[ali k]

Isn't it rare to see some good news for once
BBC News - Chesham and Amersham by-election won by Lib Dem’s

Maybe a warning that if you base your policies around the average Express reader it doesn’t sit well in the Tory shires.

[sdm]

I understand local issues regarding housing planning and HS2 played a huge part in the vote swing so I would be wary of reading too much in to it on a national scale.

[TobyD]

I understand local issues regarding housing planning and HS2 played a huge part in the vote swing so I would be wary of reading too much in to it on a national scale.

I do agree, although as Sir John Curtice was saying on the radio this morning, it had a lot to do with the fact that this was a strongly remain seat in the referendum; although held by the Conservatives in 2019 the LDs put in a strong performance then. According to him, as apparently the country's 'election guru' this is still a persistent division in UK politics, in Hartlepool, and we will likely see in Bately and Spen that the latter two strongly leave voting areas go to the Conservatives, but that any urban or Southern contests are increasingly likely to go to the Lib Dems, Labour or possibly even the Greens.
I don't think it means anything in the broader context of party leaderships or overall policies other than on local issues, or that either Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer are suddenly diminished as party leaders, it's just nice to see the Conservatives lose something for once, especially such a huge majority. If it has any effect it will be to worry a number of the southern conservative MPs who had already been unhappy with the proposed planning laws.

[Teaboy]

Not only one fewer seat in parliament for this government but a credible performance from the Greens too.

The Green’s share of the vote actually dropped and given the national polling I expect the local issues local factors were the most significant; Nimbyism not a desire for a more global, sharing world.

[seankenny]

I read a LD activist giving a bunch of reasons voters gave when campaigning:
https://twitter.com/BridgetFox/status/1405773253705011211

There's also the small matter of a low turnout and the overall Labour/LD vote size staying the same, so we don't know whether it's unhappy Tories staying home and some tactical voting, or a more serious reallignment in previous safe Tory seats as One Nation Conseratives shift away from a populist government. My total guess is it's a bit more the later but I don't think we can say quite how much at this point.

This thing on cities and productivity is good in light of Johnson's levelling up promises:
https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/so-you-want-to-level-up/what-is-the-problem/

tl;dr - many of Britain's cities drastically underperform for their size, particularly Manchester and Birmingham, and the way to reduce (but not eliminate) regional disparities is to increase city productivity. Makes the decision to put the Treasury-outside-London in Darlington look silly, as it always was.

[TobyD]

This is interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/18/chesham-amersham-tory-mps-boris-johnson-conservatives?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

The article is ok, but just scanning a couple of the comments,  purportedly from C&A voters who say that they have been Conservative voters,  but voted LD this time because of Boris and the government's performance.  Its hardly surprising if they're Guardian readers, but a small indicator I guess. 
It seems that BJ does well with people who aren't really interested in politics or current affairs,  and badly with people who are.  Keir Starmer probably the opposite,  but the issue for him is that not all that many people are interested in politics. 

[Teaboy]

Makes the decision to put the Treasury-outside-London in Darlington look silly, as it always was.

How does that conclusion follow from the article?

[seankenny]

Lack of agglomeration effects because there are no other firms or organisations there that cover the same ground, making cross-fertilisation of ideas or staff impossible. They should have put the Treasury North in Leeds where there is an existing finance industry. Or at the very least in another major city.

[TobyD]

Lack of agglomeration effects because there are no other firms or organisations there that cover the same ground, making cross-fertilisation of ideas or staff impossible. They should have put the Treasury North in Leeds where there is an existing finance industry. Or at the very least in another major city.

Ultimately the whole thing that Johnson has about trying to move government departments around the country in the name of levelling up is f_ ing stupid. Levelling up might be investing in areas to improve education, local infrastructure and housing by improving local authority funding. But they won't do that because Boris Johnson likes building big shiny things instead.

[tomtom]

I’d argue that moving large parts of the BBC to Salford* has had a big effect on the area. Not just house prices and new salaries - also makes the area feel more important - that it matters.

*this was largely a govt steered decision non?

[mrjonathanr]

I think the idea of less London centric government has merit done intelligently. Random scattering of offices isn't that, obviously.

[ali k]

I’d argue that moving large parts of the BBC to Salford* has had a big effect on the area. Not just house prices and new salaries - also makes the area feel more important - that it matters.

To me “levelling up” doesn’t mean just creating a few ‘mini Londons’ in Manchester and Leeds with inflated house prices and swanky bars surrounding a flagship HQ. It’s got to be more than that, surely…but as Toby says it’s unlikely to be done properly by this lot. It’s just not glamorous enough.

[tomtom]

That’s what I was trying to communicate.

It has a positive effect in all sorts of ways. Eg with BBC >> Salford You see on the various BBC programs and news feeds based there - now there are interviews with people in Manchester and the North - not just talking heads in London. This elevates the self esteem / self value of an area.

Having a foot in both Hull and Manchester the city of culture had a really positive impact in Hull increasing the cities self confidence as it were. That’s nothing to do with moving things from London but an example of how influential shifting a positive spotlight to an area can be. Similar can be done by ‘having the belief’ in an area that shifting a major department/government thing there might.

[webbo]

However it appears to have no lasting impact on on Dull. Unless you live there, there is no reason to visit. Shit old museums that haven’t been updated in years. A city centre that’s unbelievably destitute and doesn’t even run to most of standard chain stores. It hasn’t even got a M & S these days.

[TobyD]

I’d argue that moving large parts of the BBC to Salford* has had a big effect on the area. Not just house prices and new salaries - also makes the area feel more important - that it matters.

*this was largely a govt steered decision non?

This might be the case, however, I wonder how many of the employees moved from London, and big shiny things plus people on higher income moving in in relatively small numbers equals higher house prices, and if you have lived there all your life you're levelled down. I think the answers are more complicated, and probably a bit of both would be ideal.

[seankenny]

Ultimately the whole thing that Johnson has about trying to move government departments around the country in the name of levelling up is f_ ing stupid. Levelling up might be investing in areas to improve education, local infrastructure and housing by improving local authority funding. But they won't do that because Boris Johnson likes building big shiny things instead.

Afraid I have to disagree with you here - putting high performing bits of the UK government outside of London could work really well in terms of boosting productivity. But putting HMT N in Leeds or Manchester would have meant working with a Labour local authority, so it wasn't going to happen. Poor value for money for taxpayers a result. Obviously improving infrastructure and education is going to help, but people need to be educated for and travelling to good jobs, and it's clear that some large UK cities totally underperform in this respect. In the long run, improving productivity is the only thing that leads to increasing real incomes.

To me “levelling up” doesn’t mean just creating a few ‘mini Londons’ in Manchester and Leeds with inflated house prices and swanky bars

But.... having a "mini London" is exactly what these cities need! I honestly have no idea how many "good jobs" you would need to see an increase in house prices across a city of 2.7m people but really, this is a problem of success, not failure.

[TobyD]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about this,  moving departments around and big infrastructure might have some positive effects but in my opinion a lot of negatives compared to spending on unsexy things like skills training,  and local transport. 

[seankenny]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about this,  moving departments around and big infrastructure might have some positive effects but in my opinion a lot of negatives compared to spending on unsexy things like skills training,  and local transport.

I honestly don't think it's an either/or. Moving a department is a lot less expensive than building a tram system, and I'm not sure what the negatives actually are other than the fear that 300 well paid people are going to cause house price inflation in a large city. (As opposed to say, 130,000 over 50's in the city with cash to invest who can find no better performing asset class than rental property...) But we need better skills training and transport as well.

Clearly all this is too complex and requires too much sustained focus for Mr Johnson's tadpole-like concentration span, but it's nice to dream.

[largeruk]

If the future is remote working (or “hybrid” working), why not just set up a few “touchdown” hubs around the country and let people live and work where they want? A decent % would choose to move away from London purely for the draw of more affordable housing and nicer environment. The vast majority of civil servants aren’t from London, so may even prefer being nearer family. Mandating hundreds to move to Darlington feels like a very dated and backward-looking approach.

However much they de-centralise the civil service they will always try to centralise decision making in the executive.

[seankenny]

I've only worked in Whitehall once, and only on a short contract, but it was the sort of place which seemed to run on a fair bit of face time. The team I was on only saw "our" minister once a week but if you wanted to progress it was clear you needed to chat to SPADs and other senior people on an informal basis fairly frequently. I hear from friends that the civil service is keen on moving to more homeworking but they're still expected in some of the time.

[Wil]

If the future is remote working (or “hybrid” working), why not just set up a few “touchdown” hubs around the country and let people live and work where they want?

OH half is a Civil Servant working at Holyrood. She started in September and has never been into the office, neither is there much benefit to her in work terms of being in a central office, since most meetings would still be remote. A hub would suit her perfectly. She would be able to work from home a couple of days a week in normal times anyway, but she would get a wellbeing benefit from having office days. In Scotland most government roles are in Glasgow or Edinburgh, understandably, but there would seem to be particular benefit for Scotland in having hubs in Inverness, Perth, Stirling, Dundee, Aberdeen and even further afield in the Highlands. At the moment, roles in these areas are quite specific.

We'd love to move up to near Perth (and at current house prices could buy a mansion compared to Edinburgh) but it's not really an option unless there is a hub office nearby with only occasional days in Glasgow or Edinburgh. It is something being talked about internally.

[TobyD]

Clearly all this is too complex and requires too much sustained focus for Mr Johnson's tadpole-like concentration span, but it's nice to dream.

I think we essentially agree really, at least on the same principles. It's complicated and much harder than tweeting about footballers, what pictures students have in their common rooms or whatever useless bullshit Johnson is wasting his time with. I increasingly feel that he actually isn't actually very intelligent, and really can't deal with the demands of the job. I politically dislike people like Gove but I'd certainly not call him stupid.

[TobyD]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/22/cummings-told-officials-to-bypass-procedures-on-530k-grant-to-data-team-leak-reveals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Is Hancock actually going to have to go now?

[tommytwotone]

Have you SEEN how the Tory Party has been operating over the last decade or so?!


We are existing in a post-shame Tory majority. No transgression is too great to warrant a resignation, and even if they do go, they're back in 9-12 months in the next reshuffle.

[TobyD]

Have you SEEN how the Tory Party has been operating over the last decade or so?!


We are existing in a post-shame Tory majority. No transgression is too great to warrant a resignation, and even if they do go, they're back in 9-12 months in the next reshuffle.

My question was somewhat rhetorical.  Hancock's best horse racing chum Dido Harding is even worse: failed career in business,  underachieving at several supermarkets,  totally screwed up talk talk, losing thousands of people's  data, wasted 37 billion pounds on test and trace; and married to John Penrose who is,  wait for it,  the government's anti corruption champion. 
Now on for head of the NHS; I hope you've all opted out on data sharing,  everyone....