3 ms·

using the massive temporary increase in covid spending to try to assert that the Conservatives are now suddenly into big spending seems like a stretch Boris di

using the massive temporary increase in covid spending to try to assert that the Conservatives are now suddenly into big spending seems like a stretch Boris didn't necessarily like big spending... he had to or the economy would have collapsed their sources are... somewhat europhile too (ex-EU commissioner, pro-EU think tank, and former EU diplomat)

avianlyric 5y ago
> Boris didn't necessarily like big spending... Not sure that’s true. One of the first things Boris did after Brexit was start pushing hard on infrastructure spending with projects like HS2 (already on the books, but Boris explicitly threw his weight behind it, and got rid of objectors) and “levelling up” the north. Think Boris realised that all those labour voters that voted for him wouldn’t hang around unless he substantially improved the quality of life outside of London. Big infrastructure projects are the obvious path to take. Boris also increased business rates as well, along with being caught saying “fuck business”. Boris isn’t your standard conservative, looking for economic stability or growth. He’s only interested in what keeps him in Number 10. And big spending up North looked like a pretty good strategy. Who cares about ROI for the tax payer, when it’s gonna keep him in office? Personally think the spending is/was a good thing on the whole. But I really don’t like Boris, and his complete lack of any conviction, except his conviction of reminding in Number 10.
- Bellend 5y ago
  Not looking for an argument, what did "levelling up" mean?
  - incone123 5y ago
    I think it was about regions further from London becoming more prosperous, partly through development of transport links and broadband internet
  - lifeisstillgood 5y ago
    There is actually a minister for "levelling up" - Michael Gove IIRR and he is making some hay with it. The idea is that Britain is massively massively centered around London Metro Area. And the regions suffer lack of investment, brain drain, lack of jobs as a result. The idea is to "level up" the rest of the UK to London levels (seen as a big Brexit lodestone) However, 1. no extra actual money seems to be allocated to it, 2. it's not quite clear how to do it. 30 years ago the surprisingly prescient comedy show Yes Prime Minister had a similar idea, to move the Army up North and spark new job creation. It would take massive scale action to do this - tax incentives, infrastructure, etc. It's worth noting that we have to spend vast vast sums to become climate neutral (revamp most housing infrastructure to be heat efficient, get rid gas boilers, replace the car fleet, move to vegetarian diets). So we could just spend that money in a different part of the country. And it's also worth pointing out that only Germany has this kind of levelled society - mostly because for 50 years Berlin was a no go area so Hamburg and other cities got an industry each (Frankfurt got finance etc). Paris, Rome, Madrid all have similar "Black Hole" status
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      The best way to actually disperse economic access is from the ground up: target the inputs to industry and create regional cost advantages. The US famously did this by electrifying Appalachia via hydroelectric dam construction, which created a power cost advantage, which drove power-hungry heavy industry (chemical, metallurgy) to the area. Unfortunately, this is a 30+ year long game, so requires more interest in true change and outcomes vs ones political career. Black hole-ism in Europe seems like a historical response to a geopolitically fractured and competitive continent, as disparate states all tried to centralize their most valuable / productive industry in their (mostly) centralized capitals. Why invest in a border city, if for much of European history there was a good chance of it changing hands?
      - lifeisstillgood 5y ago
        >> The best way to actually disperse economic access is from the ground up: target the inputs to industry and create regional cost advantages. I'm dubious this still can work. Electrification was like steam - fundamentally transformative compared to all previous human history. It's hard to now put "cheap" inputs into almost any part of the UK - coal? nuclear? We have been mining the raw resources for something like 5,000 years in cornwall. There is not a lot left. Interested in counter examples or ideas but this feels a lot like "build cities not so centred around cars" Edit: are you saying that you give cost advantages to a region in a country? Say Cornwall will be the tech hub, North East will be aerospace, etc? Which it's probably possible to make an area an aerospace local maxima. but will that compete globally? do we set up tariffs? I genuinely am interested because otherwise it's a crapshoot.
anikan_vader 5y ago
>> he had to or the economy would have collapsed. In the US, conservatives are very much anti-stimulus funding. Similarly, Germany demanded severe austerity in Greece during the recession, leading to the worst economic depression in a an advanced capitalist nation in recorded history (outpacing the American Great Depression).

avianlyric 5y ago

> Boris didn't necessarily like big spending... Not sure that’s true. One of the first things Boris did after Brexit was start pushing hard on infrastructure spending with projects like HS2 (already on the books, but Boris explicitly threw his weight behind it, and got rid of objectors) and “levelling up” the north. Think Boris realised that all those labour voters that voted for him wouldn’t hang around unless he substantially improved the quality of life outside of London. Big infrastructure projects are the obvious path to take. Boris also increased business rates as well, along with being caught saying “fuck business”. Boris isn’t your standard conservative, looking for economic stability or growth. He’s only interested in what keeps him in Number 10. And big spending up North looked like a pretty good strategy. Who cares about ROI for the tax payer, when it’s gonna keep him in office? Personally think the spending is/was a good thing on the whole. But I really don’t like Boris, and his complete lack of any conviction, except his conviction of reminding in Number 10.

Bellend 5y ago
Not looking for an argument, what did "levelling up" mean?
- incone123 5y ago
  I think it was about regions further from London becoming more prosperous, partly through development of transport links and broadband internet
- lifeisstillgood 5y ago
  There is actually a minister for "levelling up" - Michael Gove IIRR and he is making some hay with it. The idea is that Britain is massively massively centered around London Metro Area. And the regions suffer lack of investment, brain drain, lack of jobs as a result. The idea is to "level up" the rest of the UK to London levels (seen as a big Brexit lodestone) However, 1. no extra actual money seems to be allocated to it, 2. it's not quite clear how to do it. 30 years ago the surprisingly prescient comedy show Yes Prime Minister had a similar idea, to move the Army up North and spark new job creation. It would take massive scale action to do this - tax incentives, infrastructure, etc. It's worth noting that we have to spend vast vast sums to become climate neutral (revamp most housing infrastructure to be heat efficient, get rid gas boilers, replace the car fleet, move to vegetarian diets). So we could just spend that money in a different part of the country. And it's also worth pointing out that only Germany has this kind of levelled society - mostly because for 50 years Berlin was a no go area so Hamburg and other cities got an industry each (Frankfurt got finance etc). Paris, Rome, Madrid all have similar "Black Hole" status
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    The best way to actually disperse economic access is from the ground up: target the inputs to industry and create regional cost advantages. The US famously did this by electrifying Appalachia via hydroelectric dam construction, which created a power cost advantage, which drove power-hungry heavy industry (chemical, metallurgy) to the area. Unfortunately, this is a 30+ year long game, so requires more interest in true change and outcomes vs ones political career. Black hole-ism in Europe seems like a historical response to a geopolitically fractured and competitive continent, as disparate states all tried to centralize their most valuable / productive industry in their (mostly) centralized capitals. Why invest in a border city, if for much of European history there was a good chance of it changing hands?
    - lifeisstillgood 5y ago
      >> The best way to actually disperse economic access is from the ground up: target the inputs to industry and create regional cost advantages. I'm dubious this still can work. Electrification was like steam - fundamentally transformative compared to all previous human history. It's hard to now put "cheap" inputs into almost any part of the UK - coal? nuclear? We have been mining the raw resources for something like 5,000 years in cornwall. There is not a lot left. Interested in counter examples or ideas but this feels a lot like "build cities not so centred around cars" Edit: are you saying that you give cost advantages to a region in a country? Say Cornwall will be the tech hub, North East will be aerospace, etc? Which it's probably possible to make an area an aerospace local maxima. but will that compete globally? do we set up tariffs? I genuinely am interested because otherwise it's a crapshoot.

anikan_vader 5y ago

>> he had to or the economy would have collapsed. In the US, conservatives are very much anti-stimulus funding. Similarly, Germany demanded severe austerity in Greece during the recession, leading to the worst economic depression in a an advanced capitalist nation in recorded history (outpacing the American Great Depression).