My take on the current discussion occupying EduTwitter:

1. While a Londoner by birth and inclination (and this has a distinct cultural meaning) I was living in an area that voted overwhelmingly for Brexit during the referendum (semi-rural South East) and lived in another one shortly afterwards (South Coast working class community).

2. The drive for Brexit that I observed, contrary to the message of hope, was one of resentment. These places felt left behind, and they felt left behind because of the obvious affluence of London.

3. The economic priority was jobs in their community, something that London-centric policies seemed to ignore, but also a desire to punish London. Not all believed that Brexit would stimulate their economy but all knew that London wanted Remain.

4. Beyond that there was an economic nihilism, a sense that if Brexit was harmful they didn't have much more to lose anyway, and the people who would lose out most were already rich ('metropolitan liberal elites')

5. Our current politics lives in the shadow of this vote, and the views expressed are still a driving force in politics. To some extent I believe that people vote for Boris Johnson because those same 'elites' clearly hate him.

6. London has a number of major social issues that are priorities here, but not so much elsewhere. They include over-policing of largely Black communities, unaffordability of and scarcity of housing stock, massive economic inequality, and the rights of a diverse population.

7. These obviously seem like a sideshow outside of London, in communities where economic migrants are not an economic necessity, you can buy a house for £150k, and economic inequality isn't very important because there are very few rich people.

8. However these issues are vote winners in London. And to be elected in London, politicians must prioritise policies that are vital for us but seem arcanely 'woke' elsewhere.

9. This means that national success relies on a platform that is not beneficial for London, while success in London relies on policies that preclude success on a national scale.

10. The truth is that London is economically and culturally vastly different to much of the rest of the country and that is a gap that has not been bridged and is unlikely to be bridged to the satisfaction of all parties.

11. However London's economy is an outsized net-contributer to the UK economy, meaning that there's a political imperative to spend London's tax base while harming London's tax income.

12. Net beneficial policies for the UK involve continuing to pursue London's economic and cultural strength (remember the migration happens for reasons other than solely jobs), but are unpalatable outside of London.

13. The reality is that we now have two fundamentally different and incompatible economies, political imperatives, and societies.

14. London could survive and prosper while not attached to England, and is both more populous and richer than several existing city states. But that prosperity is currently set up in opposition to a country which we seldom see eye to eye with.

15. The bravest solution to this and, IME the most beneficial, is to decouple those economies and systems entirely. With parliament being based outside of London, and London paying a net contribution to England, but with the rest of England having no say in London's policies.

16. In exchange London would have no say in the governance of England except as regards resources we must by necessity share (e.g. military)

17. A truly devolved or independent London is the best solution for all, so England can make decisions on what best benefits England while London does likewise for itself.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.