We're not just talking Northern cities. Anywhere of a decent size, or remembers the industrial age, tends to go Labour. Look at my home city, consistently two little dots of red since 1997. Seems to me that people start voting Labour when they've enough people to look in the eye, or enough post-industrial blight to savour, especially if they remember the days when that industry used to provide opportunity.

 

If I had my way, I'd formalise the care/fear arrangement, move all you Tories to the south for a few years, and come back when you've finished eviscerating each other. Last man crawling gets the stock options.

 

Most of us Tories already live in the South though...We're surviving so far.

[pap]

We're not talking Northern Cities?

 

It was you who brought it up and then you refuse to respond to the points I made that it is unfair that they return a disproportionate number of MPs per head of electorate.

 

The current topic that started this off today was the effect that the SNP might have on Labour in government. Now I know that you would prefer to have a discourse on your own pet agenda of how nasty the Tories are and how downtrodden the masses are, but I'm not interested in debating the history of the Labour Party and how industry used to provide opportunity before the Trade Unions decimated it.

 

And yet, the Trade Unions don't really have the place they did. Yes, Miliband was their man, leading people like yourself to chuck about the Red Ed tag until this year!

 

On the other scale of things, the same people that moan about the unions now moan because all the politicians are PPE grads and not shop stewards, etc, representing the working man. The charge laid at your feet, again and again, is that this last-minute scaremongering-SNP stuff just shows you have nothing positive to say about Conservative policy.

 

Because you know it's all bollócks and bribery. There's no shame in that. I actually commend you for not pushing it. Good to know that there is some shít that even Tory voters won't claim as their own.

[pap]

Most of us Tories already live in the South though...We're surviving so far.

 

Barely.

 

London plus dormitory towns for people who can't afford to live in London. Or not good/hardworking enough, from a Tory point of view.

 

Enjoy. The employed get to live up here.

[Batman]

Barely.

 

London plus dormitory towns for people who can't afford to live in London. Or not good/hardworking enough, from a Tory point of view.

 

Enjoy. The employed get to live up here.

 

loads of Tory's in the south west too. and their support is rising.

Which is odd, considering the poor average wage in many areas

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Barely.

 

London plus dormitory towns for people who can't afford to live in London. Or not good/hardworking enough, from a Tory point of view.

 

Enjoy. The employed get to live up here.

 

I think you're vastly overrating life up North, and underrating life down here.

[pap]

I think you're vastly overrating life up North, and underrating life down here.

 

It's not about rating. More about cost of living and the dormitory factor.

 

If you don't live in a big southern city, then you're likely living in a place that doesn't give a shít because London is just up the road. Why should it? Hence, sleepy little towns with too many people and f**k all to do.

 

You get a lot more for your money up here. Want to challenge that fact? Speak to anyone that goes to away games.

[SuperMikey]

loads of Tory's in the south west too. and their support is rising.

Which is odd, considering the poor average wage in many areas

 

Tories popular in the world capital of small gene pools? Well, I never.

[Torres]

Assuming you are correct, are there no policies that are in the interests of Scotland that English voters also believe are in the interests of the UK i.e. the speed, magnitude and timing of deficit reduction or reform of the welfare state, among other things?

 

You've been watching too much House of Cards, my little friend. Not all politics is zero-sum pork barrel spending where the jocks hijack and divert the budget for windfarms and other tinkets. And then, of course, there's your referendum bogeyman.

 

If those policies happen to overlap, then that's a bonus for the rest of the UK, but it's certainly not by any design.

 

Should the SNP have any influence over the next government they certainly won't be using it to look after the interests of the good people of Ipswich.

 

I'm afraid much of government simply is about spending and it is about deciding how finite resources are used. Just because it's not all about that doesn't mean we should ignore it.

[saint si]

I think you're vastly overrating life up North, and underrating life down here.

 

The weather is better on the south coast, for one...

[Bearsy]

omg i can't decide who to do a vote for! Turns out you can't vote for the main bros you see on tv where i live, you have to vote for some other bros i never heard of! I was gonna vote for the conservative bro, cos i thought he would put in a good word for me with the main bro whose running the country at the moment, but I've just found out the Labour bro is called Rob Pocock, which is a mark in his favour

 

Here is my choices. We seem to be lacking Diversity, where I live

 

LIBDEM Richard Brighton-Knight (dbl barrel name - would not vote for this bro)

UKIPS Marcus John Brown (why mention middle name? would not vote for this bro)

CON Andrew Mitchell (looks v.old - would not vote for this bro)

LAB Rob Pocock (looks ok might vote for this bro)

GREEN David Ratcliff (bald - would not vote for this bro)

UBUNTO Mark Sleigh (power of invisibility - might vote for this bro. What is an Ubunto?)

[Unbelievable Jeff]

It's not about rating. More about cost of living and the dormitory factor.

 

If you don't live in a big southern city, then you're likely living in a place that doesn't give a shít because London is just up the road. Why should it? Hence, sleepy little towns with too many people and f**k all to do.

 

You get a lot more for your money up here. Want to challenge that fact? Speak to anyone that goes to away games.

 

You get more for your money, no doubt. But you don't get as much money...

 

I don't think for instance you have more options on what to do than I do?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

omg i can't decide who to do a vote for! Turns out you can't vote for the main bros you see on tv where i live, you have to vote for some other bros i never heard of! I was gonna vote for the conservative bro, cos i thought he would put in a good word for me with the main bro whose running the country at the moment, but I've just found out the Labour bro is called Rob Pocock, which is a mark in his favour

 

Here is my choices. We seem to be lacking Diversity, where I live

 

LIBDEM Richard Brighton-Knight (dbl barrel name - would not vote for this bro)

UKIPS Marcus John Brown (why mention middle name? would not vote for this bro)

CON Andrew Mitchell (looks v.old - would not vote for this bro)

LAB Rob Pocock (looks ok might vote for this bro)

GREEN David Ratcliff (bald - would not vote for this bro)

UBUNTO Mark Sleigh (power of invisibility - might vote for this bro. What is an Ubunto?)

 

Ooh, now we know where Bearsy lives...

[SuperMikey]

If those policies happen to overlap, then that's a bonus for the rest of the UK, but it's certainly not by any design.

 

Should the SNP have any influence over the next government they certainly won't be using it to look after the interests of the good people of Ipswich.

 

I'm afraid much of government simply is about spending and it is about deciding how finite resources are used. Just because it's not all about that doesn't mean we should ignore it.

 

And why should they? Their mandate is to do the best for the people they represent, which is people living in Scotland. If people moan about not being properly represented by the politicians that are supposed to represent them in the Commons then why vote for them? I think politics in the UK needs to be more devolved, there are huge areas of the country that feel that they aren't represented by those in Westminster (notably one of the reasons why the SNP are so popular in Scotland right now) that would benefit from more devolved powers.

 

Cameron doesn't give a f*ck about Hull or Wigan or Carlisle, and neither do Milband, Clegg, Farage et al. Really not sure why the regional assemblies were scrapped because they'd have much more of an impact on people outside developed areas in the South and it'd mean that people may actually feel more represented by the people they scrawl their votes for. Just saying.

[Torres]

 

You get a lot more for your money up here. Want to challenge that fact? Speak to anyone that goes to away games.

 

I'd get more for my money in rural Romania - doesn't mean I want to live there.

[pap]

You get more for your money, no doubt. But you don't get as much money...

 

I don't think for instance you have more options on what to do than I do?

 

You get the same money as anywhere else but London, despite the cost of living being loads less.

 

Same money. Things, including many important things such as how much you pay for housing, cost a lot less. Come on UJ, you're almost there....

 

That is why I said "employed" when making my comparison. If you're in work, and can remain in work, the North is better value for money. In the majority of cases, I think it's better value for money than London too. The weighting never really addresses the weight. The problem is that opportunity has been historically limited up here since the collapse of industry.

 

The weather is really the only real shítter.

[Torres]

I'd get more for my money in rural Romania - doesn't mean I want to live there.

 

Although, having said that:

 

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/overseas-property/property-50369297.html

 

Only £130k. It's about 2 hours from Bucharest and would be great for skiing in the winter and hill walking in the summer. Beer and food is dirt cheap too.

 

I may not be back for a while, I've a wife to convince.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You get the same money as anywhere else but London, despite the cost of living being loads less.

 

Same money. Things, including many important things such as how much you pay for housing, cost a lot less. Come on UJ, you're almost there....

 

That is why I said "employed" when making my comparison. If you're in work, and can remain in work, the North is better value for money. In the majority of cases, I think it's better value for money than London too. The weighting never really addresses the weight. The problem is that opportunity has been historically limited up here since the collapse of industry.

 

The weather is really the only real shítter.

 

I may be missing the point here, but if I was to work up North, I would be getting paid substantially less than I do in London, and I don't think that housing being cheaper, beer being marginally cheaper etc really makes much difference to that.

 

I would say that in general, the counties of Surrey, Kent, Hampshire etc are nicer than Lancashire, Yorkshire etc, and have more to do.

 

People up North are friendlier, but that's about all I can think of that is better up North.

 

Of course, I may be missing your point, so if you can try harder to make your point explicit then I will try to understand what you're saying...

[shurlock]

If those policies happen to overlap, then that's a bonus for the rest of the UK, but it's certainly not by any design.

 

Should the SNP have any influence over the next government they certainly won't be using it to look after the interests of the good people of Ipswich.

 

I'm afraid much of government simply is about spending and it is about deciding how finite resources are used. Just because it's not all about that doesn't mean we should ignore it.

 

I didn't say its not about taxation and spending; but there is a difference between decisions which have distributional consequences across socioeconomic groups -rich vs. poor, old vs. young, borrowers vs. savers, producers vs. consumers, large businesses vs. SMEs, financial services versus other sectors, those with and without children, men vs. women etc; and decisions which redistribute only and exclusively between regions, once you control for the above characteristics.

 

What I am saying is that the importance and salience of the latter is more limited when you consider the entire business of government and the multiple allegiances and affiliations voters have. The SNP's banging on about austerity and protecting public expenditure which will be music to the ears of Labour voters, wherever they are in country, even Ipswich, implies as much.

 

I don't doubt the SNP will be pushing for a more parochial agenda -most probably greater fiscal autonomy (though not a snap referendum or tartan-plated trinkets); but its certainly not the only thing. To assume or assert otherwise is a huge simplification.

Edited 6 May, 2015 by shurlock

[Torres]

You're the only one who made that simplification, shurlock, nobody else.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

You get the same money as anywhere else but London, despite the cost of living being loads less.

 

Same money. Things, including many important things such as how much you pay for housing, cost a lot less. Come on UJ, you're almost there....

 

That is why I said "employed" when making my comparison. If you're in work, and can remain in work, the North is better value for money. In the majority of cases, I think it's better value for money than London too. The weighting never really addresses the weight. The problem is that opportunity has been historically limited up here since the collapse of industry.

 

The weather is really the only real shítter.

 

This is the toss up in our house* at the moment. The gf, being from just outside Manchester (well actually Altrincham, Chester but she says MCR) is keen to go up North as it's cheaper. She's a Doctor, will be a GP in a few years so she's sweet. After years of pestering, I'm now a games (well, level) designer. There's the odd bit here and there, but in the main my industry is based here in London.

 

I'm sure I'm not alone in being tied to a City due to the industry they work in. As I keep trying to tell her, we're better off both in work in a more expensive City than me out of work in a cheaper part of the country.

 

Looking out the office window right now, I'm struggling to believe even that last part.

 

I do still love London though. It's a special City, which rivals any in the world. Something needs to give though, it cannot carry on pricing out everyone except the super wealthy whilst travel cost carry on to go through the roof too. Living and commuting is becoming stupidly prohibitive to lower income earners which any City needs.

 

>In b4 "rabble rabble rabble, blame the immigrants".

Nah, that's ********. We've chronically ignored infrastructure (homes, schools, hospitals etc) as a nation for years. With or without immigration.

 

*By house, I of course mean tiny little rented flat.

[badgerx16]

I would say that in general, the counties of Surrey, Kent, Hampshire etc are nicer than Lancashire, ..., and have more to do.

 

Wrong

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Wrong

 

It's an opinion, so not wrong, but you may disagree with my opinion. I have a lot of family up North, so it's not as if I have never been there, but there have only been two places that I think I would consider moving to - Ilkley and Harrogate.

[Torres]

We made the move northwards out of London about 3 years ago. Whilst it's nice to have a bigger house and land, we still miss plenty about London itself.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

This is the toss up in our house* at the moment. The gf, being from just outside Manchester (well actually Altrincham, Chester but she says MCR) is keen to go up North as it's cheaper. She's a Doctor, will be a GP in a few years so she's sweet. After years of pestering, I'm now a games (well, level) designer. There's the odd bit here and there, but in the main my industry is based here in London.

 

I'm sure I'm not alone in being tied to a City due to the industry they work in. As I keep trying to tell her, we're better off both in work in a more expensive City than me out of work in a cheaper part of the country.

 

Looking out the office window right now, I'm struggling to believe even that last part.

 

I do still love London though. It's a special City, which rivals any in the world. Something needs to give though, it cannot carry on pricing out everyone except the super wealthy whilst travel cost carry on to go through the roof too. Living and commuting is becoming stupidly prohibitive to lower income earners which any City needs.

 

>In b4 "rabble rabble rabble, blame the immigrants".

Nah, that's ********. We've chronically ignored infrastructure (homes, schools, hospitals etc) as a nation for years. With or without immigration.

 

*By house, I of course mean tiny little rented flat.

 

Am I the only person that doesn't have a problem with the cost of commuting, but more with the standard of commuting.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

We made the move northwards out of London about 3 years ago. Whilst it's nice to have a bigger house and land, we still miss plenty about London itself.

 

I think London is pretty much the best city on earth.

[pap]

I may be missing the point here, but if I was to work up North, I would be getting paid substantially less than I do in London, and I don't think that housing being cheaper, beer being marginally cheaper etc really makes much difference to that.

 

Housing is most people's biggest expense. It makes a huge difference. Comparable house down south would probably cost me at least £300pcm extra.

 

Perhaps if I re-phrase the benefit, it'll be easier to understand.

 

"Hey Jeff! Here is £300pcm extra free! To spend on things which are a bit cheaper anyway. Would that make your life any easier?"

[KelvinsRightGlove]

It's an opinion, so not wrong, but you may disagree with my opinion. I have a lot of family up North, so it's not as if I have never been there, but there have only been two places that I think I would consider moving to - Ilkley and Harrogate.

 

My family are from Doncaster. Thank heavens my Mum moved down here with my Dad!

 

That said, was at a cousins wedding up there last week. Never get bored of people complaining about bar prices, getting a large round (7 drinks) and fearing the price only to be asked for £23!! THAT'S BLOODY CHEAP!!!

 

...I need to leave London really, don't I?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Housing is most people's biggest expense. It makes a huge difference. Comparable house down south would probably cost me at least £300pcm extra.

 

Perhaps if I re-phrase the benefit, it'll be easier to understand.

 

"Hey Jeff! Here is £300pcm extra free! To spend on things which are a bit cheaper anyway. Would that make your life any easier?"

 

Yes, but when you're taking £200 per day from my daily rate, that £300 pcm doesn't even start to help...

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Am I the only person that doesn't have a problem with the cost of commuting, but more with the standard of commuting.

 

You have issues with your commutes? Never realised (sorry UJ, couldn't resist)

 

It seems to largely depend on where you are I guess. I hear of people paying extraordinary amounts (particularly as a % of their income). But the point about the standard of commuting is largely valid.

 

As I said, infrastructure has been criminally under-prioritised for decades by governments of all persuasions.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

My family are from Doncaster. Thank heavens my Mum moved down here with my Dad!

 

That said, was at a cousins wedding up there last week. Never get bored of people complaining about bar prices, getting a large round (7 drinks) and fearing the price only to be asked for £23!! THAT'S BLOODY CHEAP!!!

 

...I need to leave London really, don't I?

 

That's pretty good, would be a good tenner more in London.

 

I would suggest moving to the suburbs, it's pretty good out here, apart from the Mason's...

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You have issues with your commutes? Never realised (sorry UJ, couldn't resist)

 

It seems to largely depend on where you are I guess. I hear of people paying extraordinary amounts (particularly as a % of their income). But the point about the standard of commuting is largely valid.

 

As I said, infrastructure has been criminally under-prioritised for decades by governments of all persuasions.

 

Today was a ****ing nightmare, but anyway

 

Agree on your last point.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

That's pretty good, would be a good tenner more in London.

 

I would suggest moving to the suburbs, it's pretty good out here, apart from the Mason's...

 

I'm from the 'burbs! Well, Harrow then Ruislip. Neither are cheap! Couldn't afford much round either of them. It's another consideration though, but then I just spend my life commuting