Why is England so poor outside of London?
>>543079283muslims
>>543079283>Why is England so pooryes
Fall of empire, they had too much debt and devalued their currency to pay it.
>>543079283It's surreal that UK never went through the Infrastructure madness phase of the 50s and 60s
>>543079283After deindustrialisation most of the (high paying) jobs were in services in London. Which then meant that there was a brain drain to the South East in the decades afterwards. The result is, even if you have a great idea and want to set up a business in the north, you'll end up doing it in the south east.There's also the fact that Imperial and Cambridge are in the South East, meaning there's just a massive pool incredible people in this region.
>>543079283>poorIf you go far to country side of England there mansions worth of tens of millions.
>>543079283Opportunity based on integrity
Deliberate governmental misallocation. The English are worthless refuse in the eyes of the British parliament, so all money is funneled to the jews and indians in London.
>>543079369why do you think that? poverty has existed in England long before the arrival of immigrants
>>543079369Fpbp
Deliberate ruination of the country.
>>543079283Bongs didn't bless israel enough
>>543079283>10 comfy towns not destroyed by muslims thats better
>Poor>Well built houses that have lasted over a 100 years and a street full of entrepreneurs.Yep, I love being "poor". You can keep your shitcoin and AI "riches" in Silicon valley.
>>543079283London is also poor and looks like that in most places
>>54307928315 years of trickle down economics and right wing budgets and policies
Service economies are geographically concentrated into a small footprint, which is usually in the capitol city and/or the financial center city.Outlying provinces are left to rot, like the Hunger Games.
>>543079524ThisThey used the windfall of North Sea oil to capitalise the City of London and (((financial services))) no money went into actual physical manufacturing. Most of the country relied on manufacturing at the time. Due to UK industry being uncompetitive on global markets, it was shut down or sold off to foreign investors, China and India mainly.
Bongs eat dust and when it doesn't rain they have to drink their own piss and that's why their teeth are yellow.
>>543079721Imagine being retarded enough to actually still believe that. No wonder your country is rotted out with refuse like you being allowed to vote.
>>543079283London isn't all rich, just the west end where all the white people live, parts of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire too are richer than most of London outside the west end.
>>543079905Because they are next to London.The Shires are to London, as Connecticut is to New York.
>>543079283Because Margaret Thatcher destroyed our industry and handed the economy over to the finance industry. British towns and cities were centred around industry.
>>543080024The areas of London without white people are a slum though.
>>543079465But likeWhy don't the people able to work remote just move to cheaper (and I assume, frequently nicer) smalltowns outside of London? That's a common trend here and the % of workers able to do it is still very low and the infrastructure is worse. But a lot of people choose to work outside of Belgrade where the rent is cheaper and there aren't as many shitskins
>>543079451They actually went in reverse too lol. If you read about the Beeching Axe, the British govt systematically destroyed their own rail network, long before Thatcher and then Major ruined it further. Thousands of miles of railtracks were mothballed or plundered in the 50s and 60s. Also, the UK didn't even finish their first full-length motorway until 1959. People talk about post-war British decline as if it is a recent phenomenon rather than beginning almost immediately after World War II.
>>543080494Yes, UK is known for its lack of trains
>>543079533Sure but OP image is literally an inner city area with zero white British people. It's like saying why is the US so poor and posting images of Detroit
>>543080494>People talk about post-war British decline as if it is a recent phenomenonNo one says that? the 70's particularly were a disaster
they just let it happen
>>543081290There was a belief in the 1990's that the decline had been arrested, which then accelerated to a terminal pace in the last 15 or so years. I don't think my characterisation was wrong.
>>543080779When you look at the history of British Rail from 1947 to the present, it's been a disaster. Massive losses, huge redundancies, thousands of jobs lost, and soaring fares after privatisation.
Drugs. Legal highs that got banned like spice and mamba etc with the new gen monkey dust. Cheap as chips buts hits like crack pcp. Zombie slaves everywhere.
>>543080494At least in the US they still have baseline infrastructure built during the New Deal and then the rapid expansion after WW2, I can understand why Brits are always miserable and angry since they pay so much tax for generations and got no infrastructure in return, all that money went to civil servants and quangos
>>543079283Rolling for Blackpool.
>>543079283Liberalism
