Thank you Kelvin

[DodgyAgent]

I might as well post that the Jews were behind 9/11 and demand that you post a good counter-argument. Stupid tulip-stirring trolling doesn't require debate.

Not the same is it? It should be perfectly easy for you lefties to explain why the south east should pay more for the outer regions of the UK.

I have asked a simple question which is why is Mackenzie wrong? the best you can come up with is that he is a nasty piece of work- pathetic

[Doggy Styles]

Not the same is it? It should be perfectly easy for you lefties to explain why the south east should pay more for the outer regions of the UK.

I have asked a simple question which is why is Mackenzie wrong? the best you can come up with is that he is a nasty piece of work- pathetic

I see your point DA.

Shooting the messenger (Kelv) isn't an argument against the message. Far from it in fact.

[pjclarke]

So explain what is evil about what he has to say?

Not so much evil as just 'tabloid'. Tabloid Economics; populist, empty of ethics, based on fallacies and economically just wrong.

The central fallacy is that the human beings who happen to live in London and the SE are somehow different and better than those in the regions, as if your postcode magically makes you more 'hard-working, clever and creative' rather than the geographic reality of a feedback loop of businesses and industries migrating towards population centres and people moving to where the jobs are.

The reason for the imbalance in tax revenue is, I would have thought, quite simple: there are more jobs in the South, which, since the industrial base of Britain was destroyed and replaced by financial services, is where all the country's wealth has been concentrated. A recent report by the IPPR think tank revealed that, over the past 12 months, the North had suffered disproportionately from the country's economic woes, losing 100,000 jobs.

Time for an economics lesson, Mr Mackenzie - Comment - Voices - The Independent

Stephen Moss imagines the state of Kelvinia ...

A state of southern England is an attractive proposition, economically powerful, culturally vibrant and with some of the finest mock-Tudor houses in the world. We will need a name of course – Greater Suburbia might appeal; a flag – perhaps a Jaguar XKR encircled by pound signs; and an anthem – AC/DC's Money Talks should do the trick.

We will sell the creaking Houses of Parliament and relocate our democratic institutions to Crawley – representative of the new dynamism and can-do spirit that will course through Greater Suburbia. The Queen, whose only role is to mask the illogicalities of the (dis)United Kingdom, will have to go. Scotland still want her and frankly are welcome to her. Greater Suburbia will be a meritocracy and the richest person – probably a Russian oligarch – will be president.

Planning laws have long held the UK back, but Greater Suburbia will favour a development free-for-all that makes Dubai look like an especially nimbyish village in Somerset. The green belt will be concreted over to provide new roads and runways, with strips in between to allow for golf driving ranges and testing par-fives. This will be a country where eagles truly can soar.

A manifesto for Kelvin MacKenzie's Greater Suburbians | Stephen Moss | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

As Moss intimates, Kelvin seems to be informed by the one-dimensional proposition that the only measure of value is monetary, and so high wages indicate merit, end of. No doubt an ex-Tabloid Editor believes a city Trader is in fact worth more than ten nurses and himself worth the same as three or four teachers. Sorry Kelvin, Leveson told us different.

McKenzie's economics are bogus - Part 1

Research published by the New Economics Foundation in 2009 showed that while bankers, advertising executives and accountants damage the economy, cleaners, child minders and bin-men create between £7 and £12 in the wider economy for every £1 that is spent on their services. I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you need me to cite research showing that cleaning, child minding and waste recycling are jobs that are distributed across the country, whilst banks, advertising agencies and accountants are overwhelmingly based in the south-east.

Why Kelvin MacKenzie is wrong to diss the north

McKenzie's economics are bogus - Part 2

The south doesn't need a political party to make its case. It already gets the bulk of infrastructure spending. According to IPPR, a think tank, for every £1,000 of gross value added, London is getting £81 of transport infrastructure spending. In the North East, by contrast, the equivalent figure is 50p. While the north makes do with a few scraps here and there to electrify railways, or extend platforms, London's mayor Boris Johnson demands a new airport hub at a cost of £60bn or so. Overall, spending per head in London is 10% more than the national average.

So when Mr MacKenzie says he wants the south to stop subsidising the north, what he really means is that he wants the rich to stop subsidising the poor. Every example he offers of London and the south being attacked takes the form of taxes on the rich—stamp duty for example—which also apply in the north. Meanwhile, the subsidy he says that the north gets is in the form of public spending: welfare benefits or social housing for example, which also apply in the south. (Incidentally, London has far more social housing than elsewhere in Britain, so his attack on people with cable TV packages living in council housing is particularly absurd).

The north south divide: The Lega Londra | The Economist


Kelvin thinks the SE is stocked with creative geniuses, others might see it as a philistine and parasitic carbuncle, characterised by insane house prices, actual insanity , a City that brought us a financial crisis that we'll all be bailing out for a generation. Oh, and TOWIE.

[Robinho]

The central fallacy is that the human beings who happen to live in London and the SE are somehow different and better than those in the regions, as if your postcode magically makes you more 'hard-working, clever and creative' rather than the geographic reality of a feedback loop of businesses and industries migrating towards population centres and people moving to where the jobs are.

It's the talent migrating towards London that makes competition fiercer. Essentially the cream will rise towards London as a subtle and general trend.

Research published by the New Economics Foundation in 2009 showed that while bankers, advertising executives and accountants damage the economy, cleaners, child minders and bin-men create between £7 and £12 in the wider economy for every £1 that is spent on their services. I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you need me to cite research showing that cleaning, child minding and waste recycling are jobs that are distributed across the country, whilst banks, advertising agencies and accountants are overwhelmingly based in the south-east.

BS. Bankers (apart from the folk down at the BoE), advertising executives and accountants are essential for the economy. There would be nothing without banks. If there was no advertising then how would we know what products suit us, and if there were no accountants who would keep the books? Accountants hired to get through the tax loopholes is the waste introduced by the government, not as the result of accountants.

As Moss intimates, Kelvin seems to be informed by the one-dimensional proposition that the only measure of value is monetary, and so high wages indicate merit, end of.

If you factor in cost of living that is generally the truth. A job is offered high wages because the great calculator of the market has deemed that there is a high requirements based on the needs of society for someone to fulfill that role. Thus if you are earning a lot of money you are thus contributing more to society.

[pjclarke]

If you factor in cost of living that is generally the truth. A job is offered high wages because the great calculator of the market has deemed that there is a high requirements based on the needs of society for someone to fulfill that role. Thus if you are earning a lot of money you are thus contributing more to society.

A almost complete non-sequiteur. In the private sector, at least, the wages attached to a job are in theory based on how much you contribute to the bottom line, regardless of whether or not the product or service the organisation produces benefits 'the needs of society'. Kelvin is a good exemplar, no doubt he was paid a decent stipend by The Sun, which sold a lot of copies, made money for News Corp and so the role of Editor is well-renumerated. But I'd need a lot of convincing that The Sun contributes anything of value to society.

I say in theory because the reality is a small minority of executives on ever-increasing salaries, utterly divorced from their performance or that of their organisations. While most employees face pay freezes, pay cuts and the threat of redundancy ...

New analysis from the think tank IPPR suggests that executive pay increases are not justified by the performance of their companies. On average, total CEO remuneration increased by 33 per cent, while the average increase in company value was 24 per cent. IPPR’s new analysis looks at CEO reward packages and company value in 87 companies in the FTSE 100 over 2010/11.

On average, CEOs in the 87 companies took home £5.1 million in basic pay, bonuses, share incentives and pension contributions. But changes in remuneration of chief executives and the value of FTSE 100 companies have no statistical relationship.

Even on the narrow basis of company performance there's a disconnect between wages and 'value added' Have those execs really contributed 33% more to society or is the market in fact failing us? Executive pay outstrips performance in FTSE 100 companies > Press release :: IPPR

And I cannot imagine how I would possibly know which margarine I like if it wasn't for all those ad breaks ruining any movie I try and watch on TV .......

[d000hg]

Not the same is it? It should be perfectly easy for you lefties to explain why the south east should pay more for the outer regions of the UK.

You'd have to wait for the lefties to respond, but it seems pretty obvious that if one part of the country can't afford to run their services, the slack has to be taken up somewhere.

You might as well go further and say Londoners are paying for the South. And Bankers are paying for Londeners, etc. We are a nation with national issues.

[KentPhilip]

by The Sun, which sold a lot of copies, made money for News Corp and so the role of Editor is well-renumerated. But I'd need a lot of convincing that The Sun contributes anything of value to society.

Those members of society must have regarded it as contributing something greater than the value of the money they paid for it, to their lives, otherwise they wouldn't have bought it. Hence yes the sun does contribute a lot to society.

I'm with Dodgy Agent on this whole argument. Tax is theft, a lot of money would be raised voluntarily if people were not taxed so much, and if the north don't think London is better than them then why do they whinge at the idea of London's money being made unavailable to them.

[pjclarke]

Those members of society must have regarded it as contributing something greater than the value of the money they paid for it

Once again critical faculties deprecated in the face of the money god. Of course the Soaraway Sunreaders judged the transitory pleasure gained from the tits, bums, lies and bingo to be worth the 30p. Good luck to them, no doubt purchasers of heroin and cocaine make the same judgement. But if that is the measure of a 'contribution to society', seems to me to be a very low bar....

if the north don't think London is better than them then why do they whinge at the idea of London's money being made unavailable to them.

I think you'll find it was Kelvin who was doing the whinging. Anyhow, not sure I can parse that sentence - What is 'London's money?' Does the capital have its own currency? After last year's Autumn Statement the IPPR analysed the transport infrastructure projects announced

Behind the rhetoric of rebalancing, our analysis reveals a very different picture. Of the projects
that are identified as benefitting a particular region, and where public funding is involved:

• Eleven of the 20 largest infrastructure projects benefit London and the South East.
Five of the top 20 benefit the North of England. Over half of regional transport projects
that involve public funding benefit London.

• If London and the South East are considered together, they account for 84 per cent
of planned spending as compared to 6 per cent in the North of England (including just
0.04 per cent in the North East).

• This equates to £2,731 per head for Londoners, more than for all of the other regions
combined, compared to £201 per head in Yorkshire and the Humber, £134 per head
in the North West and just £5 per head in the North East.

• For each £1,000 of gross value added (GVA) generated in 2009, £81 is being spent on
transport projects in London, £38 in the South East, £12 in Yorkshire, £8 in the North
West and less than 50p in the North East.

Such regional disparities are, at a simple level, unfair. But they also defy the economic
logic upon which they are supposedly based.

Seems to me the regions are subsidising the capital ......

[Doggy Styles]

Feck pj, can't you do shorter posts? I can't be arsed wading through all those.

Let alone follow all the links.

[Robinho]

A almost complete non-sequiteur. In the private sector, at least, the wages attached to a job are in theory based on how much you contribute to the bottom line,

Ok, i can see this might take a while.

Contributing to the bottom line increases profit, big profits send signals other companies of where money can be made and where they should be investing. Competition puts downward pressure on profits and the profits are passed onto the consumer. By increasing the bottom line an employee has began a process which ultimately helped satisfy the needs of society.

regardless of whether or not the product or service the organisation produces benefits 'the needs of society'.

The needs of society are determined by what they choose to spend their finite resources (let's say money) on.

Kelvin is a good exemplar, no doubt he was paid a decent stipend by The Sun, which sold a lot of copies, made money for News Corp and so the role of Editor is well-renumerated. But I'd need a lot of convincing that The Sun contributes anything of value to society.

It depresses me as much as the next person but the reality is a lot of people enjoy reading the sun. They enjoy it so much they are willing to part with 30p en masse, and by doing so, consumers have determined, in part, how much Kelvin is worth to them.