Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok so for many a year we were all told of the North south divide, but for a while now it's been were all in it together. My question is which do you think is true?? Personally I think there is still a North south divide. " Yes I agree and think there always will be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide!" Its not a big as the chip you have on your shoulder over the EU referendum.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide!" Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu." We only voted to leave the eu, we can still be a third rate european country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok so for many a year we were all told of the North south divide, but for a while now it's been were all in it together. My question is which do you think is true?? Personally I think there is still a North south divide. " The biggest laugh is that Londoners really think Birmingham & Manchester are the North  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok so for many a year we were all told of the North south divide, but for a while now it's been were all in it together. My question is which do you think is true?? Personally I think there is still a North south divide. The biggest laugh is that Londoners really think Birmingham & Manchester are the North "But Manchester and Birmingham ARE North of London. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu." Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok so for many a year we were all told of the North south divide, but for a while now it's been were all in it together. My question is which do you think is true?? Personally I think there is still a North south divide. The biggest laugh is that Londoners really think Birmingham & Manchester are the North
But Manchester and Birmingham ARE North of London. "you know exactly what I mean when they consider these locations "The North" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? " If London is more prosperous they should clean up their streets of filth & litter, there is a lot of poverty in London and its a filthy city, good luck to anyone staying there | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? If London is more prosperous they should clean up their streets of filth & litter, there is a lot of poverty in London and its a filthy city, good luck to anyone staying there" London IS more prosperous than any other city in the UK, and most in the world. You might think that its filthy and that may be true, but millions of people live there, so there must be some reason for that. In fact as many people live in London as people live in Scotland and Wales combined, so it can’t be all bad, but Im sure they are glad of the extra bit of luck that you have wished them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? If London is more prosperous they should clean up their streets of filth & litter, there is a lot of poverty in London and its a filthy city, good luck to anyone staying there London IS more prosperous than any other city in the UK, and most in the world. You might think that its filthy and that may be true, but millions of people live there, so there must be some reason for that. In fact as many people live in London as people live in Scotland and Wales combined, so it can’t be all bad, but Im sure they are glad of the extra bit of luck that you have wished them." Every time I see you post it's always so sarcastic and argumentative. There's many reasons why London is more prosperous but successive governments have certainly added to the North / South divide. Not least Thatcher who put a certain Northern city into "managed decline" during her tenure. She didn't succeed. Lots of people live in London for work but I bet a lot of them wouldn't through choice. I like The John Soanes Museum so London is ok, for a visit  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok so for many a year we were all told of the North south divide, but for a while now it's been were all in it together. My question is which do you think is true?? Personally I think there is still a North south divide. The biggest laugh is that Londoners really think Birmingham & Manchester are the North "Having travelled a fair bit can safely say that it's not only those in the capital that can be insular and not aware of other parts of these wonderful islands.. Folk are folk and we share much more commonality than some like to infer.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? If London is more prosperous they should clean up their streets of filth & litter, there is a lot of poverty in London and its a filthy city, good luck to anyone staying there London IS more prosperous than any other city in the UK, and most in the world. You might think that its filthy and that may be true, but millions of people live there, so there must be some reason for that. In fact as many people live in London as people live in Scotland and Wales combined, so it can’t be all bad, but Im sure they are glad of the extra bit of luck that you have wished them. Every time I see you post it's always so sarcastic and argumentative. There's many reasons why London is more prosperous but successive governments have certainly added to the North / South divide. Not least Thatcher who put a certain Northern city into "managed decline" during her tenure. She didn't succeed. Lots of people live in London for work but I bet a lot of them wouldn't through choice. I like The John Soanes Museum so London is ok, for a visit "I definitely agree with your comment on CLCC 
As for the rest of your comments some I agree with some I don't. There are people working in London who don't want to but the same can be said about every Town/City around the world. Equally I know several people who choose to and enjoy working in London for its vibrancy.
Thatcher? She devides opinion so I wont even go there.
Is there a North South divide? I am oblivious to it but hear people from the North, including Scotland, complain about it so those people must think there is one. Which suggests a degree of resentment from those which will cause a divide.
This is pure guess work and I fully expect to be shot down, but I would suggest government spending per head is probably pretty equal. It just seems more as the South East is so densely populated therefore overall spending is much higher.
I'd be interested to know if the South West also feel there is a divide. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? If London is more prosperous they should clean up their streets of filth & litter, there is a lot of poverty in London and its a filthy city, good luck to anyone staying there London IS more prosperous than any other city in the UK, and most in the world. You might think that its filthy and that may be true, but millions of people live there, so there must be some reason for that. In fact as many people live in London as people live in Scotland and Wales combined, so it can’t be all bad, but Im sure they are glad of the extra bit of luck that you have wished them. Every time I see you post it's always so sarcastic and argumentative. There's many reasons why London is more prosperous but successive governments have certainly added to the North / South divide. Not least Thatcher who put a certain Northern city into "managed decline" during her tenure. She didn't succeed. Lots of people live in London for work but I bet a lot of them wouldn't through choice. I like The John Soanes Museum so London is ok, for a visit
I definitely agree with your comment on CLCC
As for the rest of your comments some I agree with some I don't. There are people working in London who don't want to but the same can be said about every Town/City around the world. Equally I know several people who choose to and enjoy working in London for its vibrancy.
Thatcher? She devides opinion so I wont even go there.
Is there a North South divide? I am oblivious to it but hear people from the North, including Scotland, complain about it so those people must think there is one. Which suggests a degree of resentment from those which will cause a divide.
This is pure guess work and I fully expect to be shot down, but I would suggest government spending per head is probably pretty equal. It just seems more as the South East is so densely populated therefore overall spending is much higher.
I'd be interested to know if the South West also feel there is a divide."The thing is I don't complain about it I've just observed it and know it to be true. Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide!" Going to disagree with you on this. There is a clear North South divide. Come up North, the income disparity and difference in employment prospects hit home hard, as a friend from Reading told me when he came up to Manchester for a year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
If you get lost feel free to get in contact as we speak the same language  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have never witnessed a North/ South divide. I cross the Thames on a daily basis at work and find those North of the border are very welcoming and I have many friends in North London." sarcastic bugger | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. " Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? If London is more prosperous they should clean up their streets of filth & litter, there is a lot of poverty in London and its a filthy city, good luck to anyone staying there London IS more prosperous than any other city in the UK, and most in the world. You might think that its filthy and that may be true, but millions of people live there, so there must be some reason for that. In fact as many people live in London as people live in Scotland and Wales combined, so it can’t be all bad, but Im sure they are glad of the extra bit of luck that you have wished them. Every time I see you post it's always so sarcastic and argumentative. There's many reasons why London is more prosperous but successive governments have certainly added to the North / South divide. Not least Thatcher who put a certain Northern city into "managed decline" during her tenure. She didn't succeed. Lots of people live in London for work but I bet a lot of them wouldn't through choice. I like The John Soanes Museum so London is ok, for a visit
I definitely agree with your comment on CLCC
As for the rest of your comments some I agree with some I don't. There are people working in London who don't want to but the same can be said about every Town/City around the world. Equally I know several people who choose to and enjoy working in London for its vibrancy.
Thatcher? She devides opinion so I wont even go there.
Is there a North South divide? I am oblivious to it but hear people from the North, including Scotland, complain about it so those people must think there is one. Which suggests a degree of resentment from those which will cause a divide.
This is pure guess work and I fully expect to be shot down, but I would suggest government spending per head is probably pretty equal. It just seems more as the South East is so densely populated therefore overall spending is much higher.
I'd be interested to know if the South West also feel there is a divide."Erith, nice post what exactly would you like to hear from people up North & Scotland? I am from an ideal scenic part of Scotland with stunning views, and stunning rivers well known for salmon fishing, white water rapids canoeing, as well as living in a lovely large home with acres of ground which you simply could not afford in London unless you paid out a number of £millions. I smile when people consider London the hub of everything and consider it more prosperous because the people who live there have to commute in shocking conditions tube/trains and driving can be a nightmare
I prefer to relax, enjoy the countryside, have the privacy of my land with no overlooking neighbours and within a 10 minute walk you can venture into fields and woodlands that are home to herds of wild deer including reds
The only downturn was that I had to work 20 weeks of the year to bring in a comfortable income to make this possible, but due to many years of careful planning and AVC's I can now appreciate semi retirement soon to be full retirement
a weekly event of 9-5 living is not for me, infact what were the words of AC/DC -
Well you can stick your nine to five livin'
And your collar and your tie
And stick your moral standards
'Cause it's all a dirty lie
You can stick your golden handshake
And you can stick your silly rules
And all the other shit
That they teach to kids in school
.
The only time I used to visit London was to fly out of the place but thanks to Virgin & United Airlines we can fly to the USA from Scotland now
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Its not all grey and kebabs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? " Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is." I can believe that the circumstances you are born into play a role in some preferences and choices. But ultimately they don't define the individual for life and people are still responsible for their actions. Unless you want the government to take the problem away by making those choices for them, which I wouldn't advise | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Think a lot of people are confusing "more prosperous" which is economic fact, with "better quality of life" which is subjective. " Exactly the point I was trying to make. I wasn't saying one place was better than another, but prosperity is about income generation, and you are going to get a lot more income from the taxes of the big banks, corporations, insurance companies etc. than you are in forests and fields filled with deer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is." It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. " But they are saying in indirect language so thick people won't feel patronised | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Think a lot of people are confusing "more prosperous" which is economic fact, with "better quality of life" which is subjective. Exactly the point I was trying to make. I wasn't saying one place was better than another, but prosperity is about income generation, and you are going to get a lot more income from the taxes of the big banks, corporations, insurance companies etc. than you are in forests and fields filled with deer." The capital is the most prosperous or second most prosperous part of most countries. Most of them are busy and overcrowded too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. " If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. " But then so do plenty of people from rich backgrounds! And not all people from poor backgrounds make those bad choices either. So the circumstances influence but they don't define? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. But then so do plenty of people from rich backgrounds! And not all people from poor backgrounds make those bad choices either. So the circumstances influence but they don't define? " Well it's not my figures that show the difference in life expectancy in less affluent areas compared to more affluent areas It's a fact. Obviously there are always anomalies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. But then so do plenty of people from rich backgrounds! And not all people from poor backgrounds make those bad choices either. So the circumstances influence but they don't define? Well it's not my figures that show the difference in life expectancy in less affluent areas compared to more affluent areas It's a fact. Obviously there are always anomalies." I'm not disputing the facts. I'm simply re-asking the original question which is about whether you think people's choices need to be regulated more since their choices obviously have some very negative outcomes? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. But then so do plenty of people from rich backgrounds! And not all people from poor backgrounds make those bad choices either. So the circumstances influence but they don't define? Well it's not my figures that show the difference in life expectancy in less affluent areas compared to more affluent areas It's a fact. Obviously there are always anomalies. I'm not disputing the facts. I'm simply re-asking the original question which is about whether you think people's choices need to be regulated more since their choices obviously have some very negative outcomes? " No I don't I think inequality should be addressed like I said earlier. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. But then so do plenty of people from rich backgrounds! And not all people from poor backgrounds make those bad choices either. So the circumstances influence but they don't define? Well it's not my figures that show the difference in life expectancy in less affluent areas compared to more affluent areas It's a fact. Obviously there are always anomalies. I'm not disputing the facts. I'm simply re-asking the original question which is about whether you think people's choices need to be regulated more since their choices obviously have some very negative outcomes? No I don't I think inequality should be addressed like I said earlier." But there's two problems with that answer. Firstly, as we've been discussing, circumstances are not the sole reason for bad choices. Secondly, a degree of inequality is part and parcel of every society humans have ever created. So whilst reducing some inequality could help some people make some better choices. It's only going to have a small overall effect on the problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ok so for many a year we were all told of the North south divide, but for a while now it's been were all in it together. My question is which do you think is true?? Personally I think there is still a North south divide. " Of course there is! All you have to do is listen to the Tory noble Lord Howell talking about fracking to know how deep it is and who its defenders are! Have a listen: https://youtu.be/unL4wjUWna8 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. But then so do plenty of people from rich backgrounds! And not all people from poor backgrounds make those bad choices either. So the circumstances influence but they don't define? Well it's not my figures that show the difference in life expectancy in less affluent areas compared to more affluent areas It's a fact. Obviously there are always anomalies. I'm not disputing the facts. I'm simply re-asking the original question which is about whether you think people's choices need to be regulated more since their choices obviously have some very negative outcomes? No I don't I think inequality should be addressed like I said earlier. But there's two problems with that answer. Firstly, as we've been discussing, circumstances are not the sole reason for bad choices. Secondly, a degree of inequality is part and parcel of every society humans have ever created. So whilst reducing some inequality could help some people make some better choices. It's only going to have a small overall effect on the problem. " Well that's your opinion. The original question was is there a North South divide and I think there is and I'd rather the government spend money on addressing inequalities than not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. But then so do plenty of people from rich backgrounds! And not all people from poor backgrounds make those bad choices either. So the circumstances influence but they don't define? Well it's not my figures that show the difference in life expectancy in less affluent areas compared to more affluent areas It's a fact. Obviously there are always anomalies. I'm not disputing the facts. I'm simply re-asking the original question which is about whether you think people's choices need to be regulated more since their choices obviously have some very negative outcomes? No I don't I think inequality should be addressed like I said earlier. But there's two problems with that answer. Firstly, as we've been discussing, circumstances are not the sole reason for bad choices. Secondly, a degree of inequality is part and parcel of every society humans have ever created. So whilst reducing some inequality could help some people make some better choices. It's only going to have a small overall effect on the problem. Well that's your opinion. The original question was is there a North South divide and I think there is and I'd rather the government spend money on addressing inequalities than not. " It's not really my opinion so much as a combination of facts and logic. Unless you can point me to a society that was or is completely equal or some research that shows that substance abuse is directly correlated with post codes or something? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. But then so do plenty of people from rich backgrounds! And not all people from poor backgrounds make those bad choices either. So the circumstances influence but they don't define? Well it's not my figures that show the difference in life expectancy in less affluent areas compared to more affluent areas It's a fact. Obviously there are always anomalies. I'm not disputing the facts. I'm simply re-asking the original question which is about whether you think people's choices need to be regulated more since their choices obviously have some very negative outcomes? No I don't I think inequality should be addressed like I said earlier. But there's two problems with that answer. Firstly, as we've been discussing, circumstances are not the sole reason for bad choices. Secondly, a degree of inequality is part and parcel of every society humans have ever created. So whilst reducing some inequality could help some people make some better choices. It's only going to have a small overall effect on the problem. Well that's your opinion. The original question was is there a North South divide and I think there is and I'd rather the government spend money on addressing inequalities than not. It's not really my opinion so much as a combination of facts and logic. Unless you can point me to a society that was or is completely equal or some research that shows that substance abuse is directly correlated with post codes or something? " There's plenty of evidence and I don't need to point anything out to you. I'm answering you because I'm polite but it's obvious we are not going to agree so probably best just leaving it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. " So do you think that it is poverty that causes these problems? If you took a poor family that eats too much, smokes too much and drinks too much, and then said here is an extra £.... per month, would they drink less, smoke less and eat less? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. So do you think that it is poverty that causes these problems? If you took a poor family that eats too much, smokes too much and drinks too much, and then said here is an extra £.... per month, would they drink less, smoke less and eat less? " If there were alternatives offered then maybe. There's a bit more to it than that simplistic view though isn't there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? If London is more prosperous they should clean up their streets of filth & litter, there is a lot of poverty in London and its a filthy city, good luck to anyone staying there London IS more prosperous than any other city in the UK, and most in the world. You might think that its filthy and that may be true, but millions of people live there, so there must be some reason for that. In fact as many people live in London as people live in Scotland and Wales combined, so it can’t be all bad, but Im sure they are glad of the extra bit of luck that you have wished them. Every time I see you post it's always so sarcastic and argumentative. There's many reasons why London is more prosperous but successive governments have certainly added to the North / South divide. Not least Thatcher who put a certain Northern city into "managed decline" during her tenure. She didn't succeed. Lots of people live in London for work but I bet a lot of them wouldn't through choice. I like The John Soanes Museum so London is ok, for a visit
I definitely agree with your comment on CLCC
As for the rest of your comments some I agree with some I don't. There are people working in London who don't want to but the same can be said about every Town/City around the world. Equally I know several people who choose to and enjoy working in London for its vibrancy.
Thatcher? She devides opinion so I wont even go there.
Is there a North South divide? I am oblivious to it but hear people from the North, including Scotland, complain about it so those people must think there is one. Which suggests a degree of resentment from those which will cause a divide.
This is pure guess work and I fully expect to be shot down, but I would suggest government spending per head is probably pretty equal. It just seems more as the South East is so densely populated therefore overall spending is much higher.
I'd be interested to know if the South West also feel there is a divide.
Erith, nice post
what exactly would you like to hear from people up North & Scotland?
I am from an ideal scenic part of Scotland with stunning views, and stunning rivers well known for salmon fishing, white water rapids canoeing, as well as living in a lovely large home with acres of ground which you simply could not afford in London unless you paid out a number of £millions.
I smile when people consider London the hub of everything and consider it more prosperous because the people who live there have to commute in shocking conditions tube/trains and driving can be a nightmare
I prefer to relax, enjoy the countryside, have the privacy of my land with no overlooking neighbours and within a 10 minute walk you can venture into fields and woodlands that are home to herds of wild deer including reds
The only downturn was that I had to work 20 weeks of the year to bring in a comfortable income to make this possible, but due to many years of careful planning and AVC's I can now appreciate semi retirement soon to be full retirement
a weekly event of 9-5 living is not for me, infact what were the words of AC/DC -
Well you can stick your nine to five livin'
And your collar and your tie
And stick your moral standards
'Cause it's all a dirty lie
You can stick your golden handshake
And you can stick your silly rules
And all the other shit
That they teach to kids in school
.
The only time I used to visit London was to fly out of the place but thanks to Virgin & United Airlines we can fly to the USA from Scotland now
"Sounds like a good life. Am I envious? Yes, to a degree as I do enjoy peace and relaxation. But I like being near everything and I know I'd miss city life. Ideal world for me would be half and half. The company I work for includes arguably the biggest Construction company in Scotland. So maybe one day I'll consider a transfer as you sell the place so well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. So do you think that it is poverty that causes these problems? If you took a poor family that eats too much, smokes too much and drinks too much, and then said here is an extra £.... per month, would they drink less, smoke less and eat less? If there were alternatives offered then maybe. There's a bit more to it than that simplistic view though isn't there." I agree with you. Poorer areas generally have a far higher number of fast food/ junk food outlets with cheap unhealthy food readilily available, along with cheap alcohol seemingly in every other shop. Not too many organic grocers either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. So do you think that it is poverty that causes these problems? If you took a poor family that eats too much, smokes too much and drinks too much, and then said here is an extra £.... per month, would they drink less, smoke less and eat less? If there were alternatives offered then maybe. There's a bit more to it than that simplistic view though isn't there." I thought you were saying that it was poverty that caused the lower life expectancy? Therefore relieve the poverty, change the life expectancy. Personally I think its culture, rather than the contents of the bank account that makes the difference. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. So do you think that it is poverty that causes these problems? If you took a poor family that eats too much, smokes too much and drinks too much, and then said here is an extra £.... per month, would they drink less, smoke less and eat less? If there were alternatives offered then maybe. There's a bit more to it than that simplistic view though isn't there. I thought you were saying that it was poverty that caused the lower life expectancy? Therefore relieve the poverty, change the life expectancy. Personally I think its culture, rather than the contents of the bank account that makes the difference." I think they're both factors. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. So do you think that it is poverty that causes these problems? If you took a poor family that eats too much, smokes too much and drinks too much, and then said here is an extra £.... per month, would they drink less, smoke less and eat less? If there were alternatives offered then maybe. There's a bit more to it than that simplistic view though isn't there. I thought you were saying that it was poverty that caused the lower life expectancy? Therefore relieve the poverty, change the life expectancy. Personally I think its culture, rather than the contents of the bank account that makes the difference. I think they're both factors. " And who’s responsibility is it to change these things then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. So do you think that it is poverty that causes these problems? If you took a poor family that eats too much, smokes too much and drinks too much, and then said here is an extra £.... per month, would they drink less, smoke less and eat less? If there were alternatives offered then maybe. There's a bit more to it than that simplistic view though isn't there. I thought you were saying that it was poverty that caused the lower life expectancy? Therefore relieve the poverty, change the life expectancy. Personally I think its culture, rather than the contents of the bank account that makes the difference. I think they're both factors. And who’s responsibility is it to change these things then?" Ffs you are unreal. Instead of asking this on a swinging site forum why not try doing something about it yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ffs you are unreal. Instead of asking this on a swinging site forum why not try doing something about it yourself. " I'm pretty certain you have no idea what I do outside of fab, so you wouldn't know if I was doing something about it or not. But it doesn't matter if I am or if I'm not, I can still debate the issue on the Politics section of this forum as well. I don't really understand why you would comment on a thread, if you don't want to talk about the subject of the thread? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. So do you think that it is poverty that causes these problems? If you took a poor family that eats too much, smokes too much and drinks too much, and then said here is an extra £.... per month, would they drink less, smoke less and eat less? If there were alternatives offered then maybe. There's a bit more to it than that simplistic view though isn't there. I thought you were saying that it was poverty that caused the lower life expectancy? Therefore relieve the poverty, change the life expectancy. Personally I think its culture, rather than the contents of the bank account that makes the difference. I think they're both factors. And who’s responsibility is it to change these things then?" Yours    | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Things are definitely better than they were in certain Northern English and Scottish cities but there is still a big difference in things like life expectancy and health etc. I also like Camden so I'm not slagging off London I just personally couldn't live there. There are some quite poor areas in the South as well though, Cornwall definitely benefited from European money so I believe. Is the difference in health expectancy the government's fault though? If people chose to eat, drink and smoke themselves to death, should they be given that freedom, or should the government stop them? Sometimes socio-economic factors mean people make detrimental lifestyle choices. This happens less in affluent areas such as the South East and home counties. Addressing inequality I would hope to be a government's goal but it's hard to believe it is. It sounds a bit like you are saying that some people are too thick to know what's good for them. If that's how you want to interpret that then that's up to you. Like I said earlier you're always very argumentative. I wouldn't patronise people in the job I do, I observe. It's well known that people from poorer backgrounds with less prospects make certain lifestyle choices that aren't necessarily beneficial to them. I certainly didn't say I think people are too thick to know what's good for them. Nice try though but I've seen plenty of threads where you comment trying to get a rise. So do you think that it is poverty that causes these problems? If you took a poor family that eats too much, smokes too much and drinks too much, and then said here is an extra £.... per month, would they drink less, smoke less and eat less? If there were alternatives offered then maybe. There's a bit more to it than that simplistic view though isn't there. I thought you were saying that it was poverty that caused the lower life expectancy? Therefore relieve the poverty, change the life expectancy. Personally I think its culture, rather than the contents of the bank account that makes the difference. I think they're both factors. And who’s responsibility is it to change these things then? Yours "I'm doing the best I can, saving the world one forum post at a time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ffs you are unreal. Instead of asking this on a swinging site forum why not try doing something about it yourself. I'm pretty certain you have no idea what I do outside of fab, so you wouldn't know if I was doing something about it or not. But it doesn't matter if I am or if I'm not, I can still debate the issue on the Politics section of this forum as well. I don't really understand why you would comment on a thread, if you don't want to talk about the subject of the thread? "Thing is though, and I said this very early on, I'm happy to debate but you are just argumentative. I've witnessed this on many threads you have posted on. I posted relevant to the thread but I'm not here to answer to demands from you. Don't mistake that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ffs you are unreal. Instead of asking this on a swinging site forum why not try doing something about it yourself. I'm pretty certain you have no idea what I do outside of fab, so you wouldn't know if I was doing something about it or not. But it doesn't matter if I am or if I'm not, I can still debate the issue on the Politics section of this forum as well. I don't really understand why you would comment on a thread, if you don't want to talk about the subject of the thread? "What!!!!!!! you mean you have a "life" outside fab, checking the time stamps of your posts it looks like you are on here 24/7 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Ffs you are unreal. Instead of asking this on a swinging site forum why not try doing something about it yourself. I'm pretty certain you have no idea what I do outside of fab, so you wouldn't know if I was doing something about it or not. But it doesn't matter if I am or if I'm not, I can still debate the issue on the Politics section of this forum as well. I don't really understand why you would comment on a thread, if you don't want to talk about the subject of the thread?
Thing is though, and I said this very early on, I'm happy to debate but you are just argumentative. I've witnessed this on many threads you have posted on. I posted relevant to the thread but I'm not here to answer to demands from you. Don't mistake that."I was just asking a question, you dont have to respond to it, and any questions that I pose are open to anyone to answer or respond to as its an open forum. The OP was about the North South divide, I was asking a question about if there is a divide, who's responsibility is it to remove that divide? I thought it was a question relevant to the debate at hand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? " Amongst other things yes. It is certainly one of the reasons why. London is not the powerhouse city it once was. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? Amongst other things yes. It is certainly one of the reasons why. London is not the powerhouse city it once was. " It's private enterprise that makes the south more prosperous, not government projects. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? Amongst other things yes. It is certainly one of the reasons why. London is not the powerhouse city it once was. It's private enterprise that makes the south more prosperous, not government projects. " And you really believe that?? Your deluded then. If the south didn't get the chunnel, major roadworks on tap etc etc etc then no company would Base itself in London as the infrastructure (government projects) would not be in place to succeed. If the same amount of money and effort went into the projects for the North then maybe we would see London actually being pushed as a UK centre for excellence, but as we won't then the uk will just end up going backwards. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? Amongst other things yes. It is certainly one of the reasons why. London is not the powerhouse city it once was. It's private enterprise that makes the south more prosperous, not government projects. And you really believe that?? Your deluded then. If the south didn't get the chunnel, major roadworks on tap etc etc etc then no company would Base itself in London as the infrastructure (government projects) would not be in place to succeed. If the same amount of money and effort went into the projects for the North then maybe we would see London actually being pushed as a UK centre for excellence, but as we won't then the uk will just end up going backwards. " So are you saying its a North South divide, or a London vs everywhere else divide? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? Amongst other things yes. It is certainly one of the reasons why. London is not the powerhouse city it once was. It's private enterprise that makes the south more prosperous, not government projects. And you really believe that?? Your deluded then. If the south didn't get the chunnel, major roadworks on tap etc etc etc then no company would Base itself in London as the infrastructure (government projects) would not be in place to succeed. If the same amount of money and effort went into the projects for the North then maybe we would see London actually being pushed as a UK centre for excellence, but as we won't then the uk will just end up going backwards. So are you saying its a North South divide, or a London vs everywhere else divide? " North south divide. London is the biggest city so is by far the easiest target but I think for most of the south of England it's just the same really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? Amongst other things yes. It is certainly one of the reasons why. London is not the powerhouse city it once was. It's private enterprise that makes the south more prosperous, not government projects. And you really believe that?? Your deluded then. If the south didn't get the chunnel, major roadworks on tap etc etc etc then no company would Base itself in London as the infrastructure (government projects) would not be in place to succeed. If the same amount of money and effort went into the projects for the North then maybe we would see London actually being pushed as a UK centre for excellence, but as we won't then the uk will just end up going backwards. So are you saying its a North South divide, or a London vs everywhere else divide? North south divide. London is the biggest city so is by far the easiest target but I think for most of the south of England it's just the same really. " It costs more to deliver services in rural areas, such as the North, than in places like London. That is one of the main reasons for extra spending on Scotland, Wales and NI. So the government spends more per head in the North than they do in the South. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? Amongst other things yes. It is certainly one of the reasons why. London is not the powerhouse city it once was. It's private enterprise that makes the south more prosperous, not government projects. And you really believe that?? Your deluded then. If the south didn't get the chunnel, major roadworks on tap etc etc etc then no company would Base itself in London as the infrastructure (government projects) would not be in place to succeed. If the same amount of money and effort went into the projects for the North then maybe we would see London actually being pushed as a UK centre for excellence, but as we won't then the uk will just end up going backwards. So are you saying its a North South divide, or a London vs everywhere else divide? North south divide. London is the biggest city so is by far the easiest target but I think for most of the south of England it's just the same really. It costs more to deliver services in rural areas, such as the North, than in places like London. That is one of the main reasons for extra spending on Scotland, Wales and NI. So the government spends more per head in the North than they do in the South." Even if that were the case I doubt if you put together the information for the last 20-30 years that spending per capita would be anywhere near the same. Maybe the last 5-10 years the spend has changed but that's due to the fact that now most governments have realised that they can't depend on just their usual core demographic for votes. I've got to say I'm really enjoying debating this subject and it's refreshing to see what others think M | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide! Really?? Maybe if the government were fair in the granting of projects in this country then we would see less of a divided nation and then maybe just maybe we could get back to being a world power instead of a third rate European country. But won't happen now we have left the eu. Is that why you think the South is more prosperous, because of government projects? Amongst other things yes. It is certainly one of the reasons why. London is not the powerhouse city it once was. It's private enterprise that makes the south more prosperous, not government projects. And you really believe that?? Your deluded then. If the south didn't get the chunnel, major roadworks on tap etc etc etc then no company would Base itself in London as the infrastructure (government projects) would not be in place to succeed. If the same amount of money and effort went into the projects for the North then maybe we would see London actually being pushed as a UK centre for excellence, but as we won't then the uk will just end up going backwards. So are you saying its a North South divide, or a London vs everywhere else divide? North south divide. London is the biggest city so is by far the easiest target but I think for most of the south of England it's just the same really. It costs more to deliver services in rural areas, such as the North, than in places like London. That is one of the main reasons for extra spending on Scotland, Wales and NI. So the government spends more per head in the North than they do in the South." You may be right when it comes to services it does cost more for things like providing things like high speed internet to rural areas but end result is those areas are the last to get it but im afraid on the major things on average they spend 20 times more per head in the south than they do in the north Hs2 is proof of that close to 100bn on a project which really only benefits london | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The biggest N/S divide I ever see is the North having a chip on their shoulder about a North/ South divide!" Yeah. The North gets totally equal investments doesn't it? You can even see it in like for like house prices. Couldn't put a fag paper between them! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just out of interest, where are people defining the North and the South here?" Anything north of the border, ie The Thames. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just out of interest, where are people defining the North and the South here?" If I am being totally fair I would have to say that the north south divide has now become a SE rest of the country divide and that it is really quite easy to define... Anything outside the London commuter belt and the M1,2,3,4,20 and 40 corridors gets the same piss poor deal when compared to the capital. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
