Turn on thread page Beta

Life is hard when you are a privately-educated Oxbridge grad from the South East watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Borgia)
    The only reason the south east is the engine room, is because the north and the midlands has had all of its economic power undermined by successive London governments.
    That's utter nonsense. The southeast has always been the wealthiest part of the country.

    How have successive governments undermined the north and the midlands? Specifically, what policies?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Borgia)
    Nothing against Oxbridge or London, but I find these 'check your privilege' types tiresome when they are from London and hold a Cambridge first in classics. Yet because they are the same shade as a white person standing in a shadow, and have a vagina, suddenly they earn the right to soapbox to the privileged types living in council housing in Yorkshire and Lancashire.

    The only reason the south east is the engine room, is because the north and the midlands has had all of its economic power undermined by successive London governments.
    Agreed, the problem isn't anything to do with the fact that they're from a wealthy background or that they went to a prestigious university, but that they have the cheek to claim that they're not privileged, that they have the cheek to tell others to check their privilege when odds are she is much more OBJECTIVELY privileged than they are.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    That's utter nonsense. The southeast has always been the wealthiest part of the country.

    How have successive governments undermined the north and the midlands? Specifically, what policies?
    The deindustrialisation of the country under the thatcher government (and this is coming from somebody who really isn't particularly left wing at all). Yes industry still exists here but it's a fraction of what it once was and it put countless people out of work where industry was the major employer.

    As a result the bulk of our economic weight is now in London, and as a result we keep reinvesting in London, resulting in a self perpetuating cycle where more and more wealth and jobs become concentrated there, and where business in the rest of the country by and large becomes less and less important.

    The end result of this is that you have things like crossrail a project costing £15 billion going ahead in London. Whereas if you take yorkshire which has a comparable population where transport infrastructure is certainly in need of improvement, that amount of money would never get spent there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    That's utter nonsense. The southeast has always been the wealthiest part of the country.

    How have successive governments undermined the north and the midlands? Specifically, what policies?
    (Original post by limetang)
    The deindustrialisation of the country under the thatcher government (and this is coming from somebody who really isn't particularly left wing at all). Yes industry still exists here but it's a fraction of what it once was and it put countless people out of work where industry was the major employer.

    As a result the bulk of our economic weight is now in London, and as a result we keep reinvesting in London, resulting in a self perpetuating cycle where more and more wealth and jobs become concentrated there, and where business in the rest of the country by and large becomes less and less important.

    The end result of this is that you have things like crossrail a project costing £15 billion going ahead in London. Whereas if you take yorkshire which has a comparable population where transport infrastructure is certainly in need of improvement, that amount of money would never get spent there.

    Limetang has spoken for me (I'm clearly not very LW either seeing as I'm ranting about the Guardian). Yes London has always been wealthy but the likes of Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool and others were once sources of huge income for the country. Sheffield now does very little to live up to its name as 'Steel City' while we rely on Germans to build our boats and other mechanical structures.

    The Government never spends on the North and then complains that there is no money coming from it. Well what do you expect? All the jobs are consistently moved down south, to the point where people in the South East are having to ration water in summer.

    Look at Germany. Yes Berlin is wealthy, but the Ruhr region is the industrial power house (that makes all the products WE buy), Frankfurt is the financial capital, while Stuttgart, Hamburg, Munich and others are also extremely wealthy. Meanwhile we just pile more and more into London, creating mass unemployment in the north, causing London to rely on immigrants from abroad and the rest of the country to support it.

    Thatcher destroyed the North in order to undercut the unions, and relied instead on foreign imports.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    Agreed, the problem isn't anything to do with the fact that they're from a wealthy background or that they went to a prestigious university, but that they have the cheek to claim that they're not privileged, that they have the cheek to tell others to check their privilege when odds are she is much more OBJECTIVELY privileged than they are.
    Exactly. You are only ever as oppressed (or privileged) as your socio-economic bracket. If you are a gay black woman who moves in circles of millionaires, then you are better off than a straight wm pulling over 80K a year.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't like the article, a lot of things in it are wrong and it's written in a vindictive way.
    But just because you come from privilege doesn't mean you can't speak for those who don't have the same opportunities. You could argue it's a social responsibility to fight the causes of the less privileged. There's nothing wrong with that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by localfox1000)
    I don't like the article, a lot of things in it are wrong and it's written in a vindictive way.
    But just because you come from privilege doesn't mean you can't speak for those who don't have the same opportunities. You could argue it's a social responsibility to fight the causes of the less privileged. There's nothing wrong with that.
    True, but I think there's a difference between speaking up for the 'less privileged' and attacking those who you perceive to be privileged.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    The deindustrialisation of the country under the thatcher government
    Ah, now this is the typical parochialism of the sort of person who hasn't really lived overseas and doesn't know the experience of other developed countries.

    The entire Western world deindustrialised during the 1980s, it was a systemic economic fact relating to the rise of China and cheap Asian manufacturing.

    America didn't keep its manufacturing, Australia didn't, France didn't, Italy didn't, Spain didn't, Canada didn't, even Germany's manufacturing sector contracted massively in the 1980s period

    And this is coming from someone who is a committed socialist. Deindustrialisation related to global economic forces, and only the parochial English think it might have been the unimportant national policy of a particular unpopular politician as opposed powerful economic forces that were completely rearranging the global economic order at that time
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    True, but I think there's a difference between speaking up for the 'less privileged' and attacking those who you perceive to be privileged.
    Yes, and that's where she was wrong. She made incoherent points about white men. She should have made a more general point because I think there is an argument there. My main gripe though, and my reason for posting was the view some people took in this thread- that people from privilege can't speak against it. I think this is completely wrong.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by localfox1000)
    Yes, and that's where she was wrong. She made incoherent points about white men. She should have made a more general point because I think there is an argument there. My main gripe though, and my reason for posting was the view some people took in this thread- that people from privilege can't speak against it. I think this is completely wrong.
    Particularly telling that as a woman, Angelina Jolie is elevated by status to talented, when she has none and relies on privilege to succeed.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Taxi for bidisha!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.