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'm from 'up North' and the divide definitely exists. I don't know if it's a choice that people want it to exist though to be honest. For example HS2, nobody I've met up North views being better connected to 'down South' as something that we want. Very few commute that far and think that people in charge down South have no idea about what could be done better up North.

If that made any sense at all 🤣

London still has most of the country's wealth (as is the case with capital cities/ major cities) in every country.

This is just weird.

It is a fact that the north as a whole is poorer than the south by every measure.

That does not mean there are not wealthy places in the north like Cheshire and Harrogate or that there aren't poor places in the south.

It's a bit like looking at a box of 100 oranges and 3 apples and saying that it isn't true that the box contains mainly oranges because there are apples mixed in.

@OlympicProcrastinator

You keep mentioning London when discussing down south. You realise the south is a big place and being southern doesn’t mean you have anything to do with or live anywhere near London right?

Well I’ve experienced people with this perception in other areas of the south as well, usually the areas within commute of London so probably suffer from the same London syndrome but obviously I’m mostly talking about Londoners.

[quote Jules585]@SheepandCow just wondering what you mean by ‘The Shires’ as basically every county outside of London has ‘shire’ in its name?[/quote]
They don't (Surrey, Merseyside, Dorset, Devon, Teeside, etc don't have 'Shire').
But fair enough. I say Shires but it's certain parts only within these counties, and some don't have a Shire in their name. I think it's more a term used to describe certain areas that many people (but not all) will understand.

So yes there is poverty and poorer parts in all these areas but the following are where wealthy people are concentrated and where there's less extreme deprivation (before, during, and after they make money out of London).

Oxfordshire, Cheshire, Yorkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Berkshire, parts of Gloucestershire (i.e. the Cotswolds), parts of Warwickshire, parts of Pembrokeshire, parts of North Wales, Edinburgh, parts of the Highlands.

Non-Shires include Dorset, parts of Somerset, Surrey, Sussex, Rutland, parts of Devon, parts of Norfolk, parts of Suffolk.

I've not included everywhere but you get the general idea.

Yes, just sharing a grim northern city!

www.facebook.com/homesbystrata/videos/349205816493751

@Rosehip10

Many northern towns are rough

Many towns everywhere in the country are rough. If you're claiming the north is worse in that regard, you need to explain your view rather than just plant an inflammatory comment like that and run away.

With that said, some parts of the north have known crippling poverty in recent decades and (speaking as a proud northerner) yes, this has rendered some areas less than naice. For those who aren't old enough to remember, the Tories' systematic ripping away of many people's livelihoods in the 80s had a lot to do with it.

I’m a Northerner, I used to believe that it was grim up North until I visited a load of grim Southern/Midlands places that I had always perceived as better than where I came from. The reality is there’s grim everywhere and there’s nice everywhere! Have to say though, nowhere in England rivals the Lakes or the Yorkshire countryside from what I’ve seen. Cornwall and Devon are lovely on the coast but largely boring inland with little to do in the rain!

I've lived in Yorkshire and London and let me tell you I've never seen anything as grim in the North as certain things I've seen in London.

Also some areas of London are pretty much exactly like any Northern town. Woolwich for example isn't really any different to Huddersfield in appearance and standard of living

@nostaples

London still has most of the country's wealth (as is the case with capital cities/ major cities) in every country.

This is just weird.

It is a fact that the north as a whole is poorer than the south by every measure.

That does not mean there are not wealthy places in the north like Cheshire and Harrogate or that there aren't poor places in the south.

It's a bit like looking at a box of 100 oranges and 3 apples and saying that it isn't true that the box contains mainly oranges because there are apples mixed in.

Ok yes, economically it might work that way.

But my point is more that people who live ‘up north’ are seen by some Londoners/southerners as poor, uneducated, in crap jobs etc when it’s just simply not true.

Not to mention plenty of wealthy people live in lovely places up north and probably commute to London a couple of days a week because the world is getting more virtual!

It's not 'poorer' however I don't believe it has received anywhere near the investment as the south has. Moreover, it lacks the economy - there are fewer jobs because many of the cities are nowhere near as central. There are fewer transport links etc.

Contrastingly however, I would say the average family in the north has more disposable income than the south simply due to the lower housing costs. Our home in the North would cost near to £1,000,000 down south and it's a very boring 3 bed semi.

So the North is certainly not poorer from my experience.

@CoronaIsWatching

I've lived in Yorkshire and London and let me tell you I've never seen anything as grim in the North as certain things I've seen in London.

Also some areas of London are pretty much exactly like any Northern town. Woolwich for example isn't really any different to Huddersfield in appearance and standard of living

Yep!

‘What, you don’t have a million restaurants on Deliveroo?’

Actually we don't even have one on Deliveroo in this village, we live a simple foraging life via Occado deliveries

'So the North is certainly not poorer from my experience.'

Oh right, if you don't think it's true then that definitely negates all the evidence that it is.

@nostaples, but again my DDs school is exceptionally high in national league tables. And that’s not an anomaly. Across Trafford, Stockport and South Manchester. Yes, there’s massively deprived areas such as Blackpool and areas of Merseyside but I think if London was included in those figures they’d read differently.

It's about averages. There are well off and deprived areas all over the country, but the proportion varies. Of course the whole "north" isn't uniformly poor.

@NellyJames it is anomalous and I think you're talking to grammar schools, also anomalous.

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14198447.school-exam-results-study-finds-north-south-divide-widened/

It probably was grim during the during the industrial revolution with all the coal burning, same for the west mids.

The northern lords like the duke of Northumberland where more like princes weren’t they?. Huge swathes of land, masses of people they could call to arms at any moment, far enough away from London to feel like your in a different country.

'THE region where children attend school has become a crucial factor in determining their educational achievements, a study has found.

The Social Market Foundation analysis of GCSE performance at age 16 across England and Wales found marked disparities between regions, with more than 70 per cent of pupils in London achieving five good GCSEs compared to 63 per cent in Yorkshire and 64 per cent in the North East.

Researchers found regional inequalities have remained stubborn and in some cases worsened over the last three decades across different cohorts of children sitting exams at age 16.'

@nostaples

London still has most of the country's wealth (as is the case with capital cities/ major cities) in every country.

This is just weird.

It is a fact that the north as a whole is poorer than the south by every measure.

That does not mean there are not wealthy places in the north like Cheshire and Harrogate or that there aren't poor places in the south.

It's a bit like looking at a box of 100 oranges and 3 apples and saying that it isn't true that the box contains mainly oranges because there are apples mixed in.

No. The wealth is made in London but the wealthy don't live there. At least not permanently or full-time.

There might be more wealth there but there's also more deprivation.

The rest of the south is very mixed. The most deprived part of the country is in the south - Cornwall.

Pointing to exceptions or one's own experience is not a valid way to argue if you want to establish whether something is or is not generally true

@SheepandCow I know but the wealth generated in London is dispersed more in the south than in the north obvs

Surrey for example or commuter towns as far as Brighton or parts of Kent

Because some people form a very shallow impression of the world beyond their personal bubble

Including quite a few people on this thread, it seems.

@nostaples

Pointing to exceptions or one's own experience is not a valid way to argue if you want to establish whether something is or is not generally true

I suppose my question wasn’t really to ask whether statistically there is more wealth in London/south but rather why it seems to he a deep seated perception that the north is grim.

@canigohomenow

It's not 'poorer' however I don't believe it has received anywhere near the investment as the south has. Moreover, it lacks the economy - there are fewer jobs because many of the cities are nowhere near as central. There are fewer transport links etc.

Contrastingly however, I would say the average family in the north has more disposable income than the south simply due to the lower housing costs. Our home in the North would cost near to £1,000,000 down south and it's a very boring 3 bed semi.

So the North is certainly not poorer from my experience.

Take a look at the map about two-thirds of the way down this page: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49812519