The ConHome article (which Lola linked to recently to make a different point) says that there is a significant geographical overlap between 'former mining areas' and 'areas returning a Labour MP' at last week's elections.
Ho hum.
More to the point, there is, and always has been, a large overlap between 'relatively densely built urban areas' and 'areas with a Labour MP' i.e. Manchester/Merseyside; West/South Yorkshire; Tyneside; and central/inner London.
It just so happens that most towns grew where they did because coal was needed to power industry during the Industrial Revolution; the landless peasants (90% of the population) moved to these areas during the Industrial Revolution; these areas then became towns and cities; and for whatever reason, people in these areas tend to vote Labour to this day, while the Tories are the party for rural areas and outer suburbs.
The only reason that London is where it is, is because that's as far upriver as the Romans could get with their boats i.e. it has always been the centre of government and a major centre of trade. For slightly different historical reasons, about half the population are tenants (private or social), and again, these people will tend to vote Labour, even though London is about as far from a coalfield as you can get.
And all of this is not UK specific, as a general rule and in most democracies, people living in towns tend to vote more left wing/liberal and people in the countryside vote right wing/authoritarian.
Grand theft Labour
3 hours ago
8 comments:
I was always taught in geography that most ports are there because it was as close to the sea that you could get and still build a bridge across the river, given the technology of the day.
London is where it is because it was the first place they could build a crossing, a bridge or a causeway. But you analysis stands.
It also tells you that the people in these areas now need to move somewhere else. Like the NE lead miners did. To Patagonia for example.
B, yes, good point. Are there any ports which are not at the mouth of a river? Hmm..?
L, no they don't need to move anywhere, you gave the answer to that in your original post.
Mark, yes, London.
Lola, that was the Welsh.
B Also the NE lead miners went to South America to mine, lead. From memeory of my visit to Killhope in Durham some went to Patagonia. But I accept my memory could be faulty...
MW Did I. That's mighty perspicacious of me. What did I say? ( A 'senior' moment perhaps).
L, you said that a large part of the reason for underperformance of under performing areas is that taxes are too high in those areas.
I would add, they are victims of Home-Owner-Ism as well meaning that all their wealth left after vicious taxation is siphoned off down to the City of London anyway.
L, the Cornish after one of the collapses of the tin-mining industry there would be a better example. It was said in the C19th that anywhere you went in the world, if you found a hole, there'd be a Cornishman at the bottom of it.
Post a Comment