London Independence

[LearningEveryDay19]

The majority of London voted Labour - principalfish.co.uk/electionmaps/?map=election2019

The majority of London voted Remain - principalfish.co.uk/electionmaps/brexit.html

AIBU in suggesting that London should have a referendum on whether to become an independent city state, in order to remain in the EU?

Right. So what's your explanation for cities like Doncaster? Economically deprived, stripped of its industry, voted Leave, big swing towards the Tories. Doncaster has one Tory MP now, which would have been unthinkable not long ago.

There is a far more complicated story here than just urban v. rural. Plenty of cities (predominantly, but not exclusively in the north) feel utterly left behind economically. Plenty of rural areas (e.g. whole swathes of Scotland, and around the southern home counties) voted remain. Scotland is incredibly rural but does not vote Tory - the SNP are offering an alternative while Labour is failing to do so.

If the left of centre parties aren't willing to try to understand what is going on outside of Westminster, 2019 will be repeated in 2024. The 'out of touch metropolitan Elite' may be a stereotype, but it has its roots in the truth.

@notmuchtooffer That is how i see it , I live 10/15 mins from Bristol and every area in the west country except for central Bristol is Tory. Apart from bath who are lib dem.

Quite interesting when the consensus was that high earners would be the Tory voters as apposed to working class !

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport_to_Pimlico

Film suggestion for you, OP

Give it a sodding rest with the divisive bullshit, please.

I’ll ask again, if London is full of rich people, why does most London areas vote Labour,

People have ignored you because your question has no relevance whatsoever. The debate on this thread is about levels of funding for public services and infrastructure.

I don't believe anyone is claiming on this thread that 'London is full of rich people', or that rich = doesn't vote labour.

The political landscape of the UK is complex and varied, and cannot be summed up in neat generalisations of the kind that you (and the OP) seem to want to make.

And frankly, the crowing about how London is so much more enlightened than everywhere else, claims that London subsidises everywhere else, and suggestions that London should/could go independent because the rest of the country is inferior etc. are, as Cheeserton says, divisive bullshit.

It is exactly that kind of rhetoric that gave the tories their landslide last week, and put the wind in the sails of the Leave campaign in 2016.

ReceptacleForTheRespectable I just asking a honest question, trying to understand why London seems to be a high Labour voter, which doesn’t seem to go hand in hand with the wealthy that live there.

But "if London is full of rich people, why does most London areas vote Labour" is still a ridiculous question.

There are so many factors that there isn't a straightforward answer.

London has very high levels of deprivation alongside the high levels of wealth - it's a very unequal city. Many people who work in London live (and therefore vote) in the surrounding home counties. And voting is not only correlated with income / wealth - there are many other factors driving it.

If voting choices were solely dictated by wealth as you imply, deprived areas (of which there are many) would never return conservative MPs. This is not the case, because politics is more complicated than that.

Since most Londoners have never travelled outside of the M25 anyway, perhaps you have a point.

Oh please 🙄
Please this is why kids are so badly behaved nowadays..........with this as an example GUESS what sometimes in life things don't go your way.
Please give it a rest daft remaniacs!

Hester - the vast majority of people in London are on ordinary / low wages. Ordinary folk. And many are in the deepest poverty in all the country. There are 15 million people in London. What number do you suppose are wealthy?

And some of the most generous hugely wealthy people are Labour supporters. Look at many of the big Charitable Foundations. Paul Hamlyn for one. The Charity gives millions to the arts, education, refugee charities...and he was a major Labour party donor. He arrived as a Jewish refugee in the war, built up a publishing empire, wanted to give back to the country that took him in, and assist the poor.

Why do you think wealth automatically = Tory?

Cities and urban areas are more Labour than rural. London is simply our biggest city.

Cities have more shared services.

Derbyshire it's not just my assertion, the same was said on East Midlands bbc news this weekend. The labour majority in Derby S is a lot higher than Tory majority in Devy N. And yes, I know Derbyshire is mainly Conservative, I was talking about the actual Derby city, not aeras adjoining, i.e. two constituencies. Broxtowe is mainly small towns too and very different to Nottingham in demographic, so again was talking about Nottingham itself which has been pro-remain solidly.
This applies to the rest of the UK, mostly (cities vs small towns), i.e. Exeter (Lib Dem/remain) surrounded by Cons towns, so I'm hardly saying anything controversial!

...as indeed Blouse has just stated in the end of her post.

Receptacle I agree re the huge divide - London is the home to the richest but also has by far the biggets number of people flatsharing (and they aer professionals, not just under 30 either) due to the mad housing costs.
One of the things that does need to change is the money laundering through property by the rich non-resident foreign investors, far too soft, and drove the prices up like never before in the last 8yrs or so. They keep discussing it, but no obvoius changes so far.

Maybe annexing Islington and moving it to a small island in the North Sea would solve a lot of political problems.

Terry and the reason for the high earners/ tax has been repeatedly explained.

Bullshit is the extra funding warranted. In densely populated areas there's already an economy of scale, it's areas of low population where more per head is warranted. And if your logic was applied, other large cities would be funded at the same level, yet they aren't.

Anyone that can try and justify London's transport funding clearly hasn't got the faintest idea about the rest of the uk.

London certainly is not subsidised by the rest of the country what a ridiculous thing to say 😂

I live in London (Zone 3) and voted Tory, I hate that London always votes labour but I can't change it so I just get on with it like other people who don't vote labour...

One of the reasons why London has so much investment is because firstly it's the capital. It also sees millions if not billions a year in tourism, no one is travelling to some random town that doesn't have any attractions. Therefore they need to invest in infrastructure in London. It's also one of the most densely populated cities with one of the highest number of flat shares than any other city.

It also sees millions if not billions a year in tourism, no one is travelling to some random town that doesn't have any attractions.

Is that how you see the entire rest of the UK? "Some random town that doesn't have any attractions"?

How much have you actually travelled around the UK?

One of the reasons why London has so much investment is because firstly it's the capital.

^ And this isn't a 'reason'. Bullshit like this is why we have such an uneven economy, with London disproportionately dominant. This state of affairs, and the level of division it causes, really isn't a good thing for the country.

God that would make my day. They could also be ruled by a Pope, please get them to elect a King London Pope.

I've travelled a lot around the UK and there are some absolutely gorgeous places to see, from villages to cities and everything in between. There are tourist attractions throughout the UK, however there is also a considerable portion that does not have any. Areas within the UK that have attractions generally get better investment - London being one of them.

London is also the largest city (home to 12.5% of the UKs population) therefore it needs the infrastructure unlike a small village of 300 people. It's not as if the entirety of London is wealthy and you would be deluded if you think that is the case. There is huge disparity between the privileged and the poor, with vast areas of immense deprivation in the city. These areas do not always see the investment you speak of, which is unfortunately the same throughout the country.

London sees the most tourists - approx. 25 million a year, followed by Edinburgh - approx. 13 million a year, then Manchester and Birmingham. There's over 10 million more people visiting the capital.

Whether you like it or not, tourism is a factor in government investment. At least when it comes to infrastructure.

It never fails to amaze me that people will uncritically say this sort of thing to justify the additional investment directed at London, without ever stopping to ask themselves why there is more money in London.

London generates approx 30% of the UKs GDP. There is more money in London because there is more industry here such as banks and insurance companies to name a few

Fairs fair receptacle nobody is travelling to a random town, because outside London travel isn't quite so easy without a car. Still, could be worse. Whole chunks of the country being unable to access work, medical treatment, education, culture etc because there's no reliable public transport is a small price to pay to know London is suitably equipped.

The Lake District, Cotswolds etc must all have moved to London as apparently nobody wants to visit random towns. Funny how those places and many similar have so much tourism despite shit public transport.

Fizzy Corbyn is looking for a new job. Comrade king pope Jeremy the first. Father of unicorns, heir to the Kremlin, breaker of safe seats and leader of anti semites.