Only 1 in 5 clear what ‘levelling up’ means. Do you know? If so what do you think it means

I well remember, about thirty years ago I overheard a conversation between two ultra right wing Tories who were bemoaning the fact that Margaret Thatcher had not done enough to limit the powers of Local Authorities.

Since then, of course, they have been progressively emasculated by the drip drip drip reduction in their funding.

PS. Most "red wall areas" still have Labour councils. The government is trying to blame councils for local conditions, whereas, in fact, reductions in central government funding are causing cuts to local services.

Moorland Everybody interested in levelling up should read that article. Despite the rhetoric and promises, levelling up means nothing. Incidentally, on top of the reduction in funding caused by loss of EU grants, many of these areas now have less spent on education as a result of changes to the funding formula.

Johnson's speech last months makes it very clear that there are no detailed plans for levelling up. He dismisses the need for spending on investment and education and says the priority is that deprived areas have a sense of pride in their communities. While I agree that it is the key to how people feel, it won't happen by magic and needs initial investment in projects at the very least. What he's doing is refusing to provide money, but putting the responsibility (blame) on to communities themselves.

What will probably happen is that investment is announced a few months before the next election, but it will still fall short of what the regions were receiving in the first place.

People in "red wall areas" and the opposition really need to hold the government to account by asking what was mean by "levelling up" and what exactly has been achieved. Hopefully, people will see through the fudging. It's evident even on this thread that people don't have a clear idea what levelling up is and each has a different interpretation. It's time for the government to explain what it meant and for people to start measuring whether anything is being done.

Levelling up?

'Red Wall' and other poorer areas lose £1bn of development cash after Brexit, despite ‘level up’ pledge

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-red-wall-levelling-up-b1901999.html

You won't hear any argument from me?

The point, though, is that it wasn't about people 'not questioning for a minute' because they are poorly educated.

I think that a lot of people of all classes buy into the lies that the media peddle, but I also think that a lot of people of all classes don't. I really don't think it's that simple.

Well done, the ex-Sun readers of Liverpool.

They were given proof, if proof were needed that The Sun was vile and peddling lies.

Then they turned away from it. We need more of that type of enlightened rejection of lying propaganda.

Oh, I am not denying that the media (and not just newspapers) have influence. I just don't think that a comparison between voters who read paper A and those who read paper B is as useful as it once was.

My understanding is that the Mail gets most hits from its 'sidebar of shame' with gossipy clickbait, not from its news stories, but yes, unfortunately it is still influential.

I'm less sure about the notion that poorly educated tabloid readers are too dim to know that they are being fed lies, though. Some will be, just as some middle class readers of broadsheets will believe the same stories told in words with more syllables, but others take an oppositional stance. A dated example, but maybe the best one nevertheless, is the way in which Sun readers in Liverpool boycotted the paper after its lies about Hillsborough.

It is certainly true that newspaper readership is declining. However I do think that they are still very influential. Newspapers are read by far more people than buy them. Any shopper in the typical UK supermarket will, whilst queuing, see the front page of The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Express, all prominently displayed near the checkout.

Then there is the online reach. The Mail Online is said to be the most widely read English language news website in the world.

If newspapers had no influence the ultra right wing billionaire newspaper proprietors would soon give up and sell them. These billionaires are mostly foreigners or tax exiles, so their agenda is most certainly not to advance the prospects of their readers.

They show no sign of doing that. The influence of the right wing press, especially the tabloids which are directed at poorly educated voters, is still powerful in the UK.

Their readers repeat the poisonous lies which they have been sold on line and in real life, without questioning for a minute whether they have been told the truth.

Good post Doodledog.

I think that the same people who actively campaigned for Leave have promoted the notion that Remainers accuse Leavers of being stupid. This serves to reinforce the defensiveness of Leavers as the disaster that is Brexit becomes more and more apparent.

I think there could well be some truth in that, but I have definitely seen and heard some pretty arrogant comments about the perceived age and education of Leavers. Even though they are borne out by the figures, I wonder how much of that is cause and effect. I don't need convincing that it was a bad move, but when you look at the geographical distribution of votes, if voting had anything to do with intelligence it would seem that populations of some areas are more intelligent than others, and I don't believe that for a minute.

I know that the idea of 'the left behind' is a cliche, but if you are the third generation of unemployed in your family, you aren't going to be swayed by hearing people complain that jobs in finance will go abroad, and if your kids can't afford to move within the UK you aren't going to be bothered that someone else's kids are going to miss out on Erasmus opportunities. In fact you could be forgiven for thinking 'give them a taste of what we've had for years'. There has been too much investment in some areas and not enough in others for decades, if not centuries, and access to mass media means that everyone knows it.

I agree that not all opinions are created equal, and I also get irritated when I hear 'it's just my opinion' said defensively about an indefensible opinion with no facts behind it?.

On the other hand, the defensiveness could well be a reaction to being told 'My opinion is better than yours because I have a degree'. Nobody says that out loud of course, but it was implicit in some of the discourse about Brexit. It's a meaningless boast, of course, unless the degree is both current and in the subject under discussion, which by the law of averages it is rarely going to be.

In itself, a university education doesn't make people polymaths who can understand the minutiae of something like Brexit, with all of its political, economic, sociological, historical, cultural and geographical implications, yet to hear some people talk you would think it did.

The newspaper readership stats are interesting too, but so few people read them now (and those who do are typically older) that they need very close inspection, I think.

Whatever the reasons, I really wish we hadn't let ourselves become such a divided country, with 'boomers' and 'millennials' and 'Gen XYZ', North and South, and so on, on top of the race, sex and religion that has always divided people. I am certain that it's all been done deliberately, but how do we put things into reverse?

There is definitely a PhD waiting to be written about it all, but it's probably too close just now.

varian That's what I meant by the "real snobs" manipulating feelings of being talked down to, by stirring up feelings about real grievances. The aggrieved became the foot soldiers to make up the numbers in the vote.

I think that the same people who actively campaigned for Leave have promoted the notion that Remainers accuse Leavers of being stupid. This serves to reinforce the defensiveness of Leavers as the disaster that is Brexit becomes more and more apparent.

It is the basis of populism to forster and encourage resentment of one group against the "others".

However it is true that analyses of voting after the referendum showed conclusively that the lower the level of education a voter had, the more likely he/she was to vote Leave. It was also shown that younger voters were more pro-Remain and older voters more pro-Leave. Younger people are far more likely to have had the opportunity to go to university.

It is interesting to look at the effects of newspaper readership. The national newspapers were heavily biased towards Leave and most readers followed the guidance of their newspaper. However readers of The Mirror / Daily Record, the only national tabloids to support Remain, were more likely to vote Leave and readers of The Telegraph (the only broadsheet to support Leave), although they mostly did vote Leave, were less likely to do so than would be expected by the strong Leave position of The Telegraph. Readers of The Telegraph are , on average, better educated than readers of The Mirror.

reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-11/Presentation_of_Key_Findings_The_Press_and_the_Referendum_Campaign_20th_Sept.pdf

I almost reacted instinctively and answered your opening question with "ones that are based on no facts and just on prejudices." I don't mean prejudice as in racism or anything like that, just on things that they "know" to be the case without any critical thought.

There are people who have opinions about Johnson, refugees, Brexit, Afghanistan.... whatever. But if they are based on prejudice and not on reality, I can't take them as seriously as the opinions of someone who is basing their opinions on fact and critical thinking.

I don't necessarily think that Leavers are stupid; the only leaver I know personally is a headmistress. But, I think her beliefs about the EU and what it did for her was completely unsound and based on misinformation. But she believed it. Not all opinions are created equal, I think.

Who decides which feelings and opinions are groundless, though?

I think that a lot of people were being talked down to over Brexit. I was and still am a definite Remainer, but I don't think that Leavers were stupid, yet there was a lot posted online and said 'in real life' that suggests that a lot of Remainers think that they are - some of it from friends of mine who definitely see themselves as liberal, unsnobbish types. It was cringeworthy at times.

I can't pretend that I don't resent Leavers for what their votes have done to the UK, but their feelings and opinions were no less relevant than mine.

Been thinking about how to phrase this growstuff...

There is nothing more condescending to people than just agreeing with them to make them feel validated. It leads to societies taking the wrong path on so many things, and it can lead to scapegoating. What it certainly doesn't do is actually solve any real problems.

I think I'm a "new snob" too, if it means valuing knowledge and experience over groundless feelings and opinions.

I agree with you and I suppose I have to hold my hands up to being a "new snob".

However, I do think that there's a real issue with people thinking they're been talked down to. I don't know how one gets round it.

what it means.

I read that article growstuff, and I thought about waha it means.

I do think Skelton's book is playing to the gallery a bit because of the many people who think they are being talked down to when the real impact of Brexit, or whatever, is mentioned (GN is a case in point. Sorry to use the B-word) I don't thinks its snobbery to say that some of the political choices made recently have been contrary to common sense.

Is a new form of snobbery reshaping British politics?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58186519

I think it is and the traditional "snobs" are exploiting it.

That's what was baffling me. I just wanted to look at the table, so that I could understand it better.

growstuff

Maizie I don't think Table 8 is the one Katie meant.

Oh gawd! There are 23 tables to choose from. All based on quintile grouping, so I'm not even sure where the 10% came from.

Maizie I don't think Table 8 is the one Katie meant.

Maizie I'm not disputing any of the points you've raised. I guess I was thinking about the OP and whether people really know what "levelling up" means. It was the mantra before the last election and was (I assume) intended to appeal to people at an area level - the areas where unemployment is high, educational standards are low, wages are low, crime is high, life expectancy is lower than average, shops are boarded up, etc. "Levelling up" can't be achieved without addressing the issues at an area level, although I suspect what will happen that just enough individuals will be appeased for them to vote for Conservative MPs.

growstuff

To save me looking through all the tables, which one are you looking at Katie59?

Which one are you looking for?

I gave a link to the data I used. It's in Table8

To be honest, the focus on individual taxation is avoiding the issue of "levelling up".

I'm not altogether sure that it is avoiding the issue. Doesn't 'levelling up' cover the ability to share in society's 'goods' beyond being able to afford basic necessities? Having enough money to spare to be able to travel (though that might be contentious because of climate change), participate in cultural events, use medical facilities that are increasingly sited beyond easy travelling reach, buy more expensive but 'healthier' food (also contentious as I know from experience that people love to explain how to eat healthily on £1 a week....) etc? How can you feel 'levelled up' if you're struggling to survive on a barely adequate income?