Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
You are talking about moving 2 million people and their jobs. Thus you would need housing for those 2 million. To give an idea of the size of that project, you are suggesting moving a group of people that is equivalent to a 3rd of Greater London.
Factor in the cost of either providing jobs, or benefits, and it could end up being cheaper to transport the water to the south east. A lot cheaper.
|
this what said we have to way up which cheaper option out these.
It may be cheaper new resevoirs but environmentalist do there nuts and nimbyism will stop it.
Up north though there is alot run down estates with lots empty property bit modernising could be perfectly able to be re-housed.
Dont think the issue would be job creation if the government expanded the regeneration. encoured the move jobs would come about. Not all jobs viable to be moved some actually would benefit nearer the trade routes.
I actually been puzzled for years why factories built nowhere near the export hubs they use. Surely saving on transport costs good strong labour force and they save money with cheaper land/property. I think lot time they move to london as the property value can been used better collateral for loans from bank expansion. Its always great add few noughts to the company value. Problem with the thinking is wages higher & transportation costs.
It needs a gradual rethink sort like slow retreat. If we cap the housing so it dont spiral out control the country might benefit northern migration.
Not say only solution or pratical due to costs but if it was cheapest option we would have to seriously consider it. Yep 2m no mean task but would eleviate the pressure of south east.
In ideal world there would be proper modern water, energy, transport network. That would be staggering costs so solution is adapt to what we got spread out.