The evidence that there are at least two nations, and not one, in the UK is very clear. As Larry Elliott put it this morning:
[A] CRESC study found that there had been no private-sector job creation in manufacturing-rich regions such as the north-east and the West Midlands between 1997 and 2010. What's more, one of the traditional stabilising mechanisms — people moving from north to south — ceased to operate. In the boom years from 1997-2006, 85% of the extra jobs created in London were filled by people born outside the UK.
But let's be clear, that's not all the fault of immigration. The fact is that relocating from the north to the south of the UK, or from Wales and the South West to London, is exceptionally hard. Property costs and the exceptional barriers they impose are just one reason. Those from outside the UK often find these problems easier to overcome.
The result is that, as Larry puts it:
The current government's attempts to bridge the north-south divide look doomed to failure. All but one of the 20 worst districts for hidden unemployment lie north of a line from the Severn to the Wash, according to a study last year by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University.
And the Tories, of course, do not care about that, and their own policies reveal that:
The economy's structure means that the growth sectors when it recovers are, according to Capital Economics, likely to be financial services, professional services and communications, digital and media. All three are concentrated in London, which also accounts for almost a third of money spent on regeneration projects. The £15bn invested in Crossrail dwarfs spending on infrastructure in the north. Indeed, the £322m earmarked for new rail lines to boost the big northern cities is exceeded by the £350m to lengthen two platforms at Waterloo station. Doubtless many of the commuters who will benefit have a soft spot for Mrs T. But it is easy to see why in other parts of the land she is not seen as an economic saviour.
This is not one nation. As John Harris has noted, that form of Toryism (which had appeal) died many years ago, not least at the hands of Thatcher. I saw that when I was a student.
All of which does at least make it satisfying to note that there is some remaining belief in the idea of a one nation state. As the Guardian reveals in a poll this morning, the people of this country still believe the state has a role:
I'm especially pleased to see that redistribution remains a supported objective: it should be.
But eqaully, I wonder what would happen if this poll were run regionally? I have a strong suspicion the South East would not agree.
And that is where our problem lies. Thatcher's children do not believe in compassion and seem to lack the empathy to understand others. And that's why we face the risk of a real national divide.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The South East is too wide a definition. Go to Hastings and have a word with the local population there. The despair is real.
It’s the rich parts of London and the associated commute areas that are slowly forming their own isolated and gated country within ours.
I agree
King’s Lynn is in east Anglia – and suffers deep poverty too
So do parts of Norwich
And rural poverty is real
Point accepted
And conversely, there are a small number of enclaves of wealth in the north.
The question of “one nation” is bigger than regional definition, though that plays a significant part. Go back and read Huxley’s Brave New World, and look at the way that the Gammas are conditioned not to talk either to their inferiors (the Deltas and the Epsilons), nor to the Alphas and Betas above them. Look at the way that social structures that cut across the boundaries are ceasing to exist, and how the response to a problem is to start a group of your own rather than join someone else’s. How is any government or social movement going to tackle this?
It also shows that the attitudes of ordinary people in this country are closer to those of our European neighbours than they are of the Americans. The US is where the neo liberal philosophy came from but is propagated here by various supposedly neutral think tanks (too often quoted by the BBC) and most of the newspapers. Their message is that the way to being better off is to have more of the same.
Having read “23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism” by Ha Joon Chang, the Cambridge economist, it is most definitely not. Ha-Joon Chang comes from South Korea which followed a different series of economic policies.
Mrs Thatcher was fond of saying ‘there is no alternative’. Oh Yes, there is. Maybe not the South Korean model but one of our own. We’ve done it before with Keynes. And the splendid efforts of the Tax Justice Network are part of this answer.
What we need are politicians who can pick up the new ideas and fight for them.
I think the division is very palpable now and the Thatcher funeral (how dare the Church of England cow-tow to it!)seems to have thrown a light on it even more. The divisiveness of that Government has left an indelible stain on our culture. The level of callousness present amongst the public is truly shocking. Tories have tried to play down the banking crisis as having any Thatcher related lineage but the connection seems very clear. The scapegoating of those on benefits and the language that surrounds this from Ministers is quite despicable and irresponsible. Maybe there will be a cultural swing. Things feel dark! As James seems to hint, I think it might me more of a ‘spiritual/psychological’ divide than totally geographical one.