tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6153845628469776909.post5216978152656177583..comments2024-03-24T09:13:28.758+00:00Comments on The Plashing Vole: Capitol Capers in the Silly SeasonThe Plashing Volehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13021407602157515927noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6153845628469776909.post-9241967692564939222014-01-20T12:28:23.985+00:002014-01-20T12:28:23.985+00:00Money follows power. It happened when Constantine ...Money follows power. It happened when Constantine moved Empire's capital to Constantinople from Rome.<br /><br />Power is never distributed around a country. It always centres on one area, even in federal systems such as the United States, everybody knows that the real power and influence is in Washington not the states.<br /><br />The DVLA and HMRC are one thing. The Treasury, the Foreign Office and the Home Office are another. If you move the Foreign Office the foreign embassies have to move will move north, regardless to whether it make sense.<br /><br />On the workforce, you and I both know that a large companies get around this easily by using recruitment companies that unofficially solely recruit foreign labour with a few local workers on the books to make it look legal. It might be illegal to hire people below the minimum wage, but you and I know full well it goes on, particularly with foreign workers who are generally un-unionised and find it difficult to complain. On the hiring locally, what happens when these projects appear large amounts of foreign workers are move into the area and put down as a local workforce. This was what was done during the building of the Olympic stadium.<br /><br />Agreed there would be a boost in local economy, but it would be to the area of the economy dominated by building of the new buildings and to service jobs, waitresses and shop assistant. You wouldn't have a growth in the civil service to recruit locals.<br /><br />Using the examples of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly is somewhat misleading. Scotland and Wales were each covered by a single government department each, which meant that it was simple transfer of power of one single department to an area where it already had a large presences. Moving Westminster north would be a different thing. Why are is it people are obsessed with moving Westminster north? Why not create an English Parliament instead or devolve powers to council-level.<br /><br />Moving Westminster north is not Keynesian economics, it a political gimmick. Keynesian economics would be to setup a works programme to build more council houses, expand the railways by opening up some of the lines closed under Beeching Report, modernise the railways rolling stock, setup up a state-run lending bank for small business, build new prisons or at the very least fill in potholes. That would be Keynesian Economics.Arthur Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262761136822253916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6153845628469776909.post-30426956414779929422014-01-20T10:24:44.323+00:002014-01-20T10:24:44.323+00:00Why would the City follow? It's massive and do...Why would the City follow? It's massive and doesn't need the legislature around any more. London is expensive because 9 million people live there. Further distribution of jobs, power, money and population around the country would be a good thing. <br /><br />Why would everything have to move? You'd keep the political level in reduced London offices, and have the departments elsewhere. Like the DVLA in Swansea and the HMRC in Nottingham. <br /><br />Yes, building new accommodation would be a slow and expensive process - but think of the jobs and the boost to the local economy! As to 'cheap foreign labour': there's a minimum wage and it's illegal to hire people a) lower than that and b) by nationality. Also, state contracts now often include clauses about hiring and training the local workforce. <br /><br />Yes, the opportunities for disaster are there: the Scottish Parliament was a mess, but then again the Welsh one was a triumph. <br /><br />This IS Keynesian economics. I've read Keynes. Have you?<br /><br />The Plashing Volehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13021407602157515927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6153845628469776909.post-14133897833906620572014-01-17T21:45:10.311+00:002014-01-17T21:45:10.311+00:00London wouldn't survive for too long. If Parli...London wouldn't survive for too long. If Parliament moves north, the City will soon follow and then you would have the two main reasons for London to be rich no longer in London. <br /><br />Moving any government department north is insane. You have to move everything, not just the civil servants and the paperwork. First, You'd have various cities lobbying for them to be the new seat of government, which take an age to decide. Then you'd have to build new building, because how much you'd think they'd use buildings already there, they wouldn't, they want to bulldozer them down and build new ones. This building would be done by a company, which would mean a company would have to be chosen (more taken time in debate). Then the budgets and the length of time to build these new buildings would need to be debated, then extended, then debated again and then extended as the company fails to meet any deadline this side of the apocalypse. By this time, there would be a change of government and an economic crash or war or some crisis of some sort and things would further delayed. Then the company or companies (this would make the building projects more costly and longer to complete) would employ cheap foreign labour, because they are cheaper to employ and aren't likely to go to the authorities, meaning that the locals are unlikely to get the benefit. By this time, you are drawing your pension, I am working (paying eye watering rates of tax to pay for your pension and the building projects) and the Parliament and the government departments would still be in London.<br /><br />Then there is the situation if the centre of power moves to a city in the Midlands and the North would be prices. The reason why prices are so high in Central London is because of what is there, Parliament and the Government. Moving Parliament and the government north, would cause the prices to rise in the centre of the new city and people would be pushed out. Any benefit the local area gets will be entirely circular, leaving the pockets of the new arrivals and then returning to them.<br /><br />If you want help develop the declining areas, either pump cash into the areas through Keynesian policies or devolve tax powers to the area and turn the areas into Free Trade Zones. Don't move parliament there.Arthur Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262761136822253916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6153845628469776909.post-64828001064430262562014-01-17T10:56:59.927+00:002014-01-17T10:56:59.927+00:00Well, London isn't the first and only place pa...Well, London isn't the first and only place parliaments have been held, of course. <br /><br />There's nothing insane about moving Departments - they're major bureaucratic bodies which need large buildings: much cheaper here than in central London. <br /><br />Yes, it would move the cost North: but that money would be spent in a declining economic area - going further and helping that area, whereas London would survive the departure of these departments quite easily. The Plashing Volehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13021407602157515927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6153845628469776909.post-5825802624891866032014-01-14T18:43:23.976+00:002014-01-14T18:43:23.976+00:00The idea of moving Parliament outside of the Palac...The idea of moving Parliament outside of the Palace of Westminster is idiotic and nothing more than an gimmick.<br /><br />The idea of having Parliament in Wolverhampton and the great offices of state in London is insane. And the idea of moving the whole of the political centre of the UK from London to Wolverhampton wouldn't change the problem of cost, it would just transport it north.Arthur Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262761136822253916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6153845628469776909.post-44274405580968273542014-01-14T15:03:57.080+00:002014-01-14T15:03:57.080+00:00c.f. also, of course, even earlier, Tom Paine in C...c.f. also, of course, even earlier, Tom Paine in Common Sense:<br />" If the colony continues increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the ELECTED might never form to themselves an interest separate from the ELECTORS, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the ELECTED might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED."Dyddgunoreply@blogger.com