Why do we need loads of Mps in government?

[Mecky 10]

That's not the point. The divide is the point.

 

Taken to its natural conclusion, the less investment there is in the North of England, the worse it will get untill no one will invest up here at all and the North will become a third world wasteland of poverty and nothing else.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2014 at 17:30 ----------

 

 

Didn't I hear somewhere that in the days of the British Raj, the whole of India was run by 140 civil servants?

 

Possibly, but backed-up by thousands of troops

[mjw47 10]

That's not the point. The divide is the point.

 

Taken to its natural conclusion, the less investment there is in the North of England, the worse it will get untill no one will invest up here at all and the North will become a third world wasteland of poverty and nothing else.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2014 at 17:30 ----------

 

 

Didn't I hear somewhere that in the days of the British Raj, the whole of India was run by 140 civil servants?

 

Yes, and a bloody great army!

[Anna B 1,417]

I read somewhere that if we had the some number of representatives as the USA based on the population we would have 184 MPs.

 

We have 650.

 

A reduction to 300 wouldn't seem excessive.

 

Remember when Dave dragged the cabinet up North to prove how inclusive he was? That was supposed to happen on a regular basis, but again he hopes we've all forgotten...

 

To get back to the North South divide, - they haven't a clue about life outside London. Why can't half those 600 MPs have to move and stay in the North all week and work from there. They wouldn't like it, but how do they think we feel?

 

It would be much cheaper and they could champion the North with its particular problems and give us the benefit of their wisdom first hand. This government is very keen on parachuting 'experts' into failing organisations when it suits them, so why not parachute a few MPs in up north.

 

I don't know about you, but I feel we've been abandoned.

[*_ash_* 88]

 

To get back to the North South divide, - they haven't a clue about life outside London. Why can't half those 600 MPs have to move and stay in the North all week and work from there. They wouldn't like it, but how do they think we feel?

 

You still wouldn't be happy.

 

'Let them live on this for a week' - they do it. Next comment, 'well try living like that for a year', ' let them try living like that for 2 years, with no arms or legs'. 'I bet they have big banks accounts to back them'

 

If they moved permanently up here and used some kind of video-conferencing for parliament, they'd just get 'lazy sods, can't even be bothered to go into work, try commuting everyday like I have to'

 

These never ending comparisons that people make are pointless and boring.

 

 

I don't know about you, but I feel we've been abandoned.

 

No. I don't.

 

If you ever think that Sheffield, or Dewsbury or Halifax or Newcastle or wherever is ever going to compete and win against the might of London, then you are delusional.

[Obelix 11]

Remember when Dave dragged the cabinet up North to prove how inclusive he was? That was supposed to happen on a regular basis, but again he hopes we've all forgotten...

 

To get back to the North South divide, - they haven't a clue about life outside London. Why can't half those 600 MPs have to move and stay in the North all week and work from there. They wouldn't like it, but how do they think we feel?

 

It would be much cheaper and they could champion the North with its particular problems and give us the benefit of their wisdom first hand. This government is very keen on parachuting 'experts' into failing organisations when it suits them, so why not parachute a few MPs in up north.

 

 

You mean like all those MP's that we vote in?

 

Last time I checked quite a few of them come from the north, live in the north and work up here as well as down in Parliment...

 

I don't know about you, but I feel we've been abandoned.

 

 

Oh dear it's more of the woe is us isn't everything so utterly utterly terrible and woe is me and woe is everyone else and we are all going to die and it's just so so terrible isn't it...

 

No actually it's not. For pitys sake come up with a cogent argument rather than just incessent whining "oh it's tooooo awwwwwful" all the time....

[Anna B 1,417]

 

No. I don't.

 

If you ever think that Sheffield, or Dewsbury or Halifax or Newcastle or wherever is ever going to compete and win against the might of London, then you are delusional.

 

Of course we won't be able 'win' against the capital. But there is a dangerous imbalance, with nearly all the money and effort going into London. I've just come back from there and it really is a different world in a bubble.

 

I say dangerous because a tipping point will be reached, (if it hasn't been already,) when there will simply be NO investment in the north at all, and more than half the population will decline into abject poverty.

 

What then? Less tax revenue? greater dependence on welfare? (if there is any,) half the population having to support the other half and resenting it, failing infrastructure? riots?

 

Those that can might try to move where the work is, but that is going to cause massive overcrowding and slum dwellings in places like London (which is happening already,) because no one but the very rich can afford to live there in any comfort.

 

This is the pattern of things across Europe and the Arab spring countries - Economic decline, leading to social unrest. We are not immune. What makes you think it couldn't happen here?

[Obelix 11]

If the north is so hard done by why did the mass rioting start in, and mainly affect London then?

[*_ash_* 88]

Of course we won't be able 'win' against the capital. But there is a dangerous imbalance, with nearly all the money and effort going into London. I've just come back from there and it really is a different world in a bubble.

 

Dangerous imbalance? Nah.

 

Does the money and effort go into London? Or does it attract money and the effort of people?

 

London could burn down tomorrow and people will still flock to it. In 10 years it would probably be bigger than it is now.

 

I say dangerous because a tipping point will be reached, (if it hasn't been already,) when there will simply be NO investment in the north at all, and more than half the population will decline into abject poverty.

 

[tinfoilhat 11]

Dangerous imbalance? Nah.

 

Does the money and effort go into London? Or does it attract money and the effort of people?

 

London could burn down tomorrow and people will still flock to it. In 10 years it would probably be bigger than it is now.

 

 

 

 

Correct. There are no or very few grants if a large multinational wants a UK office to be setup. Oh and sky high rent and rates to boot. Oop north? Money gets flung at them.

[LeMaquis 10]

If the north is so hard done by why did the mass rioting start in, and mainly affect London then?

 

Perhaps it was because the shooting that triggered it took place in Tottenham.

[anywebsite 10]

I'm not referring solely to political systems. All systems we've ever created have suffered from corruption at one point or another, or have been able to be corrupted.

 

Corruption is part of human nature, if it's possible to game a system for our own benefit, you can guarantee somebody will.

 

Plenty of working non-political systems have been created.

[Anna B 1,417]

 

No actually it's not. For pitys sake come up with a cogent argument rather than just incessent whining "oh it's tooooo awwwwwful" all the time....

 

 

 

I have. A council for the North of England.

 

Wales and Scotland have them. We need something similar.