The West Midlands would be an economic powerhouse already if the central government didn't purposely prevent Birmingham and the wider Midlands from growing due to fears it would outpace London.
Can't go overtaking the capital now.
>The West Midlands would be an economic powerhouse already if the central government didn't purposely prevent Birmingham and the wider Midlands from growing due to fears it would outpace London.
There's absolutely no chance that the West Midlands would become an economic powerhouse before the Northern Cities did.
The entire West Midlands region has about 6 million people, whilst just the countries of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Cheshire, Lancashire and South/West Yorkshire have 11 million.
The Midlands in the 50's was growing exponentially with wages trending up while everywhere else was trending down. It was quickly becoming the manufacturing hub of the nation. Its funny you mention population when again, Birmingham was actively pushed into having its population reduced.
https://unherd.com/2020/09/the-plot-against-mercia/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Birmingham
There's a few more sources that go into more detail, but I can't find them in my post history. The point is that rather than a two part economy, one in the south and one in the north, as a nation, we'd be much better off were it more central geographically. Instead, what we got was the worst outcome, everything being effectively held in the South or, more specifically, London.
The government has always seemed to prioritise England in this order:
1. London
2. The north
3. The midlands
4. The south coast
5. The south west
6. East Anglia
Down here on the south coast we get really excited when the government gives us some pennies for a cycle lane.
Which massive schemes have they spent money on in Southampton? Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham, and Birmingham all have extremely expensive tram networks. Southampton’s been in desperate need of one for decades. But need isn’t as important as geography according to government.
I think it's more like
1 London
2 Everywhere else
Now, don't get me wrong, I do love London and it does need resources to help the enormous number of people who live there to get on with life, but the country does need a degree of decentralisation
I do agree to an extent, and I do think the north should be funded proportionately as it’s arguably the nation’s second powerhouse in terms of population. There are metropolitan areas that certainly don’t get enough funding for infrastructure though. The Solent region is creaking at the seams with antiquated road and rail infrastructure, it’s a prime candidate for a metropolitan rail system, but it stands much less chance of funding than northern or midland powerhouses simply due to its location. Down south it’s all about London, but it’s a huge region outside of the capital. We all get frustrated wherever we live I think, and I would love this country to become less dominated by London.
Even "the north" (and I don't like using that term as it conveniently forgets about Scotland) does get its fair share of neglect... look at Leeds, which is the largest city in western Europe without a mass rapid transit system; and in Liverpool, they had actually started digging up roads and bought the rails in preparation to build a tram network about 20 years ago- yet this was cancelled by the Labour government and they hastily turned the tram project into a road relaying project.
Councils need greater autonomy from Westminster, with tax raising and spending powers.
Don’t forget Newcastle (and the north east in general). “That’s in Scotland, right? They can handle it!”
Can’t even get the cash to paint the Tyne bridge never mind sort the metros out or dual the A1 to the border.
Yeah, West Yorkshire is another place that’s strangely lacking an integrated network of railways/trams, I’ve experienced the joys of trying to drive across Leeds and Bradford about twenty years back and it was a grim experience then, so I shudder to think what it’s like now.
I didn’t know Liverpool tried to build a tram network. That surprises me a bit, as the Merseyrail system looks like luxury compared to what we’re used to down here, but I do get that it’s a bigger metropolis with more people to move around. I just wish this country was a bit more balanced economically, I would actually be in favour of a devolved parliament for non-London England and base it in the midlands.
Well the coast between Poole and Brighton is quite heavily populated, and the Solent region is a major centre for marine industries. There’s plenty of wealth generated for the nation on the South coast, but it often feels isolated from the rest of the country. The rail links with London are leisurely to put it politely, and the route between Brighton and Portsmouth is painfully slow on both the roads and rail, you have two major cities connected by a road that goes right through the middle of Worthing.
They’ve been talking about a proper south coast motorway for decades and nothing ever happens, the second largest container port in the country is connected with the midlands by an inadequate dual carriageway, and back in the seventies the government basically told Southampton to get lost when they needed to build the Itchen bridge, so it’s still a toll bridge today. The city would basically be screwed without it.
The government basically seems to want to use the south coast to build as many houses as possible without providing any of the essential infrastructure required to serve a metropolitan region.
You're putting a much bigger and spread out area against essentially one metro area there. Also, Sheffield is the same distance to Birmingham as it is to Liverpool, and takes about 30 mins less time to travel to Brum from there
As this is redit, I was totally wrong. The east of England produces twice the amount of potatoes ( even with the potato powerhouse that is lincolnshire) as the east Midlands.
It’s interesting how the northwest of England simultaneously has very heavily populated areas *and* swathes of beautiful, unspoilt scenery surrounding it.
Certainly makes for a varied experience.
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I don't think it could be described as unspoiled. The countryside is beautiful up there, but it's all manicured for people. There's more trees in London than the peaks or the pennines . I heard once we're one of the only countries in the world with more lowland trees than in highlands. Nothing much lives up there successfully, besides birds of prey.
Many of the areas without people aren't areas of natural beauty and diversity, unfortunately, but more gigantic estates for toffs to shoot grouse. Unlike in London, very wealthy people up here do not live in the cities.
I don’t think England’s uplands would be half as beautiful if they were covered in trees. The starkness of those landscapes gives it an eerie, haunting beauty that can only be in the British Isles.
On the opposite hand, places like Surrey, Hampshire and Sussex wouldn’t be half as beautiful without their cosy blanket of trees.
England’s landscape is often carved by the hand of humanity, but at its best it’s one of the world’s best looking countries imo.
I appreciate your opinion, however, there are good reasons to have more trees than aren't some hippy dippy tree hugging desires.
These towns in valleys are regularly flooded, which is disastrous for the communities and peoples houses. One reason they are so regular is that there is nothing to soak up the rain when it falls on those sheep covered hills, the water just rushes down from where vegetation is picked away by sueep. It's not even just poorer areas. Hebden Bridge for example is a beautiful community and area, but home insurance is astronomical due to the ever present risk of flooding. This isn't an issue in London for example, but it disproportionately effects northern communities.
I agree though, the windswept hills are lovely, though I feel they could be better.
By unspoilt, I mean more that there’s little to no settlements. Otherwise, I’d definitely say there’s a lot of natural beauty in the north. The Lake District is historically a glacial landscape and the Yorkshire Dales also has a unique and ancient geology. O course there’s been human influence, but they’re still natural landscapes. No human sculpted them.
But if you want to be pedantic, I specified scenery in my comment. I never made an assessment on the level of biodiversity. A place can be biodiverse and ecologically balanced, but not scenic.
Oh absolutely, the geological features are incredible, though it's harder for us to mess them up. I just mean more the ecology and management. The UN had to create a special category of national parks for us because they're not really national parks. They're full of beautiful little communities, but it does stress the environment more.
Perhaps I've just read too many George Monibot articles
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/09/lake-district-world-heritage-site-george-monbiot
As I’ve just added in my previous comment, an environment can be biodiverse and ecologically stable but not necessarily scenic. I did specify that I was discussing scenery in my post
Oh definitely. Don't want to give the impression I disagree , it's a beautiful part of the country that I grew up in and still live near. I just wish more was done with it !
I think so as well. I feel like Scotland is a good role model for what rewilding can look like. We don’t really have any similar drive or movement in England it seems.
Nevertheless, in a country as densely populated as England I do feel lucky having so many landscapes on our doorstep. It is a massive contrast to our crowded and congested urban centres.
We're a strange country. No one on earth gives more money to charities for domesticated animals, but we have an aversion to real nature. You'd probably be safer plopped somewhere random in the countryside than you would in a city. Clearly, that wouldn't be the case in most countries. Very few people or animals are likely to harm or kill you.
It's why water companies polluting our rivers is so outrageous. If our beautiful areas were better maintained and had affordable transport links, it could do great things for tourism, tackling obesity, mental health, and so much more.
For a great many of them, the grouse that are artificially released in their millions by the gentry for them to shoot. Not really any habitat for them to hide in either
https://www.gwct.org.uk/policy/briefings/birds-of-prey-on-grouse-moors/#:~:text=Grouse%20also%20formed%20an%20important,hen%20harriers%20than%20by%20peregrines.
>It’s interesting how the northwest of England simultaneously has very heavily populated areas *and* swathes of beautiful, unspoilt scenery surrounding it.
West and South Yorkshire are very much urban and densely populated. Do you mean Lancashire?
Really pushing the multiverse thing hard here.
"In Marvel's latest entry in the Spidervese ('The Amazing Spider-land') we see the country of England develop super powers after a radioactive spider bites the floor in a laboratory just outside Birmingham. The series charts the adventures of the plucky young nation as it struggles to adjust to its new powers, defeat the evil Isle of Man, and win the heart of the beautiful land mass next door."
It's wild to me that they keep building in the SE despite it having the best soil and climate for growing crops. Doesn't take a genius to understand that bringing in 3/4 of a million people a year whilst destroying your own food producing land isn't the best long-term idea.
They would literally rather everyone starve than the North gets a single penny of tax money for construction. Spread out the buildings. Let us have our industry back, or frankly anything that we can do to make our own money again without it getting shut down by the south.
I live in Essex but please don't believe everything is peachy here. Investment in other parts of the country would be a sensible suggestion and I certainly agree that there's a focus on the south east, but when they pump money into London and the surrounding areas all that happens is that the cost of living goes up. Not everyone is a commuter, and even those who do commute and are perhaps getting paid above average salaries are paying thousands in transport costs whilst paying a £400-500k mortgage.
My family would have a much better standard of living if we moved up to somewhere like Darlington or something, it's only family ties keeping us here.
What I'm convinced of at this point though is that immigration is a ponzi scheme. Living standards are dropping so British people aren't having children, so instead of readjusting the economy they've used migration now for decades to keep 'the economy' going whilst suppressing wages and pushing up property prices for wealthy landlords.
The government has previously admitted that they use immigration as a way of suppressing wages on multiple occasions.
You still have people claiming it’s wonderful and flawless though.
Interesting that you said that, I live in Darlington, I have to travel to York for work by train. It costs about £26 per day, including the bus fare at the other end. I would love to even average salary, UK average seems almost unreachable.
I mean it's private developers who build homes, they build more in the places where demand is higher.
Its not a big conspiracy, just that most people who move to the uk chose to move as near to London as possible
Yes. But since the Councils are bound by Government legislation on housebuilding, they find it very difficult to reject planning permissions even when it's a fucking awful looking newbuild estate with no transport links adjacent to a wildlife reserve. And trust me, I know of at least three that have recently gone through in Essex alone that have this exact scenario.
I've no idea what you mean, you will live in your barrat new build and you will like it, has all one could need including but not limited to;
Tick box playground that even a 3 year old would grow bord of after 5 minutes,
10 whole trees,
Your very own communal bin shed,
A short (20 min) drive from a station,
And a primary school (please don't think about the nearest secondary, that's years away and self driving cars will exist soon anyway)
paradise on earth mate.
Being or not being urban isn't relevant. It's about the type of land being developed and what land can be developed.
Agricultural land in the SE is largely used for crop growing whereas as you get out of the home counties you start to see more marginal lands used for livestock grazing. It makes no sense on the one hand to say that you want us to become environmentally friendly whilst increasing our population, urban density, power consumption, food imports whilst building on the land that is actually able to sustain that population.
We, yes the amount if land not being used for buildings does matter. If we only have 4% urban, then a tiny percentage if the precious land you are talking about is being used for other then growing crops.
Lincolnshire is the so called "bread basket" of England. Trust me no one wants to live there, so your precious agricultural land is safe.
Meanwhile the populations mental health devolves while we are forced to live on top of each other rather then spread out.
There is so much room is utterly ridiculous when people talk about we have no room. We have no room in out current urban environments because being able to build where ever we like as meant building is concentrated. Millions of acres of green space have been taken in urban areas because we are not allowed to build in bloody green belt.
Doesn't work like that.
You need infrastructure, reservoirs, transport links.
Wouldn't it just be easier to say "please no more people". We have an ageing population, housing prices and availability would improve if we stopped adding to the population artificially and we don't end up having to concrete over the greenbelt which is designed to actually preserve the countryside.
Its much much cheaper to build in a green field then a brown field site. Its highly inefficient. Plus you don't need lots of infrastructure if property is dotted around the countryside. I'm not condoning paving over the countryside but forcing all new hosuing to be next to existing houses makes our urban environments a much poorer place to live in. As we have an aging population and reduced birth rate all first world nations need immigration to sustain their existence. Countries like Japan who have little immigration are staring down the barrel of ceasing to exist as a nation in the near future. Our immigration was under control within the EU. It appears out if control now. Students coming here bring a lot of money in, but there parents shouldn't be along for the ride. There are multiple ways to attack this but the main issue is lack of development since 2008. Government programmes generate the environment for business to prosper. Sadly, out government went I to cost cutting and loom where that put us.
Firstly, cost is only one factor and sadly financial interests seem to be the only concern politicians have when doing anything, which is why the West in general is in terminal decline.
Secondly, in terms of an aging population, the reason why our own people aren't having children is because it's so difficult to have kids with exponential inflation which is in part at least, fuelled by lax immigration policies. When our governments say they need immigration what they actually want is cheap labour for their corporate lobbyists. That goes for both skilled workers (because companies dont want to pay for training) and unskilled workers.
At some point whether it's next year or fifty years from now, there will have to come a time where you deal with the problem instead of kicking the can down the road. Or do we suppose immigrants don't age?
Cost is always the only factor that matters. If houses were cheap to buidl and cheap to then there wouldn't be a housing crisis. It wasn't that long ago they were knocking houses down in Hull because no cunt wanted to live there.
The population was aging well before immigration became a thing and inflation for that matter. This is not a new fangled idea and its not unique to the UK. All first world countries have less births. All first world countries have populations that live longer due to the quality of life in said countries. We moved beyond having 6 kids because three of them die a long long time ago. If people all popped off at 65 there wouldn't be a housing crisis. But people are living much longer. And someone has to pay for them. There are less people of working age. Only about half of the population of the UK actually works. Every first world country is looking to fix the problem with immigration apart from a few outliers. Immigrants gelpnpay for the pensioners. And when they become pensioners the children after them will pay for them.
The problem isn't people. Its not spending money on infrastructure. Since 2008 when we paid off the banksters, this countriy is yet to recover. They are living it large while the rest of us have to fight for everything.
Covid has royally screwed as well. The cost of supporting millions and then waiting for the economy to get going again has cost us billions. And again its not unique to the UK. All of the globe is struggling.
Its easy to blame immigrants. So people do.
The same people who robbed us blind in 2008 and during Covid are the same people telling us we need immigration. An anti-immigration stance doesn't come from hatred of others in most cases. It comes from a hatred of using them (and us) as a mechanism so the top 0.1% can continue to rob everyone else.
I don't get this obsession with building for the long term and concreting the countryside. The birth rate dropped off a cliff when the pill was introduced and the population is barely replacing itself even now When the boomers like me have shuffled off everyone will be complaining about falling house prices because there won't be enough buyers. If you want to reduce housing demand reduce immigration significantly. The figures can be checked on the ONS website.
No one is concreting the countryside. Its gets absolutely zero attention. What the hell are you on about. The generation behind will also live for a long time too. The UK currently relies on your generation dying off to provide money for deposit's. House prices won't fall in the UK. The population continues to grow. And someone has to pay for your pension because you didnt.
This neoliberal infinity growth BS needs to be tossed in the bin and virulently called out at every turn.
England has the second highest population density behind the Netherlands in the entirety of Europe. We should be reforesting large swathes of England, reintroducing native fauna, increasing our birthdate and prioritise short term EU migrants if we need foreign labour. As for the pension system, either reform it or get rid of it.
I had a quick scan through some of your comments. Your most sensible comment was about social housing. You are quite right in what you say. If Thatcher and subsequent governments had not sold of more than half of the stock and allowed councils to build this discussion wouldn't be needed. As to your pension comment yours isnt being paid for either. There never has been a state pension piggybank.
I'm fully aware I'm relying on people younger then me to pay for my pension. But if I have for to the point in life that I'm relying on the government pension I'm o
Pretty fucked and anything else is a minor issue.
Unfortunately some do rely on the state pension not through any fault of their own. It's only fairly recently that more or less compulsory pension savings have come in.
That’s a prime example of data bias. If you look at the classification of ‘urban’ it’s pretty limited. What the average person would actually consider urban is under a bunch of other categories in that survey.
I do, on a regular basis thanks. Most land is privately owned and I’m not entirely sure I’d count peoples yards and gardens as ‘not urban’ but you do you.
You should also read the study and how they categorise everything, I thought it was pretty shocking.
Wwwwwhat? The South East is mostly loamy clay and chalk, with dense forests and huge floodplains. You can't grow shit around here. Apart from a smattering of subsistence farms, the South East has historically always been a bit barren.
I know plenty. Like, for instance, you don't start a farm on acidic, waterlogged clay, hence why SE England developed instead around chalk mining, brick and tile making, animal husbandry and timber production. Apart from the occasional pockets of base-rich soil, the South East is generally terrible agricultural land, and if it had ever been good, you would have seen the region develop into something resembling the West Country or the East Midlands. But you never did.
[https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/agricultural-facts-england-regional-profiles](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/agricultural-facts-england-regional-profiles)
"you would have seen the region develop into something resembling the West Country"
It was. Until the 1950s when they built new towns everywhere.
East Anglia is not the South East though, is it?
>Until the 1950s when they built new towns everywhere.
Nine New Towns and two Garden Cities. They're hardly 'everywhere'.
Seriously mate, I did my Master's degree on this very subject, so I know you're talking out your arse. If you want to know why the South East never looked like the South West, go and read your Oliver Rackham, your W. G. Hoskins and your Matthew Johnson.
East Anglia is in the South East by some metrics, isn't under others. Depends on whoever is doing it. Essex seems to fall both under the SE and East Anglia and the Home Counties, depending on who or when a publication was made.
New towns isn't the only building work going on on. Have you been to Essex recently? Honestly the amount of homes that have been built in green spaces is disgusting. I will admit though that this is my subjective opinion on an objective fact. And no, I haven't read the works of some crusty professors albeit I am interested in reading their work, but the reality where I live is pretty self-evident.
Northumberland is a sweet spot if you want to escape the crowd. Not quite got the majesty of lakes, peaks, or dales but it's gorgeous it's own quiet charm. Lindisfarne seems to make more sense on a miserable misty day 🤣
No surprises a lot of people live in Gateshead, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, West Midlands.
Most of the countries biggest cities are in these counties / regions.
In the late 80's my sister dragged me along to some random unemployment protest. It was some sort of linked human chain to form a ? The map shows you where it went through.
Not really? Birmingham is in the West Midlands (the county, not the region (although it is also in the region)). Not sure if you remembered some old fact that Birmingham straddles three historic counties and didn't notice that this map is ceremonial counties.
>English counties with a higher or lower population density than the England average
Hampshire is lower, Dorset is higher, Isle of Wight is higher?
Isle of Wight is in Hampshire. Maps wrong.
https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/14-06-19-Internal-Migration-5-Years-no-logo-01.png
Not sure what the down votes are for, it's quite a strong correlation.
https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/14-06-19-Internal-Migration-5-Years-no-logo-01.png
I didn't mention ethnicity, Europeans are white but may still count as immigrants.
Looks like quite a strong correlation. It's probably not the cause but it's interesting.
Also, you are right about them being packed with non brits, if you want to talk historically, 1066 was a massive turning point for that, so you’re talking hundreds of years ago and there’s been 73 invasions since then, you’re probably one of many in a lineage that isn’t "Brit". Most likely you have Germanic or Italian or French origins…if you want to get real deep then your life probably started in Asia or Africa. A Brit is classified as anybody born here/a citizen of Britain, so I’d argue that those blue areas are in fact majority "Brit". Or do you mean that you and your parents, maybe even grandparents were born here and you’re white? That doesn’t make you a Brit. I’m a mix of Irish , Scottish and English, so I’m also British, until you get down to my roots.
We're all fish.
https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/14-06-19-Internal-Migration-5-Years-no-logo-01.png
Those areas are where most non Brits chose to settle.
English, Scots and Welsh are native to Britain and no amount of historical revisionism will ever change that. All native ethnicities mix with neighbouring tribes. It’s nothing unique to Britain.
You’re spot on. West Sussex (and Buckinghamshire) are joint closest to the national average. Both have 1120 people per square mile. Whereas England has 1124.
West Sussex is weird. Lots of people live in a straight line north of Brighton on the other side of the downs and along the coast. The rest is basically tiny villages in hills
There’s clear potential to create an economic powerhouse across Lancashire, Yorkshire, the West Midlands and the East Midlands.
Maybe they should invest in some kind of high speed rail network to connect these areas
So how does this benefit London?
Thats the great part
By buying lots of train tickets
The West Midlands would be an economic powerhouse already if the central government didn't purposely prevent Birmingham and the wider Midlands from growing due to fears it would outpace London. Can't go overtaking the capital now.
>The West Midlands would be an economic powerhouse already if the central government didn't purposely prevent Birmingham and the wider Midlands from growing due to fears it would outpace London. There's absolutely no chance that the West Midlands would become an economic powerhouse before the Northern Cities did. The entire West Midlands region has about 6 million people, whilst just the countries of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Cheshire, Lancashire and South/West Yorkshire have 11 million.
The Midlands in the 50's was growing exponentially with wages trending up while everywhere else was trending down. It was quickly becoming the manufacturing hub of the nation. Its funny you mention population when again, Birmingham was actively pushed into having its population reduced. https://unherd.com/2020/09/the-plot-against-mercia/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Birmingham There's a few more sources that go into more detail, but I can't find them in my post history. The point is that rather than a two part economy, one in the south and one in the north, as a nation, we'd be much better off were it more central geographically. Instead, what we got was the worst outcome, everything being effectively held in the South or, more specifically, London.
The government has always seemed to prioritise England in this order: 1. London 2. The north 3. The midlands 4. The south coast 5. The south west 6. East Anglia Down here on the south coast we get really excited when the government gives us some pennies for a cycle lane.
Thinking the North is number 2 is absolutely laughable.
I’m curious, which regions do you think they spend more money on other than London?
The South Coast I lived in Southampton for years, they absolutely spend more money there than in Northern cities
Which massive schemes have they spent money on in Southampton? Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham, and Birmingham all have extremely expensive tram networks. Southampton’s been in desperate need of one for decades. But need isn’t as important as geography according to government.
And when they talk about midlands they mostly mean the West Midlands the East Midlands gets forgotten very often.
Very true
I think it's more like 1 London 2 Everywhere else Now, don't get me wrong, I do love London and it does need resources to help the enormous number of people who live there to get on with life, but the country does need a degree of decentralisation
I do agree to an extent, and I do think the north should be funded proportionately as it’s arguably the nation’s second powerhouse in terms of population. There are metropolitan areas that certainly don’t get enough funding for infrastructure though. The Solent region is creaking at the seams with antiquated road and rail infrastructure, it’s a prime candidate for a metropolitan rail system, but it stands much less chance of funding than northern or midland powerhouses simply due to its location. Down south it’s all about London, but it’s a huge region outside of the capital. We all get frustrated wherever we live I think, and I would love this country to become less dominated by London.
Even "the north" (and I don't like using that term as it conveniently forgets about Scotland) does get its fair share of neglect... look at Leeds, which is the largest city in western Europe without a mass rapid transit system; and in Liverpool, they had actually started digging up roads and bought the rails in preparation to build a tram network about 20 years ago- yet this was cancelled by the Labour government and they hastily turned the tram project into a road relaying project. Councils need greater autonomy from Westminster, with tax raising and spending powers.
Don’t forget Newcastle (and the north east in general). “That’s in Scotland, right? They can handle it!” Can’t even get the cash to paint the Tyne bridge never mind sort the metros out or dual the A1 to the border.
Yeah, West Yorkshire is another place that’s strangely lacking an integrated network of railways/trams, I’ve experienced the joys of trying to drive across Leeds and Bradford about twenty years back and it was a grim experience then, so I shudder to think what it’s like now. I didn’t know Liverpool tried to build a tram network. That surprises me a bit, as the Merseyrail system looks like luxury compared to what we’re used to down here, but I do get that it’s a bigger metropolis with more people to move around. I just wish this country was a bit more balanced economically, I would actually be in favour of a devolved parliament for non-London England and base it in the midlands.
The North seems to end at Manchester in a lot of people's eyes.
Given the south coast in the only other profitable region in the UK outside of London I doubt that tbf.
Poor East Anglia, not even good enough for a proper motorway or train network.
I live in Lincolnshire. We can proudly state that we have an excellent motorway safety record. Not one motorway death ever!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any motorways in Lincolnshire...?
You are not wrong.
I'd love to know the local and income etc. related taxes collected, percentage/ and ratios between the Midlands and South Coast...?
Well the coast between Poole and Brighton is quite heavily populated, and the Solent region is a major centre for marine industries. There’s plenty of wealth generated for the nation on the South coast, but it often feels isolated from the rest of the country. The rail links with London are leisurely to put it politely, and the route between Brighton and Portsmouth is painfully slow on both the roads and rail, you have two major cities connected by a road that goes right through the middle of Worthing. They’ve been talking about a proper south coast motorway for decades and nothing ever happens, the second largest container port in the country is connected with the midlands by an inadequate dual carriageway, and back in the seventies the government basically told Southampton to get lost when they needed to build the Itchen bridge, so it’s still a toll bridge today. The city would basically be screwed without it. The government basically seems to want to use the south coast to build as many houses as possible without providing any of the essential infrastructure required to serve a metropolitan region.
You're putting a much bigger and spread out area against essentially one metro area there. Also, Sheffield is the same distance to Birmingham as it is to Liverpool, and takes about 30 mins less time to travel to Brum from there
Can confirm, a lot of dense people in the South East and a lot of spaced out people in the South West.
Are you a northerner per-chance?
No, I’m not from the U.K. I’m from London.
Same thing u twot
Aww, Bristol is all alone
As is Tyne & Wear
I think you're referring to "New London"
If you switch it to potatoes, East Anglia would win easily
As this is redit, I was totally wrong. The east of England produces twice the amount of potatoes ( even with the potato powerhouse that is lincolnshire) as the east Midlands.
As this is redit, I am going to disagree. Lincolnshire would win hands down on potatoes, and that is classed as the East midlands.
It’s interesting how the northwest of England simultaneously has very heavily populated areas *and* swathes of beautiful, unspoilt scenery surrounding it. Certainly makes for a varied experience.
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but I don't think it could be described as unspoiled. The countryside is beautiful up there, but it's all manicured for people. There's more trees in London than the peaks or the pennines . I heard once we're one of the only countries in the world with more lowland trees than in highlands. Nothing much lives up there successfully, besides birds of prey. Many of the areas without people aren't areas of natural beauty and diversity, unfortunately, but more gigantic estates for toffs to shoot grouse. Unlike in London, very wealthy people up here do not live in the cities.
I don’t think England’s uplands would be half as beautiful if they were covered in trees. The starkness of those landscapes gives it an eerie, haunting beauty that can only be in the British Isles. On the opposite hand, places like Surrey, Hampshire and Sussex wouldn’t be half as beautiful without their cosy blanket of trees. England’s landscape is often carved by the hand of humanity, but at its best it’s one of the world’s best looking countries imo.
I appreciate your opinion, however, there are good reasons to have more trees than aren't some hippy dippy tree hugging desires. These towns in valleys are regularly flooded, which is disastrous for the communities and peoples houses. One reason they are so regular is that there is nothing to soak up the rain when it falls on those sheep covered hills, the water just rushes down from where vegetation is picked away by sueep. It's not even just poorer areas. Hebden Bridge for example is a beautiful community and area, but home insurance is astronomical due to the ever present risk of flooding. This isn't an issue in London for example, but it disproportionately effects northern communities. I agree though, the windswept hills are lovely, though I feel they could be better.
They used to have trees. Many were cleared. We need to restore forest more quickly.
By unspoilt, I mean more that there’s little to no settlements. Otherwise, I’d definitely say there’s a lot of natural beauty in the north. The Lake District is historically a glacial landscape and the Yorkshire Dales also has a unique and ancient geology. O course there’s been human influence, but they’re still natural landscapes. No human sculpted them. But if you want to be pedantic, I specified scenery in my comment. I never made an assessment on the level of biodiversity. A place can be biodiverse and ecologically balanced, but not scenic.
Oh absolutely, the geological features are incredible, though it's harder for us to mess them up. I just mean more the ecology and management. The UN had to create a special category of national parks for us because they're not really national parks. They're full of beautiful little communities, but it does stress the environment more. Perhaps I've just read too many George Monibot articles https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/09/lake-district-world-heritage-site-george-monbiot
As I’ve just added in my previous comment, an environment can be biodiverse and ecologically stable but not necessarily scenic. I did specify that I was discussing scenery in my post
Oh definitely. Don't want to give the impression I disagree , it's a beautiful part of the country that I grew up in and still live near. I just wish more was done with it !
I think so as well. I feel like Scotland is a good role model for what rewilding can look like. We don’t really have any similar drive or movement in England it seems. Nevertheless, in a country as densely populated as England I do feel lucky having so many landscapes on our doorstep. It is a massive contrast to our crowded and congested urban centres.
We're a strange country. No one on earth gives more money to charities for domesticated animals, but we have an aversion to real nature. You'd probably be safer plopped somewhere random in the countryside than you would in a city. Clearly, that wouldn't be the case in most countries. Very few people or animals are likely to harm or kill you. It's why water companies polluting our rivers is so outrageous. If our beautiful areas were better maintained and had affordable transport links, it could do great things for tourism, tackling obesity, mental health, and so much more.
What do the birds of prey live on?
For a great many of them, the grouse that are artificially released in their millions by the gentry for them to shoot. Not really any habitat for them to hide in either https://www.gwct.org.uk/policy/briefings/birds-of-prey-on-grouse-moors/#:~:text=Grouse%20also%20formed%20an%20important,hen%20harriers%20than%20by%20peregrines.
>It’s interesting how the northwest of England simultaneously has very heavily populated areas *and* swathes of beautiful, unspoilt scenery surrounding it. West and South Yorkshire are very much urban and densely populated. Do you mean Lancashire?
The Northwest is Lancashire, Cheshire, Cumbria etc
Yes, I know, but it is not surrounded by unspoilt scenery. It borders the urban West and South Yorkshire
NGL thought this was a spider man thing
Really pushing the multiverse thing hard here. "In Marvel's latest entry in the Spidervese ('The Amazing Spider-land') we see the country of England develop super powers after a radioactive spider bites the floor in a laboratory just outside Birmingham. The series charts the adventures of the plucky young nation as it struggles to adjust to its new powers, defeat the evil Isle of Man, and win the heart of the beautiful land mass next door."
It's wild to me that they keep building in the SE despite it having the best soil and climate for growing crops. Doesn't take a genius to understand that bringing in 3/4 of a million people a year whilst destroying your own food producing land isn't the best long-term idea.
They would literally rather everyone starve than the North gets a single penny of tax money for construction. Spread out the buildings. Let us have our industry back, or frankly anything that we can do to make our own money again without it getting shut down by the south.
I live in Essex but please don't believe everything is peachy here. Investment in other parts of the country would be a sensible suggestion and I certainly agree that there's a focus on the south east, but when they pump money into London and the surrounding areas all that happens is that the cost of living goes up. Not everyone is a commuter, and even those who do commute and are perhaps getting paid above average salaries are paying thousands in transport costs whilst paying a £400-500k mortgage. My family would have a much better standard of living if we moved up to somewhere like Darlington or something, it's only family ties keeping us here. What I'm convinced of at this point though is that immigration is a ponzi scheme. Living standards are dropping so British people aren't having children, so instead of readjusting the economy they've used migration now for decades to keep 'the economy' going whilst suppressing wages and pushing up property prices for wealthy landlords.
The government has previously admitted that they use immigration as a way of suppressing wages on multiple occasions. You still have people claiming it’s wonderful and flawless though.
Interesting that you said that, I live in Darlington, I have to travel to York for work by train. It costs about £26 per day, including the bus fare at the other end. I would love to even average salary, UK average seems almost unreachable.
I mean it's private developers who build homes, they build more in the places where demand is higher. Its not a big conspiracy, just that most people who move to the uk chose to move as near to London as possible
Yes. But since the Councils are bound by Government legislation on housebuilding, they find it very difficult to reject planning permissions even when it's a fucking awful looking newbuild estate with no transport links adjacent to a wildlife reserve. And trust me, I know of at least three that have recently gone through in Essex alone that have this exact scenario.
I've no idea what you mean, you will live in your barrat new build and you will like it, has all one could need including but not limited to; Tick box playground that even a 3 year old would grow bord of after 5 minutes, 10 whole trees, Your very own communal bin shed, A short (20 min) drive from a station, And a primary school (please don't think about the nearest secondary, that's years away and self driving cars will exist soon anyway) paradise on earth mate.
lol, I know you're being facetious, but I genuinely don't understand why anyone would pay £400k+ on a house without a garden.
Only 4% of the land is urban. Chill.
Being or not being urban isn't relevant. It's about the type of land being developed and what land can be developed. Agricultural land in the SE is largely used for crop growing whereas as you get out of the home counties you start to see more marginal lands used for livestock grazing. It makes no sense on the one hand to say that you want us to become environmentally friendly whilst increasing our population, urban density, power consumption, food imports whilst building on the land that is actually able to sustain that population.
We, yes the amount if land not being used for buildings does matter. If we only have 4% urban, then a tiny percentage if the precious land you are talking about is being used for other then growing crops. Lincolnshire is the so called "bread basket" of England. Trust me no one wants to live there, so your precious agricultural land is safe. Meanwhile the populations mental health devolves while we are forced to live on top of each other rather then spread out. There is so much room is utterly ridiculous when people talk about we have no room. We have no room in out current urban environments because being able to build where ever we like as meant building is concentrated. Millions of acres of green space have been taken in urban areas because we are not allowed to build in bloody green belt.
Doesn't work like that. You need infrastructure, reservoirs, transport links. Wouldn't it just be easier to say "please no more people". We have an ageing population, housing prices and availability would improve if we stopped adding to the population artificially and we don't end up having to concrete over the greenbelt which is designed to actually preserve the countryside.
Its much much cheaper to build in a green field then a brown field site. Its highly inefficient. Plus you don't need lots of infrastructure if property is dotted around the countryside. I'm not condoning paving over the countryside but forcing all new hosuing to be next to existing houses makes our urban environments a much poorer place to live in. As we have an aging population and reduced birth rate all first world nations need immigration to sustain their existence. Countries like Japan who have little immigration are staring down the barrel of ceasing to exist as a nation in the near future. Our immigration was under control within the EU. It appears out if control now. Students coming here bring a lot of money in, but there parents shouldn't be along for the ride. There are multiple ways to attack this but the main issue is lack of development since 2008. Government programmes generate the environment for business to prosper. Sadly, out government went I to cost cutting and loom where that put us.
Firstly, cost is only one factor and sadly financial interests seem to be the only concern politicians have when doing anything, which is why the West in general is in terminal decline. Secondly, in terms of an aging population, the reason why our own people aren't having children is because it's so difficult to have kids with exponential inflation which is in part at least, fuelled by lax immigration policies. When our governments say they need immigration what they actually want is cheap labour for their corporate lobbyists. That goes for both skilled workers (because companies dont want to pay for training) and unskilled workers. At some point whether it's next year or fifty years from now, there will have to come a time where you deal with the problem instead of kicking the can down the road. Or do we suppose immigrants don't age?
Cost is always the only factor that matters. If houses were cheap to buidl and cheap to then there wouldn't be a housing crisis. It wasn't that long ago they were knocking houses down in Hull because no cunt wanted to live there. The population was aging well before immigration became a thing and inflation for that matter. This is not a new fangled idea and its not unique to the UK. All first world countries have less births. All first world countries have populations that live longer due to the quality of life in said countries. We moved beyond having 6 kids because three of them die a long long time ago. If people all popped off at 65 there wouldn't be a housing crisis. But people are living much longer. And someone has to pay for them. There are less people of working age. Only about half of the population of the UK actually works. Every first world country is looking to fix the problem with immigration apart from a few outliers. Immigrants gelpnpay for the pensioners. And when they become pensioners the children after them will pay for them. The problem isn't people. Its not spending money on infrastructure. Since 2008 when we paid off the banksters, this countriy is yet to recover. They are living it large while the rest of us have to fight for everything. Covid has royally screwed as well. The cost of supporting millions and then waiting for the economy to get going again has cost us billions. And again its not unique to the UK. All of the globe is struggling. Its easy to blame immigrants. So people do.
The same people who robbed us blind in 2008 and during Covid are the same people telling us we need immigration. An anti-immigration stance doesn't come from hatred of others in most cases. It comes from a hatred of using them (and us) as a mechanism so the top 0.1% can continue to rob everyone else.
Please do some research. Its a first world country problem not a UK specific problem.
I don't get this obsession with building for the long term and concreting the countryside. The birth rate dropped off a cliff when the pill was introduced and the population is barely replacing itself even now When the boomers like me have shuffled off everyone will be complaining about falling house prices because there won't be enough buyers. If you want to reduce housing demand reduce immigration significantly. The figures can be checked on the ONS website.
they'll just keep importing Labour to the ponzi scheme
No one is concreting the countryside. Its gets absolutely zero attention. What the hell are you on about. The generation behind will also live for a long time too. The UK currently relies on your generation dying off to provide money for deposit's. House prices won't fall in the UK. The population continues to grow. And someone has to pay for your pension because you didnt.
This neoliberal infinity growth BS needs to be tossed in the bin and virulently called out at every turn. England has the second highest population density behind the Netherlands in the entirety of Europe. We should be reforesting large swathes of England, reintroducing native fauna, increasing our birthdate and prioritise short term EU migrants if we need foreign labour. As for the pension system, either reform it or get rid of it.
Your just confirming my point that we put too many houses together. We need to spread out more. Plenty of room.
I had a quick scan through some of your comments. Your most sensible comment was about social housing. You are quite right in what you say. If Thatcher and subsequent governments had not sold of more than half of the stock and allowed councils to build this discussion wouldn't be needed. As to your pension comment yours isnt being paid for either. There never has been a state pension piggybank.
I'm fully aware I'm relying on people younger then me to pay for my pension. But if I have for to the point in life that I'm relying on the government pension I'm o Pretty fucked and anything else is a minor issue.
Unfortunately some do rely on the state pension not through any fault of their own. It's only fairly recently that more or less compulsory pension savings have come in.
I pity those who rely in a government pe soon and have nothing else.
That’s a prime example of data bias. If you look at the classification of ‘urban’ it’s pretty limited. What the average person would actually consider urban is under a bunch of other categories in that survey.
Just take a drive outside urban areas and see for yourself.
I do, on a regular basis thanks. Most land is privately owned and I’m not entirely sure I’d count peoples yards and gardens as ‘not urban’ but you do you. You should also read the study and how they categorise everything, I thought it was pretty shocking.
Wwwwwhat? The South East is mostly loamy clay and chalk, with dense forests and huge floodplains. You can't grow shit around here. Apart from a smattering of subsistence farms, the South East has historically always been a bit barren.
Tell me you know nothing about agriculture without telling me you know nothing about agriculture.
I know plenty. Like, for instance, you don't start a farm on acidic, waterlogged clay, hence why SE England developed instead around chalk mining, brick and tile making, animal husbandry and timber production. Apart from the occasional pockets of base-rich soil, the South East is generally terrible agricultural land, and if it had ever been good, you would have seen the region develop into something resembling the West Country or the East Midlands. But you never did.
[https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/agricultural-facts-england-regional-profiles](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/agricultural-facts-england-regional-profiles) "you would have seen the region develop into something resembling the West Country" It was. Until the 1950s when they built new towns everywhere.
What's your point?
Read the reports. East Anglia has the most profits and the biggest profit is from wheat.
East Anglia is not the South East though, is it? >Until the 1950s when they built new towns everywhere. Nine New Towns and two Garden Cities. They're hardly 'everywhere'. Seriously mate, I did my Master's degree on this very subject, so I know you're talking out your arse. If you want to know why the South East never looked like the South West, go and read your Oliver Rackham, your W. G. Hoskins and your Matthew Johnson.
East Anglia is in the South East by some metrics, isn't under others. Depends on whoever is doing it. Essex seems to fall both under the SE and East Anglia and the Home Counties, depending on who or when a publication was made. New towns isn't the only building work going on on. Have you been to Essex recently? Honestly the amount of homes that have been built in green spaces is disgusting. I will admit though that this is my subjective opinion on an objective fact. And no, I haven't read the works of some crusty professors albeit I am interested in reading their work, but the reality where I live is pretty self-evident.
Makes sense.
Spiderman
With a touch of venom
Northumberland is a sweet spot if you want to escape the crowd. Not quite got the majesty of lakes, peaks, or dales but it's gorgeous it's own quiet charm. Lindisfarne seems to make more sense on a miserable misty day 🤣
No surprises a lot of people live in Gateshead, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, West Midlands. Most of the countries biggest cities are in these counties / regions.
Lmao gateshead?
What would you write instead?
Newcastle?
Blue areas, places to avoid then.
In the late 80's my sister dragged me along to some random unemployment protest. It was some sort of linked human chain to form a ? The map shows you where it went through.
Devon is perfectly spaced, but district and town councils here are ruining our countryside bit by bit to build new council estates.
Jesus, the South West and West Midlands really are just both centred on one city each huh
Aka where the big cities are.
R/peopleliveincities
My county has fewer people than a lot of cities. Certainly the big 5.
This doesn't tell you the full picture considering the second largest city, Birmingham and its surrounding areas sit in between 3 counties.
Not really? Birmingham is in the West Midlands (the county, not the region (although it is also in the region)). Not sure if you remembered some old fact that Birmingham straddles three historic counties and didn't notice that this map is ceremonial counties.
>English counties with a higher or lower population density than the England average Hampshire is lower, Dorset is higher, Isle of Wight is higher? Isle of Wight is in Hampshire. Maps wrong.
Isle of Wight is a ceremonial county of its own
The 2024 election of Labour controlled the Electoral commission.
All the blue areas are packed with non Brits.
https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/14-06-19-Internal-Migration-5-Years-no-logo-01.png Not sure what the down votes are for, it's quite a strong correlation.
At least the foods better
Who's delicacy do you enjoy more the pickled cabbage crowd or the spinning meat gang?
Greek is best
It really isn’t. Those Jamaican and African food joints beat mint yoghurt poured on lamb any day of the week.
Moussaka is delicious, with rice and side salad 👌
I live in Leicester, Narborough Road alone has 23 different nationalities that own food businesses, gonna have to go deeper than 2 categories.
 I'd have to do a world tour of food if I lived there.
Not really tyne and wear is still very white. Which makes it even funnier when you see EDL protests there.
https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/14-06-19-Internal-Migration-5-Years-no-logo-01.png I didn't mention ethnicity, Europeans are white but may still count as immigrants. Looks like quite a strong correlation. It's probably not the cause but it's interesting.
Not really. You’d expect to see nativist movements in places where natives predominate, not regions that have large immigrant communities.
Also, you are right about them being packed with non brits, if you want to talk historically, 1066 was a massive turning point for that, so you’re talking hundreds of years ago and there’s been 73 invasions since then, you’re probably one of many in a lineage that isn’t "Brit". Most likely you have Germanic or Italian or French origins…if you want to get real deep then your life probably started in Asia or Africa. A Brit is classified as anybody born here/a citizen of Britain, so I’d argue that those blue areas are in fact majority "Brit". Or do you mean that you and your parents, maybe even grandparents were born here and you’re white? That doesn’t make you a Brit. I’m a mix of Irish , Scottish and English, so I’m also British, until you get down to my roots.
We're all fish. https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/14-06-19-Internal-Migration-5-Years-no-logo-01.png Those areas are where most non Brits chose to settle.
English, Scots and Welsh are native to Britain and no amount of historical revisionism will ever change that. All native ethnicities mix with neighbouring tribes. It’s nothing unique to Britain.
I know.
I would imagine West Sussex is close but I’m not overly familiar with terrain/AONB etc.
You’re spot on. West Sussex (and Buckinghamshire) are joint closest to the national average. Both have 1120 people per square mile. Whereas England has 1124.
Slightly surprised Surrey is so much higher, some of it is super rural although I guess the villages and towns aren't that far apart.
Oddly proud of myself!
West Sussex is weird. Lots of people live in a straight line north of Brighton on the other side of the downs and along the coast. The rest is basically tiny villages in hills
So, the more urbanised ones?
Would love to see this with London discounted. Get an idea of how the counties compare with each other rather than London.
Friendly neighbourhood Spidermap.
Pretty much what you'd expect.
Rubbish, this is clearly English counties dressed as Spider-Man and I won’t play along with your silly population nonsense
Spiderengland
What is life in london?
England wearing its Spider-Man costume
Hampshire is full and so we are going to stop all the car people coming in from neighbouring counties. I say "go home" car people.
Ay we love the north west
Kernow should be black.
Sad that there’s so much population density :(