IPPR North criticises Barnett Formula

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by thingy, Jul 10, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I heard the odd comment about this on the radio. Of course in the report they make little comment on the reality that the good citizens of London get even more the the nasty money grabbing subsidy junky celts. Equally as there are many more Londoners than there are nasty Celts this is a big drain on the finances for the Englis regions where surely Englands share of the cash should be going.

    Whilst they suggest that this may damage the union, now is that the Union as in UK or is it the union between London and the rest of the UK.

    Also interestingly their answer is to give the Scots more fiscal autonomy by allowing them to access Scots revenue directly, but surely as this would give Holyrood a far greater insight into the UK revenue structure might it actually show the Scots that they may well be better off cutting the link completely.
  2. The Scots may well be better off cutting the umbilical cord with the rest of the Kingdom. Likewise the Shetlands would do well to cut their connection with Scotland and join the Kingdom of Norway, which would give them a great deal more autonomy than they currently have and more influence in the Landsting (Parliament) than they do either in National or Scottish politics. There is also a strong case for the SE of England to become independent. :twisted:
  3. As an Englishman, I don't begrudge the other Union members their additional 3%. It seems a reaonable compensation for their misfortune of not sharing my birthright.
  4. But how do you feel about london having more than any one else especially the more deprived (perhaps also depraved) areas of your green and pleasant land.
  5. Maxi

    But just how Londoner's and I was one, suffer for that extra subsidy.

    1. 600 plus MP's spending most of their time amongst us.
    2. Four odd Royal Palaces together with the family Windsor living there.
    3. God knows how many tourists visiting us and clogging up the transport 4. system, amenities, sights, shops, food and drink outlets.
    5. The same tourist attracting the scum of society who defraud and steal from them and the less aware residents.
    6. Feather bedded Civil Servants and Military Officers wasting space
    7. Demonstrations every week-end
    8. Carnivals, Gay Parades
    9. State Visits, International Political Meetings
    10. Six or seven significant Football clubs
    11. Wembly, Twickenham etc.
    12. Extensive Cultural and Historic Centres attracting even more visitors
    13. Major shopping centre.
    14. Gateway for more International Flights than any other city in the world.
    15. Congestion Charges
    16 Sir Ian (Bloody) Blair
    17. High Commission and Embassies with their associated Staff

    That is just 17 things that poor residents of London have to put up with for their extra dosh. What do you PJ's have to suffer for yours.

  6. With the exception of 15 and 16 theothers would be considered by many a benefit through the jobs and cash brought in and the jobs created, but there again there is no pleasing some. My observation though has a serious point, is not a trifle rich for people who are getting the most government money being spent on them to call others subsidy junkies.

    My real sympathy is with the poor English regions who get a mere fraction of the money spend on them than is spent on the over paid citizens of London.
  7. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    I'm sure that the deficiency has nothing to do with the Shires returning, mostly, Conservative MP's
  8. How come no-one ever mentions the size of the Northern Ireland subsidy?

    I suspect it will be even more now that Irn Broone bought their politicians' votes to make us even more of a police state.
  9. They were on a very similar package to us Scots, but who knows now, just how cheap or expensive is an Irishmans vote.

    Maybe they went for parity with London.
  10. Maxi_77 . I suppose I've become so used to that, it no longer registers. Having been born and brought up in NW England and now living in semi rural Westoland, deprived areas are home to me. My 10 years in Turktown don't count because it never appeared to be that deprived. I lived and worked in London for 5 years and that was enough for me. As Nutty notes, there are many aggravations that aren't quite compensated for by the numerous "things to do and see".
  11. Whilst having lived in rural berks and worked in London for 10 years I agreee that for me London is not the place to be, No1 son lives and works there and is quite happy, mind you he is able to walk to the office.

    Horses for courses, but I do not see how London justifies the sunsidies paid to some pretty well paid people wholive there, and as a result can afford their country cottages etc which ensure that real country folk who work there cannot afford to live there.

    The price that is paid to keep the mob happy.
  12. :threaten: Most citizens of London earn below the national average. Unfortunately because the salaries in the City are used to "average" London salaries it bolsters the figures. London weighting is used as a pay levellers to compensate for the high costs of working (& living) in London but even these rates vary. For example my employers has just increased their annual London allowance to £7,500 whilst freezing their employees London weighting at £1780 (consolidated into pay*), where it has been for the last 20 odd years.

    *If it hadn't been consolidated into pay, they would have faced the embarrassment of employees paid below the national minimum wage, when it was introduced by Labour. But of course that had nothing to do with it. Call me cynical, but....

    Some staff are paid (including their consolidated London weighting) just over £8000 a year before tax for a full-time job.
  13. Just think of the coastguard staff who last year had to have a special pay rise to avoid the MCA being done for breaching the national minimum wage.

    Yes every where there are people on poor wages, many who deserve more, the point though is that the people who realy benefit from the extra money spent in London by thegovernmet are the better off.

    My point is that the real beneficiaries of the extra spent in London is clearly those who do not eally need it, whilst many in the regions languish in unemployment because the stockbroker goes to work on a cheap tube. Equally it does piss me off to be called a subsidy junky by those who get an even bigger subsidy than I do. It is nothing personal Steve I know the government is a lousy employer, got the tee shirt, and the veterans badge, but as I say the moaners and real beneficiaries of the extra cash in London need their balls dealt with.

Share This Page