Support NeoGAF

[Parl]

Perhaps, but the fact remains, the British government cut taxes to the rich and the Pensioners are indirectly paying for it, or at least have taken the downside of the changes.

Pension aged people are the richest people in the country yet their personal allowance is higher than those aged under 65. The change I believe you're referring to is the one which ends age discrimination and brings it in line with the now increased personal allowance of everybody else over the next couple of years. We have a deficit to deal with.

This is a completely separate issue to the top-rate of income tax. The budget is a whole package and no one thing pays for another, the state raises revenue in a number of different ways and spends it in a number of different ways. Rather than looking at what gets reduced and what gets increased, I think it better to look at what is the sensible level to set different taxes, whether than turns out to be an increase or a decrease is irrelevant except politically.

The top-rate of income tax was 40% from the late 80s through to the last couple of months of the previous government, raised by Brown to 50% despite him obviously thinking 40% is the better rate after keeping it for 10 years. As of next year, the current government is lowering it to 45% which is still higher than at nearly any point in the previous government, though they may seek to bring it in line with what Labour thinks (or thought) is best and what the previous Tory government preferred too.

I want a top-rate of income tax which, together with all other taxes, will cause the highest revenue for the Treasury as a whole in the long-term and have the greatest positive effect on the economy, jobs and the earnings and livelihoods of the majority long-term.

If the 40% rate or even 45% rate achieves that more effectively than the 50% rate, then so be it, but if there's better, more, let's say, economically efficient ways of taxing the rich, then let's push those instead. Thankfully, the government have pursued some of which measures in the latest Budget.

Both of these things compare to what the Republican party want to peruse.

Following American politics causes insanity, but you clearly don't, so I don't know how to explain this comment.

I like the government's idea that Osborne outlined in the budget, automatic retirement age rises with life expectancy. Automatic stabilisers ftw...

They need to be used more often so that when policy is well thought out, balanced and proportional, it's much more likely to remain that way. It's a shame really, but it's nice to see one is going to be used on such a massive issue at least.

 

[SteveWD40]

The Mash, as ever, nails the Snoop Bill

Civil rights campaigner Nikki Hollis said: "On the one hand, it's deeply worrying that the government is seeking to create a surveillance culture that encompasses spying on all digital media.

"On the other, that same government would struggle to arrange a children's party if provided with a clown, a bouncy castle, some children and an unlimited supply of jelly.

"So it's hard to say whether we should be worried or mildly amused."

 

[nib95]

So nib, what's your solution? Logans Run style euthanasia or we support a pension system that funds people from 65 till they die (which, like it or not could be another 50 years after they retire)?

I don't disagree to an automatic retirement age increase based on increased life expectancy at the time, but I still think 15 years retirement is fine (based on the current average).

Having said that, instead of a flat rate, I am actually for some sort of vetting which basically lessens pension funding for those retiree's who essentially don't need it. Those who were on extremely high salaries or have saved ex amount etc. I know that opens up a can of worms (why should I be negatively affected for being safe with my money), but I'm not the politician, that's something they'd have to iron the kinks out of.

But again, it boils down to people getting what they don't need. This goes for the highest earners and millionaires, and also for pensioners who already have plenty tucked away and had very cozy jobs.

Pension aged people are the richest people in the country yet their personal allowance is higher than those aged under 65. The change I believe you're referring to is the one which ends age discrimination and brings it in line with the now increased personal allowance of everybody else over the next couple of years. We have a deficit to deal with.

Do you have facts and figures to back up that claim? About pensioners being the richest people in the country or did you just pull that one out of a hat? There are thousands of pensioners out there that can't afford living with the rising costs in food, rent, electricity, heating etc. But I'm open to new information which suggests they are instead the richest...

This is a completely separate issue to the top-rate of income tax. The budget is a whole package and no one thing pays for another, the state raises revenue in a number of different ways and spends it in a number of different ways. Rather than looking at what gets reduced and what gets increased, I think it better to look at what is the sensible level to set different taxes, whether than turns out to be an increase or a decrease is irrelevant except politically.

The top-rate of income tax was 40% from the late 80s through to the last couple of months of the previous government, raised by Brown to 50% despite him obviously thinking 40% is the better rate after keeping it for 10 years. As of next year, the current government is lowering it to 45% which is still higher than at nearly any point in the previous government, though they may seek to bring it in line with what Labour thinks (or thought) is best and what the previous Tory government preferred too.

I want a top-rate of income tax which, together with all other taxes, will cause the highest revenue for the Treasury as a whole in the long-term and have the greatest positive effect on the economy, jobs and the earnings and livelihoods of the majority long-term.

If the 40% rate or even 45% rate achieves that more effectively than the 50% rate, then so be it, but if there's better, more, let's say, economically efficient ways of taxing the rich, then let's push those instead. Thankfully, the government have pursued some of which measures in the latest Budget.

Trickle down doesn't work, it hasn't in the past and it's doubtful it will today. You've also very cleverly selected specific dates and tax rates omitting others.

You're glossing over the fact that before the Tories came in to power in 1979 the top tax rate was actually 83%, which they cut down to 60%, a figure which has dropped further to what it is today and clearly not reaped the trickle down benefits promoted.

You are right that no one thing in a budget (generally) pays for another, but if you make less revenue because of one thing, you do have to introduce something else that accounts for that loss. And millions that will be lost in revenue from the new tax cut benefiting the very richest is being taken in other ways. From pensioners, child benefit, welfare etc.

Some of the biggest or most common loopholes for tax avoidance haven't even been closed, (Sole Trader and dividends) so that's another issue. Though a few is still a start, but still not justification for this rich handout.


Honestly, for me this budget was unfair and rather vile. If any income tax cuts had to be made, it should not have been to the wealthiest. Tax allowance increase is a start, but what about reducing tax to the middle 40% bracket earners? They gain shit all from this new budget, a small amount that barely covers the cost of inflation. The biggest handout here is by far to the richest. Add to that they've slyly dropped the 40% tax bracket from £37k down to an eventual £34k, so in a way they've nearly offset the benefit of the higher tax rate allowance for middle income earners.

I find it ridiculous that the jump from £34k to £150k and beyond nets only a 5% extra tax increase.

 

[phisheep]

I don't disagree to an automatic retirement age increase based on increased life expectancy at the time, but I still think 15 years retirement is fine (based on the current average).

This is more tricky than it seems. It doesn't make a load of sense to base the retirement age for people now in their 60s on the life expectancy at birth of people born now.

On that logic (and with Meadows' figures just to make the point) I'd get to retire at 85 - which would not be a great deal of use as I will likely be 10 years dead by then.

 

[Meadows]

Pension ages dependent on year of birth seems fair.

People who were born in 1981 retire at, for example, 80, those from 1991 at 83, 2001 at 86 etc.

 

[nib95]

This is more tricky than it seems. It doesn't make a load of sense to base the retirement age for people now in their 60s on the life expectancy at birth of people born now.

On that logic (and with Meadows' figures just to make the point) I'd get to retire at 85 - which would not be a great deal of use as I will likely be 10 years dead by then.

I thought average life expectancy for any given year took in facts and figures of both the old and the young? Shouldn't it in theory balance itself out depending on the average for the entire living populace and not just the young or new born?

What sort of system would you propose? But yea, life expectancy at year of birth also works. Depending on how that figure is even assumed in the first place of course.

 

[phisheep]

I thought average life expectancy for any given year took in facts and figures of both the old and the young? Shouldn't it in theory balance itself out depending on the average for the entire living populace and not just the young or new born?

What sort of system would you propose? But yea, life expectancy at year of birth also works. Depending on how that figure is even assumed in the first place of course.

The usual quoted figures for life expectancy (and I think these are the ones quoted by everyone throughout this thread) are life expectancies at birth. Of course there are all sorts of tables and calculations used by actuaries and lawyers to work out expectancies (for calculating compensation) and probabilities (for calculating insurance risks) at different ages, and they might be more appropriate.

You could, for example, use the life expectancy at retirement age - but even that is tricky because it's a conditional probability - discounting all the people who died beforehand.

I guess in the extreme you could get the figures to work out properly by implementing compulsory euthenasia at 15 years past retirement - which would naturally lead people to defer retirement as long as possible. Not that I'd vote for that.

 

[dalin80]

Pension ages dependent on year of birth seems fair.

People who were born in 1981 retire at, for example, 80, those from 1991 at 83, 2001 at 86 etc.

Doesnt take into account work hazards, one 80 year old would have spent 60 years working in a clean relaxed office while another could have died 20 years prior due to working in a garage full of toxic chemicals doing manual labour.

 

[Parl]

Do you have facts and figures to back up that claim? About pensioners being the richest people in the country or did you just pull that one out of a hat? There are thousands of pensioners out there that can't afford living with the rising costs in food, rent, electricity, heating etc. But I'm open to new information which suggests they are instead the richest...

Just tried to find out how it breaks down, cannot find wealth, only income. Seen figures which state those aged 55-64 have the highest income but also figures which claim they have less of an income than the pension aged on average. Iirc, the source for my original comment was one posted on this very thread.

Anyway, this is irrelevant to the point and I shouldn't have made it even if accurate. Those who struggle with costs struggle with costs regardless of age. As I understand it, the change is that of the personal allowance and in bringing it in line with that of everybody else.

Trickle down doesn't work, it hasn't in the past and it's doubtful it will today. You've also very cleverly selected specific dates and tax rates omitting others.

Not talking about the figures before the current context should demonstrate I wasn't arguing for the trickle down effect.

You're glossing over the fact that before the Tories came in to power in 1979 the top tax rate was actually 83%, which they cut down to 60%, a figure which has dropped further to what it is today and clearly not reaped the trickle down benefits promoted.

Trickle down, no, but increased revenue is always a plus.

You are right that no one thing in a budget (generally) pays for another, but if you make less revenue because of one thing, you do have to introduce something else that accounts for that loss. And millions that will be lost in revenue from the new tax cut benefiting the very richest is being taken in other ways. From pensioners, child benefit, welfare etc.

If 40 or 45% nets less revenue than 50% in the long-term, then this is true and it should be higher. It should land where we gain the largest sustainable revenue. It's hard to demonstrate as over time, you can't exactly show what caused what, but I'd like to see some figures that try.

 

[Meadows]

Osbourne going after tax dodgers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...e-Im-going-after-the-wealthy-tax-dodgers.html

 

[StealthGoblin]

I have some concerns with the retirement age. Though it would be hard to do, some professions take a lot more out of a person than others, and I think that should be factored in.

For example, can you imagine an 70-80 year old male primary school teacher? I just won't be fit for purpose at that age. I wouldn't want a 75 year old surgeon either. I'm fucking knackered as it is in my mid twenties. Given the increased workload we are being given without pay-rises, it'll really fuck over teachers for example.

I've also wondered for a while. . .if women statistically live longer than men, why do men retire after women? Seems like an instance where policy does not reflect the statistics.

 

[Meadows]

I have some concerns with the retirement age. Though it would be hard to do, some professions take a lot more out of a person than others, and I think that should be factored in.

For example, can you imagine an 70-80 year old male primary school teacher? I just won't be fit for purpose at that age. I wouldn't want a 75 year old surgeon either. I'm fucking knackered as it is in my mid twenties. Given the increased workload we are being given without pay-rises, it'll really fuck over teachers for example.

I've also wondered for a while. . .if women statistically live longer than men, why do men retire after women? Seems like an instance where policy does not reflect the statistics.

- what 85 year olds look like now isn't what 85 year olds will look like when you're 85
- men die earlier for a number of reasons, including a higher suicide rate, higher obesity rate, higher murder rate, more likely to die at war, more likely to ignore symptoms etc, it's not from birth

 

[StealthGoblin]

- what 85 year olds look like now isn't what 85 year olds will look like when you're 85
- men die earlier for a number of reasons, including a higher suicide rate, higher obesity rate, higher murder rate, more likely to die at war, more likely to ignore symptoms etc, it's not from birth

Though I have faith in pharmacology and genetic medicines, I don't think the change will be that drastic. Big Pharma has been hitting their heads against brick walls for far too long. Their focus isn't really on extending the natural life span of humanity, its moreso on keeping someone alive till they reach that average.

We've made some really interesting inroads with transplants etc, but I think those will still be an imprecise science in the next 50 years. Unless we all have our individual replacement organs grown (which is possible, but bloody expensive and not likely to be covered by the NHS). I think the retirement age should reflect the natural age we'd die on average without these expensive healthcare options, simply because not everyone will have access to them.

A big area of impact are pharmafoods (GM foods). If we can get broad public acceptance for those, that'll make the world of difference. Once the initial investment is made, they will be reasonably cheap to produce, less risky and can be shipped all around the world.

Even if an 85 year old won't look like an 85 year old, do you really think a 70-80 year old primary school teacher would be as equally effective as a 20-60 year old one?

Even if men do not die younger on average without external factors being the cause, why do women retire younger still? If anything the retirement age should be equal.

 

[defel]

Id be interested to see some real research comparing the life expectancy of people working in different industries. Id be willing to bet that most of the variation in life expectancy is a result of various lifestyle factors other than their profession.

In any case the government would be out of their mind to link retirement age to profession.

 

[StealthGoblin]

Id be interested to see some real research comparing the life expectancy of people working in different industries. Id be willing to bet that most of the variation in life expectancy is a result of various lifestyle factors other than their profession.

In any case the government would be out of their mind to link retirement age to profession.

Physical labour professions take a massive toll on workers bodies. My father is a refrigeration engineer for example. He doesn't smoke, drinks less than the national average per week, eats very healthily and goes on bike rides in his spare time etc. To look at him you'd think he was a fantastically healthy 50 year old.

He coughs like a mother fucker because of all the fumes he's been exposed to over the years. I reckon he has seen a marked decline in the vital capacity of his lungs.

Just one example, but I'd imagine there are other hazards of the workplace that can have a direct impact on general health and the long term viability for employment of people.

The facts are that certain professions have more of a mental or physical impact on ones wellbeing than others. These are not factored in to the equation.

 

[TCRS]

UK on brink of lasting recovery, OECD finds

Britain is on the brink of a lasting recovery, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as momentum builds in the global economy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-on-brink-of-lasting-recovery-OECD-finds.html

Next week: "UK close to recession! We're doomed! AAAHHHH!!"

 

[travisbickle]

Osbourne going after tax dodgers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...e-Im-going-after-the-wealthy-tax-dodgers.html

To do what? Tell them they're supposed to pay £250,000 for a table with Cameron before they decide to swindle the system?

 

[louis89]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17661004

Cameron in my neck of the woods!

The government has said that when the prime minister embarks on foreign business trips, exports rise by 20% in the countries he visits.

Thought that was quite cool.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-on-brink-of-lasting-recovery-OECD-finds.html

Next week: "UK close to recession! We're doomed! AAAHHHH!!"

No, that was last week!

Seriously, look back at the thread, the OECD just said we were back in a recession...

 

[SteveWD40]

No, that was last week!

Seriously, look back at the thread, the OECD just said we were back in a recession...

But they are not contradicting themselves because....




... because...





because fuck you that's why.

 

[louis89]

What did Meadows do?

 

[zomgbbqftw]

What did Meadows do?

Probably went into lonely-GAF and posted pictures of hid gf and started bragging...

 

[SteveWD40]

Posted a "didn't read lol" gif.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

The recovery thing sounds like wishful thinking. One minute Britain was continuing on a downward spiral, now things are looking up?

 

[SteveWD40]

The recovery thing sounds like wishful thinking. One minute Britain was continuing on a downward spiral, now things are looking up?

First off, OECD predicted we would be back in recession by now not 2 weeks ago, there is not "wishful thinking" at a French think-tank for the UK economy. If it was Osborne that said it then you could level that accusation.

Second, it's all about context. What does "recovery" really mean? return to 2005 levels of growth? hell no, return to any kind of consistent growth above 0.5%? maybe.

Compared to how things were in 2009 / 10, there is a notable improvement in some areas, but it takes time to see effects in the real economy, that's why we hear about manufacturing and service going up but employment is still not going up with it, it has to filter through.

One thing to note, businesses have taken massive advantage of these trading environments, no wage increases, thriving on the environment of fear, but that is finally stopping now as well, the number of pay caps are falling and businesses are being forced to face the economic reality that they are in a great position to grow now but need to spend some of the walls of cash they have been hoarding this past 3 years.

tl;dr: if we keep a steady 0.5% - 1% growth for the next year and un-employment drops by a small margin you could argue we are "recovering".

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I agree, if we can post 0.5-1% growth this year and get unemployment down a bit or stabilised then I would call that a decent year. Given the parlous state of government and household finances (the latter is responsible for 80% of all private spending in the UK) anything above 1% would be a huge surprise.

One downside in Q1 right now is construction figures, an area we disagree with the ONS. They don't count it properly and their figures are subject to seasonal fluctuations which they always go back and fix after the fact (see Q4, they are uprating the construction figures for Q4 probably enough to push the economic contraction from -0.3% up to -0.1-0.0% like we estimated in January) the same will happen for Q1 and eventually the -0.5% GDP hit predicted for construction will turn into -0.1% GDP hit, but in the meantime the media narrative will turn into "Britain has entered recession and the world is ending, etc..." and do plenty of damage to the economy.

The crux of it is that the ONS are completely fucking useless, we do a better job than they do without full access to the same data they do. It's just sad really.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Been reading some stuff about the charities tax loophole. Quite a few people in my bank use it, basically millionaires can offset their tax bill by donating large sums of money to charity.

In 1998 the tax relief on charitable donations was capped at £2000 per year, Gordon Brown removed the cap in that year's budget and opened up a massive loophole for rich people to get their tax bills down from 30-40% to under 15%. One of the top bankers at our bank earned £28m last year in pay and bonuses but with careful (and legal) tax planning he reduced his tax liabilities so much that he paid just an effective tax rate of 11%. That's not right, and though he reduced much of that with the charities relief loophole which does benefit charities.

Many people are much more unscrupulous and will "donate" money to their own charity based in the Netherlands where the Charities Commission has no jurisdiction and the regulation of the charities sector is lamentable. The government, by EU law, are obliged to pay out relief on donations to any EU based charity even if the charity is proved to not pay out any money to charitable causes. This is why the legislation is coming in. It costs the government around £150-200m a year to support an unlimited cap, by limiting donation relief to £50k it brings the costs down to less than £50m a year.

 

[J Tourettes]

i work for a charity but I can't be arsed to find out what the team who look after these kind of donations think about it as they're a bunch of incompetent fuckwits. However, I have nothing against it and we'll certainly see who the true philanthropists are.

 

[Namejj]

Many people are much more unscrupulous and will "donate" money to their own charity based in the Netherlands where the Charities Commission has no jurisdiction and the regulation of the charities sector is lamentable. The government, by EU law, are obliged to pay out relief on donations to any EU based charity even if the charity is proved to not pay out any money to charitable causes. This is why the legislation is coming in. It costs the government around £150-200m a year to support an unlimited cap, by limiting donation relief to £50k it brings the costs down to less than £50m a year.

Thats not entirely accurate though from what I've been reading. The EU court's decision was that if a charitable organisation based in another EU country satisifies the UK's tests of 1) charitable purpose 2) public benefit and 3) HMRCs 'Fit and Proper Person' test can they claim the tax relief. If there are dodgy EU charities then a complaint to the charity commission ir HMRC can have them removed the same as if there were a dodgy UK charity. EU cahrities still must pass the English and UK law to qualify.

To be honest I think that the Charities Commission's criteria are loose at the moment for all charities and should be tightened up. It seems as if investigations are lax too.

 

[JonathanEx]

"Sun/YouGov poll tonight - UKIP overtake Lib Dems to be Britain’s 3rd most popular party. CON 32%, LAB 43%, UKIP 9%, LDEM 8%."

I think we need a new thread title, to reflect that Clegg is now in the Lennie status.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Wait, did the NHS get privatised?

 

[Walshicus]

"Sun/YouGov poll tonight - UKIP overtake Lib Dems to be Britain’s 3rd most popular party. CON 32%, LAB 43%, UKIP 9%, LDEM 8%."

I think we need a new thread title, to reflect that Clegg is now in the Lennie status.

I guess it's a good thing that the right-wing vote is split as with the left-wing vote. Maybe we'll start seeing Tories support voting reform if UKIP manage to coalesce geographically.

 

[PJV3]

I guess it's a good thing that the right-wing vote is split as with the left-wing vote. Maybe we'll start seeing Tories support voting reform if UKIP manage to coalesce geographically.

It would be nice to have full PR and a healthy realignment of politics, it is a centre-right echo chamber at the moment.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Opinium also have UKIP ahead of the Lib Dems.

http://news.opinium.co.uk/survey-results/voting-intention-13th-april

Topline Voting Intention

			%	Change
Conservative		32	-2
Labour			37	-2
Liberal Democrats	9	+1
Other parties		22	+3

Other Parties (breakdown)

			%	Change
UKIP			10	+1
Green			4	+1
SNP			4	+1
BNP			2	n/c
Plaid Cymru		1	n/c
Other			1	n/c

 

[phisheep]

(yawn) margin of error (yawn) sample size (yawn) too far away from an election, don't care

 

[Misfits]

Wait, did the NHS get privatised?

in all but name, yes. seriously, we've yet to see the effects of the changes made, but something tells me they won't be good.

anyway, inflation crept back up to 3.5% cause of food prices.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I've been thinking about joining UKIP.

I'm not fully supportive of all their policies, but I do not support the government and would like to see them gone now. I am loathe to join Labour so UKIP seems like the only other way.

 

[JonathanEx]

Is it fair to say them going in to third is probably more a statement on Lib Dem disillusionment rather than UKIP success?

 

[zomgbbqftw]

In other semi-political news that will, sadly, benefit the government more shale gas reserves have been found off the coast of both Newcastle and Liverpool.

It is estimated that there are about 1000tn cubic feet of reserves, of which up to 25% is recoverable, putting Britain in the major league of gas producers if it is extracted.

Related to this is the reversal of the ban on hydraulic fracturing in Lancashire as more licences have been handed out and more pilot wells are being drilled.

If it works out, Britain will have energy security for the foreseeable future, and if the government play our cards right the money could be used to create a sovereign wealth fund to pay for state pensions.

 

[TCRS]

Yeah I read somewhere that we've got reserves for 300 years if we continue using gas at the current rate. That is unlikely though since our population is set to increase a lot over the coming years. But even so 150 - 200 years sounds really good. Gives humanity more time to find other solutions. Now that we know that fossil fuels deplete eventually hopefully we will make an effort to find a sustainable alternative before we start running out of shale gas.

 

[phisheep]

Might even get around to building that Severn Barrage thing in that timescale

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Might even get around to building that Severn Barrage thing in that timescale

Never!

 

[Dr Zhivago]

In other semi-political news that will, sadly, benefit the government more shale gas reserves have been found off the coast of both Newcastle and Liverpool.

It is estimated that there are about 1000tn cubic feet of reserves, of which up to 25% is recoverable, putting Britain in the major league of gas producers if it is extracted.

Related to this is the reversal of the ban on hydraulic fracturing in Lancashire as more licences have been handed out and more pilot wells are being drilled.

If it works out, Britain will have energy security for the foreseeable future, and if the government play our cards right the money could be used to create a sovereign wealth fund to pay for state pensions.

On the down side, Blackpool will fall into the sea.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

On the down side, Blackpool will fall into the sea.

I'm not sure as to whether that should be seen as a downside or a bonus...

 

[PJV3]

I've been thinking about joining UKIP.

I'm not fully supportive of all their policies, but I do not support the government and would like to see them gone now. I am loathe to join Labour so UKIP seems like the only other way.

When the fuck did this happen*?. Politics in this country need shaking up, UKIP would be a good way of rattling the tories, we also need a proper leftist party in England to give Labour a kicking as well.


*i haven't been reading the thread much recently.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

When the fuck did this happen*?. Politics in this country need shaking up, UKIP would be a good way of rattling the tories, we also need a proper leftist party in England to give Labour a kicking as well.


*i haven't been reading the thread much recently.

It was the snoopers charter and the secret courts which did for me, but it's been building for a while.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Anyone wanna start a leftist party with me?

 

[Bo-Locks]

Move elected House of Lords to Manchester, says Lord Adonis

In a letter to this week's issue of The Spectator magazine, he said moving Parliament’s upper house would shift politics away from “Planet London”. He argued that a good time to do this would be if current plans to create an elected second chamber was passed into law.

Lord Adonis wrote : “London is New York, Washington and LA rolled into one, which is unhealthy for our national politics. So I have a serious suggestion. “If the House of Lords is going to be reformed in the next year, part of the reform should be to move it out of London to a city in the Midlands or the North, perhaps next to the relocated BBC in MediaCity in Salford Quays. “Half of our national politicians would then assemble well away from ‘Planet London’.

“The public purse would make a net saving by selling the vast and expensive property portfolio the Lords has been acquiring to house its 850 members along Millbank and the surrounding streets.
“And yes, yours truly - a Londoner and proud of it - would be happy to lead the way.” Lord Adonis told The Daily Telegraph that he was “deadly serious” about the proposal, which would decentralise power throughout England. However he added: “I imagine that it wont be hugely popular” with other peers, who could prefer having being based on the banks of the Thames.

Telegraph

Obviously it's got no chance of happening, but it's interesting to hear a senior politician come out with such a statement, especially a tory.

The entire political makeup and/or breakup of the UK is going to see some major changes over the next 25 years.

 

[SteveWD40]

It's a great idea and necessary imho, politicians are far too focussed on London.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

It's a great idea and necessary imho, politicians are far too focussed on London.

This probably isn't the way to do it, but focus does need to be shifted from London. Having one central city which far outstrips the rest of Britain's cities in terms of size and economic importance is not healthy.

Germany and the United States both have a number of important urban centres and are better for it.