Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Conservative British think tank: Abandon Liverpool

    Posted by Ralf Goergens on August 14th, 2008 (All posts by )

    This from the Times:

    David Cameron has been embarrassed by his favourite think-tank after it suggested that Liverpool, Sunderland and Bolton should be abandoned because the North would never improve.

    The Tory leader, who begins a two-day tour of the North today, firmly rejected a report by Policy Exchange, which suggested that the Government should help northerners to relocate to Oxford and Cambridge. It suggested that Britain’s two university towns are likely to be able to “form the basis of strong, successful, substantial cities”.

    “No one is suggesting that residents should be forced to move, but we do argue that they should be told the reality of the position: regeneration, in the sense of convergence, will not happen, because it is not possible.”

    and this from the BBC:

    The Policy Exchange report said coastal cities like Sunderland and Liverpool had “lost much of their raison d’etre”.

    It said the largest coastal cities like Liverpool and Hull had built up for reasons that had since disappeared – like ship building.

    Policy Exchange, a registered charity, has been described as Mr Cameron’s favourite think tank. But Mr Cameron, who will be keen to minimise any embarrassment as he tries to gain ground in traditional Labour heartlands, distanced himself from the organisation’s findings on Wednesday, saying the report was “insane”.

    “I think the idea that cities can’t regenerate themselves, they were built for one purpose and can’t do another purpose, is just nonsense.

    He is certainly right about that. If those cities turn out to be unable to reinvent themselves, they are going to wither away in the long run, but chances are that they are going to be able to adapt and prosper. There are a lot of formerly decrepit cities around the world that have done just that. This think tank seems to have lost contact to reality.

     

    5 Responses to “Conservative British think tank: Abandon Liverpool”

    1. John Jay Says:

      I guess they’ve never heard of a little town called Pittsburgh

    2. Shannon Love Says:

      If those cities turn out to be unable to reinvent themselves, they are going to wither away in the long run, but chances are that they are going to be able to adapt and prosper. There are a lot of formerly decrepit cities around the world that have done just that.

      You forgetting about the creativity and adaptation inhibiting effects of socialism. Communities, companies and individuals adapt and prosper when forced to root, hog or die. If they are protected from this necessity of change by government support of increasingly uneconomic behaviors, then they will continue to follow in the ruts of the past.

      For example, when shipping began to die off. the first response of the people and government was to provide public funds (in many different ways) to support shipping. When the jobs dried up anyway, the government provides generous welfare so that people won’t have to relocate to other areas to find work. You also have a population of self-interested mandarins who view any major innovation with skepticism and who mire any change in years of debate, study and regulation. Eventually, you create a general culture in which people expect to just sit around and wait for the government to fix everything.

      From the report:

      Mass internal migration is the only answer to a decade of failed efforts to concentrate regeneration cash on other parts of the country, it says. Money being pumped into renewal projects and back-to-work schemes should be given directly to councils, according to local wage levels, to spend on regeneration measures.

      I think this is a good idea. Relocation is an important part of rejuvenation. If nothing else, it shakes up the local power structure and forces them to get serious about adapting. How successful would the recovery of the “rust belt” in American have been if people and businesses could not have left the area? Such migration in England is difficult because people expect to live their entire lives within spitting distance of the houses of their ancestors.

      In America, with our mobile culture, we see nothing unusual in the idea that people move away from an area when the jobs dry up. Europe’s tradition of immobility makes relocating harder and apparently, unthinkable to many.

      I do find it interesting that so many appear to believe that some magical combination of government actions exist the will revitalize the region with relocation. I think this says a lot about those people’s unconscious political assumptions.

    3. Steve Says:

      I don’t know…Harvard’s Ed Glaeser proposed pretty much the same thing for Buffalo, and nobody (except the mayor of Buffalo) got very upset….

      http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_buffalo_ny.html

    4. renminbi Says:

      Council housing (projects) are heavily subsidised and have long waiting lists-another reason not to move.

    5. Anonymous Says:

      Shannon

      I think this is a good idea. Relocation is an important part of rejuvenation. If nothing else, it shakes up the local power structure and forces them to get serious about adapting. How successful would the recovery of the “rust belt” in American have been if people and businesses could not have left the area? Such migration in England is difficult because people expect to live their entire lives within spitting distance of the houses of their ancestors.

      I wouldn`t worry about that. Once businesses leave, which they at least are willing and able to do, tax revenue will dry up and local authorities will have to come up with something new, or at least get out of the way when somebody else does.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.