To ask why the North is generally seen as ‘poor’?

[Jules585]

Discussing the clear north south divide in Covid cases/restrictions with various people and often hear comments like ‘Well there’s a higher risk where there’s higher levels of deprivation/poorer areas etc.’, ‘poorer people and ethnic minorities worst affected’- suggesting in basic terms that there’s more Covid ‘up north’ as it’s poorer.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I know that London is the centre of finance/business etc. and yes, there are a lot of very wealthy Londoners. House prices are obviously extortionate but they’ve been inflated for a number of reasons.

But WHY is there this classic ‘grim up north’ perspective of anything north of the Home Counties really?

Having lived in the north, as well as in London, I can honestly say I found parts of London immensely ‘grim’ and deprived, there are millions of people working in low paid, precarious jobs. A huge amount of ethnic diversity. Most people can only dream of owning a house and end up spending an extortionate amount of rent on tiny, sub-standard accommodation.

I know there are various ‘northern’ cities that are often viewed as grim - but my experience even of the most commonly slated cities is that they all have lovely parts, often much closer to countryside and people are able to live a much better standard of living as wages are fairly similar (which they actually are in a lot of sectors and areas of the U.K. now!) and they can actually afford to buy a proper house.

I know for a fact that there isn’t as much of a London vs everywhere else salary divide now - and a lot of people still commute to the major cities as well.

Where does this snobbery come from? Is it as obvious as fact that the Royals are based down south etc etc?

I went to an infamously posh/snobby university and the teasing, snobbery and often insulting attitudes to anyone north of about Oxford was awful and I look back in amazement.

Thoughts? Where does it stem from and why is it still a thing?

I think a large part of the problem is that, whichever side of the argument they're on , people can't quite decide what they're comparing, or they don't compare like with like.

A lot of the time people seem to be comparing/contrasting London with the whole of the North . Or they talk about the South as though it were entirely made of the Home Counties. Or they imply that all of London is wealthy but no bits of any Northern cities are. Or that Northern countryside is all mud, angry farmers and whippets but Southern countryside is all green wellies and picnics. It's just a ridiculous collection of stereotypes.

I lived in the SE/shires/Home Counties until I was in my early 40s and now live in the NW, on the edge of a popular, picturesque and famously rainy tourist area. It's not remotely grim. House prices are lower than where we moved from, but not hugely. Local towns are nice. Crime is low. Lots of southerners live here. It's more border collies, labradors, expensive outdoor wear and cream teas than whippets and flat caps. Some people here do assume you're rich and posh if you have a southern accent though.

Why do many people think that Londoners are rich?

Because there are dozens of ways of measuring "wealth", and by the simplest (the value of assets, investments and money in the bank) almost anyone who owns a property in London is well-off by that measure.

But to get that property, for most people there will usually have been a massive mortgage for many years, which may have left them with little disposable income. Renters in London are even worse off, even people in well-paid professional jobs can often only afford to live in house-shares, and their disposable income is reduced because of high rents.

There are many different "indices of deprivation" used by planners, one of which is the ratio between average income and average housing costs (can't remember what it's called, I'm afraid, or I'd look it up and see how it works). Imo this is probably one of the best ways of showing how much money people actually have to live on.

Two people, doing the same job for a national employer, like BT or M&S, or in the public sector, will be getting pretty much the same salary if they are outside of London. But if one lives in Chesterfield and the other in my Sussex town, the one in Chesterfield will have around £700-1,000 a month more disposable income, based on living in a 2-bed house, because rents are so much lower in Chesterfield.

I think that that "income:housing costs" ratio is a much better indicator of how poor or rich people feel, and the choices that are open to them. People in the south are often "asset rich, cash poor" because so much of their wealth is tied up in their home.

And the poor are far poorer: the amount by which they have to top up their UC/HB to cover their rent is greater and if they are benefit capped, a family in an "affordable" 3-bed home here will be left with around £70pw to live on instead of around £260pw in Chesterfield.

I suppose we're "rich", on paper. We're mortgage free and our (small) house is worth an absurd £450k, plus we have savings, but our income is well below the national average. We live very frugally.

[quote NellyJames]@ReceptacleForTheRespectable, thanks. That’s interesting. Is it the same for Manchester because we know a couple who are both from the SE, went to uni in Manchester and took graduate jobs with Deloitte here over returning to London. Both said there wasn’t much difference in the graduate offer at all. They are mid 40s now and one is still working for the company. Due to his job, my husband actually knows quite a few people our age (late 40s) who work for these firms and this topic has come up before and the impression I’ve always been given is that the difference isn’t enough to make them want to move south.[/quote]
So you're talking about the graduate offer in the mid-90s? Thie UK's wealth has become more centralised in London since then, not less.

I know what the graduate offers for London / Yorkshire are now, and the difference is definitely around a third (and that doesn't diminsh as you get more senior). My knowledge is backed up by what Alongcameacat says above.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't move to the south for the salary either - I value the quality of life that I have here! But it's ridiculous to pretend that the salary difference is 'nominal', because it really isn't.

But WHY is there this classic ‘grim up north’ perspective of anything north of the Home Counties really?

Straightforward ignorance coupled with a ridiculous over concentration of money resources and news reporting in the South East of England.

the impression I’ve always been given is that the difference isn’t enough to make them want to move south

The reason for this is probably not that the difference isn't sizeable (because it certainly would be), it's that it would be offset by the increased cost of housing. Uprooting and moving to a new area for a pay rise that doesn't actually leave you better off in real terms isn't attractive to most people.

Sussex, Kent, Hampshire and the west country are chronically underfunded too

My East Sussex district charges the 5th highest council tax in the country, because the formula used for support to local government has been drastically reduced. There are several wards in the county that are so deprived they qualified for special EU funding. Deprivation has got worse since 2015, and parts of the county are only a few spots above Jaywick in the deprivation table for the region.

www.eastsussexjsna.org.uk/JsnaSiteAspx/media/jsna-media/documents/localbriefings/ESiF/Indices-of-Deprivation-2019-final.pdf

But all this sits alongside some incredible affluence: multi-million pound country estates, landed gentry in stately homes in villages that are almost feudal, stars of stage and screen, former cabinet ministers.

It may be affluent here overall, but it's very unequal.

@ReceptacleForTheRespectable, yes I said your post was backed up by Alongcameacat. And yes, our peers all graduated early/mid 90s. It’s just as southerners who moved up to the same salaries as we’d earned in the SE and hearing that was common, I guess we assumed it still to be true. It’s clearly changed for some.
My bit of Cheshire isn’t really the footballer or ultra glam side. That’s more Wilmslow and Alderley Edge. In Trafford the parents of DCs school friends are mainly professional but clearly many are high earners in their field to be able to afford house prices here which are comparable to what we paid in Herts. So for many, there can’t be that much of a disparity.

But when the houses are comparatively priced then there’s not much offset. So many people must be earning a similar wage to afford similar prices. This house is not the most expensive. I think it was 3 pages in.

I think that that "income:housing costs" ratio is a much better indicator of how poor or rich people feel, and the choices that are open to them. People in the south are often "asset rich, cash poor" because so much of their wealth is tied up in their home.

I very much agree. In the UK, we have really vast differences in this respect because of not just region but also generation, and I don't think it's possible to have a proper understanding of our society without really getting this.

Giving directions to our home then in't North I would tell people to turn off the M6 when they hit the cobbles. There is poverty everywhere, irrespective of government etc., same as in every country.

@NellyJames

But when the houses are comparatively priced then there’s not much offset. So many people must be earning a similar wage to afford similar prices. This house is not the most expensive. I think it was 3 pages in.

This is partly true, but isn't the whole picture and local wages aren't the only driver of property prices (if they were then property in Cornwall would be dirt cheap!).

In some desirable northern towns/cities, prices are definitely influenced by the budgets of people relocating from the south. Ilkley and York are examples - lots of people relocate from London to places like this, and have large budgets for property.

Similarly, London property prices are reputably driven up by wealthy foreign investors. They certainly are solely based on local wages.

^ They certainly aren't solely based on local wages.

And you have cherry picked what must be one of the most expensive areas in the north there! £900k is not the 'typical' price for a 4/5 bed detached across most of the north, including many of the very desirable parts.

Saying look - here's a £900k house, therefore property in the NW is priced the same as London isn't very honest.

Yes, there is some relocation; us bring one example. But whilst there are others Southerners living where we do, notably those who work for the BBC, the people who live here are still predominantly from this local area. Interestingly, not necessarily from Trafford but from close by. It seems a mix of a few grammar school recipients, a few from more deprived areas who are bright and got a good education and a substantial amount who were privately educated either in Manchester or across in Stockport and bought homes here to benefit from the grammar system.

I also find it bizarre too claim that "for many, there can’t be that much of a disparity" when someone has posted the stats upthread showing that London has 20% higher salaries after adjusting for property prices.

Don't get me wrong, I do not think it's 'grim up north' and I do not think that everyone up north lives in poverty. My DH and I do professional jobs, earn good salaries and live in a nice area, and we know lots of people in a similar position up here.

But claiming that there is no difference in income or property prices is just untrue - the stats show very clearly that there is. There may be exceptions, but across most industries there will be a disparity because that's what the statistics show.

I don't resent the fact that London colleagues earn a lot more because I'm happy living in my area (and I'm leaving the big4 soon anyway!), but that doesn't mean I feel the need to ignore the blindingly obvious.

@ReceptacleForTheRespectable, it’s where I live so not cherry picked in any other sense. And it wasn’t to suggest that houses cost that much across the North but rather to say that of course some salaries must be comparable if people who live here pay that and often much more for their home.

It’s a desirable area. To afford to relocate to here, workers would need to ensure they didn’t need to take a huge pay cut.

There is more rough sleeping in London than anywhere else in the country.
London has more families (parents and children) living in one room for years (using a bathroom with strangers) than anywhere else in the country.

There might be more wealth (concentrated in a minority, who don't live in London permanently or full-time) but there's also more extreme poverty. If you're going to be poor, you're far better off being poor somewhere else in the country.

Deprived Londoners would happily wish away the 'investment' London has seen. Its played a major role in causing and increasing their desperate plight.

We are both from the South. We are moving back down south next year. I have no axe to grind either way. I have not argued that the concentration of wealth isn’t in London and the SE. I have suggested that some of that wealth fell into the lap of my parents’ generation due to ridiculous increase in house prices.
My point was only that in our experience and those of people we know and socialise with, there had been no pay cut to come north. And indeed many people must be earning these regional high salaries to afford to live in areas such as Hale.

If you relocated to an area where the houses cost that much, then the people you are likely to have met will be a very specific demographic.

What do you think the Big4 starting salary is for tax/audit in Manchester/Leeds these days?

I can tell you that it's c. £21k. I also know that all the Big4 in London start on c. £28k. That % difference is replicated at the next level up, and the next level up again.... And that information is entirely consistent with the statistics produced by the ONS etc.

The fact that wealthy people and expensive house exist up north is not evidence that the difference doesn't exist. Yes, some people up north earn a shedload but they are a tiny minority, as they are everywhere. It's a lot more informative to look at the facts at population level than anecdotes about an elite subset.

@SheepandCow

There is more rough sleeping in London than anywhere else in the country. London has more families (parents and children) living in one room for years (using a bathroom with strangers) than anywhere else in the country.

There might be more wealth (concentrated in a minority, who don't live in London permanently or full-time) but there's also more extreme poverty. If you're going to be poor, you're far better off being poor somewhere else in the country.

Deprived Londoners would happily wish away the 'investment' London has seen. Its played a major role in causing and increasing their desperate plight.

This is a fair point. Many ordinary Londoners have been totally screwed by the direction the capital moved in.

I think it has a lot to do with accents, as less accents/RP spoken more naturally places like oxford ect and other southern areas so some (idiots) look down on the accents of the north.

House prices similar across other bits of S Manchester; Didsbury and parts of Stockport like Heaton Mersey and Bramhall. I am not saying it’s the norm but it’s not as isolated as you’re suggesting. However, our house price has certainly not increased as much as our old house in Hertfordshire so technically we’ve lost money by moving here.
The op wasn’t asking is statistically there is less wealth in the North. She was taking issue with the fact that many southerners believe the North to be a generic grim place where houses are dirt cheap and salaries low. Indeed others came on the thread to confirm that. I do think it’s a strange but common misconception. It’s not just money based either. We have family member who were stunned to see the results achieved by DD’s school. They thought they’d be good ‘for the North’ rather than top ten in the country.

If the OP was asking "why is the north seen as grim/poor" then one of the answers is the fact that salaries are lower here. I know that some of my London colleagues see the northern salaries as low, and draw conclusions which aren't necessarily accurate.

I think some of it (e.g. thinking that northern schools are rubbish, and northerners are likely to be badly educated) is just unthinking prejudice. It's not helped by how northerners are portrayed on TV!

@ReceptacleForTheRespectable

I also find it bizarre too claim that "for many, there can’t be that much of a disparity" when someone has posted the stats upthread showing that London has 20% higher salaries after adjusting for property prices.

Don't get me wrong, I do not think it's 'grim up north' and I do not think that everyone up north lives in poverty. My DH and I do professional jobs, earn good salaries and live in a nice area, and we know lots of people in a similar position up here.

But claiming that there is no difference in income or property prices is just untrue - the stats show very clearly that there is. There may be exceptions, but across most industries there will be a disparity because that's what the statistics show.

I don't resent the fact that London colleagues earn a lot more because I'm happy living in my area (and I'm leaving the big4 soon anyway!), but that doesn't mean I feel the need to ignore the blindingly obvious.

I totally agree but I think it was salaries in the SE that were 20% higher not just London? It blows the whole debate out of the water as this is adjusted for the difference in houses prices so actually generally those in the South are more affluent. Why is everyone denying this?

Surely denying this means the disparity continues?