Ever since the days of Dick Whittington, those living outside London have often seen the capital as a city with streets paved with gold. But, asks David Stenhouse, does the city dominate British life?

It is the British city which joined the super-league, the world capital which ranks with Paris, New York and Tokyo.

It is the epicentre of Britain's political, economic and cultural life, the seat of our government, hub of our media and home to one of the world's biggest financial markets.

But even fans of London admit it is too expensive, too dirty and too crowded. And its critics say that it sucks talent, money and opportunities out of the rest of the country.

So how should those of us who live outside London cope with the mega city in our own back yard?

"The one thing that you cannot deny, whether you are in or outside it, is that London is a vast, dominant thing inside the United Kingdom," says Tony Travers, director of the London School of Economics Greater London Group.
Commuters queuing Londoners exhibit excellent queue-forming skills at a Tube station

Because of its enormous population - at 7.7 million, London has only slightly fewer inhabitants than Scotland and Wales combined - and its economic and political importance, the capital dominates the nightly news.

It is home to national museums, galleries and theatres and the place where multinational companies have their headquarters.

It is also where the British media is based - from the BBC's Television Centre to Channel 4, Sky, ITN and the major national daily and Sunday papers.

No wonder that it is also the place where ambitious people from the provinces of Britain - and further afield - flock to make their names.
'Pandora's box of dreams'

And many are convinced that they couldn't have made it by staying at home.

The Scottish fashion designer Deryck Walker first went on a pilgrimage to London after seeing an edition of the South Bank Show devoted to Vivienne Westwood.

"For me it was like a Pandora's box of dreams," he says. "Going to London was key to me becoming a designer."

But in a global context, London is the exception rather than the rule.

The East Coast of the US has New York - the capital of media and commerce - and Washington DC - the capital of government.

Australia has Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra; Spain has Barcelona and Madrid. And Britain has... London, the sprawling, unrivalled capital whose gravitational force exerts a distorting effect on the rest of the country.

London is hugely crowded, hugely busy and full of people not really interested in each other

Londoners have to pay the price for the capital's status. Residents have sky-high house prices in many areas of the capital - the average house price is now over £1.25m in Kensington and Chelsea - and have high-cost travel, congestion, crime and grime.

But what cost does the rest of the country pay for London?

Talk to business people and civic leaders around the UK and it is not hard to draw up a charge sheet against the capital.

Londoners are said to be rude and insular, and they look down their nose at anyone from the provinces.

"It's an unresolved issue," says Jude Kelly, director of London's Southbank Centre. "Is London a rival to other cities in its own nation, or a repository of their knowledge?"

Those trying to run businesses in the north of England or Scotland have to incur serious expense to even make it to a meeting in the capital, leaving home at four in the morning to make it to London for 9am.
Streets 'paved with gold'

But the biggest charge against London is that it sucks talent and resources out of the rest of the country

Ever since Dick Whittington left the Forest of Dean in the 14th Century in search of his fortune in London, ambitious provincials have headed to the city in search of streets paved with gold.

Did Dick Whittington need London's size and variety to find his niche? Or did his departure to the capital deprive the Forest of Dean of an outstanding Lord Mayor, maybe even one who could have arranged some golden paving for his home town?
Dick Whittington and cat Living the London dream: Dick Whittington is his post-knapsack days

Given the concentration of power in London it's no surprise that since the 1960s successive British governments have tried to move key government departments out of London.

The BBC is the latest public body to follow suit, with the relocation of key staff and programmes to Salford Quays in Manchester.

But even devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has done little to reduce London's power.

The gravitational pull of the capital is hard to resist: not least because many people who have made their career in London find it hard to imagine life outside the M25.

For many people in Britain's public life, London is the only place to be.

But not so long ago the political and cultural landscape of Britain was a good deal less uneven than today.

In the Victorian era, Britain's economic landscape was made up of powerful city states, with their own local governments, distinct political cultures and vibrant economies.

In the north of England, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool were the workshops of the world.

Further north, Glasgow described itself as the "Second City of the Empire" and the mighty Clyde shipyards produced vessels which sailed the seven seas.

But as the manufacturing bases of these other cities declined and London's population and economy soared, London started to seem less and less like a big British city and more and more like a global city which just happened to be based in the south-east of England.

It has amplified the faults - as well as the virtues - of the capital.

Now, as historian and politician Lord Hattersley puts it, London is "hugely crowded, hugely busy and full of people who are not really interested in each other".

The size of London's economy has led some to suggest that the capital should go it alone, and declare independence from the rest of the country.

There are plenty in the rest of the country who might be glad to see it go.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/10508673.stm

So do you agree with this article or not?

Also what do you think of the question it asks near the end, should London go it alone. I though I admit the idea of it is appealing it can't happen for the very reason this article points out, also if it was to happen then the centre of the UK would only just shift to Manchester, or Birmingham, or some other city.

The notion of London going it alone is ridiculous. I'd love to see the boundary of this independent London. Bit of a silly, "what can I write about?" article which the BBC comes up with periodically. :|

I voted no - even though I think there is an issue with London getting too much of the UK's infrastructure money. And we do need to get some of our other big cities up to the world level. Thing is, a (250mph) high speed railway network would fuse much of England and Wales's population centres into one big city/metropolitan area.

No. Next question.

Those trying to run businesses in the north of England or Scotland have to incur serious expense to even make it to a meeting in the capital, leaving home at four in the morning to make it to London for 9am.

This is an incredibly dumb statement. So it is London's fault it happens to be 4 hours away on the train from say Glasgow? How dare it not locate itself closer to them.

Also, a Britain without a London would demote it in the world's standings. We'd be like a very large Denmark or Belgium. Zzzz!!

The notion of London going it alone is ridiculous. I'd love to see the boundary of this independent London. Bit of a silly, "what can I write about?" article which the BBC comes up with periodically. :|

I agree with you on that, though as a Northerner I must admit I've wonderd myself at times. However though the London going alone is in reality a stupid idea, but it's the other questions in that article that needs to be asked. Like what can be done to spread what London has outwards. It's quite right that other countries have various services, businesses, and industries spread out acorss the country where as here it seems almost everything is centric to London with only little bits being handed down elsewhere. It's also true that so many people can't see how they can't have a career of their dream without moving towards London. If we continue to give that impression to younger people in particular then it is not going to help the situation at all.

It is a bit dumb to compare London and the UK to NY and the USA. It would be way more appropriate to compare it to London and Europe.

I do wish the other cities of the UK were a little more significant but what can you. People love London and can make a life for themselves there. If the other cities are not attractive enough to bring people in then that isn't London's fault.

This is an incredibly dumb statement. So it is London's fault it happens to be 4 hours away on the train from say Glasgow? How dare it not locate itself closer to them.No it's not but what needs to be done is transport improvements. Hopefully is HSR ever gets off the ground this well help to improve the situation, also it once again asks the question why should everything have to go through London in the first place?

It is a bit dumb to compare London and the UK to NY and the USA. It would be way more appropriate to compare it to London and Europe.

I do wish the other cities of the UK were a little more significant but what can you. People love London and can make a life for themselves there. If the other cities are not attractive enough to bring people in then that isn't London's fault.It's about making each and every city attractive in the first place.

i think it is bad that the rest of the UK has to subsidide london

They're's life outside the Home Counties? I don't believe it.

No it's not but what needs to be done is transport improvements. Hopefully is HSR ever gets off the ground this well help to improve the situation, also it once again asks the question why should everything have to go through London in the first place?

Of course but it isn't London responsibility. Because it is the most important city in the country. If our country was not an island then there would be trains going elsewhere but that is just the way our country is.

It's about making each and every city attractive in the first place.

And that is each city's own responsibility.

Of course but it isn't London responsibility. Because it is the most important city in the country. If our country was not an island then there would be trains going elsewhere but that is just the way our country is.But surely someone out there (government) should be encouraging this, instead we don't and have often seen MP's saying that it is those in the North who should up and move to London and the South East in order to create a better life.



And that is each city's own responsibility.On limited resources? What can a city do to offer say a bussiness/industry coming to their city when similar indsurties and infrastrucutre exists in London already? Also what can a city do to persuede a company/industry to relocate from london?

i think it is bad that the rest of the UK has to subsidide london

I think you will find that London is a net contributor to HM Treasury, unlike almost all the other English regions and indeed all three other nations.

But surely someone out there (government) should be encouraging this, instead we don't and have often seen MP's saying that it is those in the North who should up and move to London and the South East in order to create a better life.

Of course they should, but that isn't London responsibility or fault.

On limited resources? What can a city do to offer say a bussiness/industry coming to their city when similar indsurties and infrastrucutre exists in London already? Also what can a city do to persuede a company/industry to relocate from london?

Still, not London's responsibility. You don't think if Manchester had the chance it would suck London dry? This is the nature of cities. If a city isn't good enough then it is it's own responsibility to attract people away or lobby government for extra funds to attract people. If they aren't doing that then tough.

Of course they should, but that isn't London responsibility or fault.



Still, not London's responsibility. You don't think if Manchester had the chance it would suck London dry? This is the nature of cities. If a city isn't good enough then it is it's own responsibility to attract people away or lobby government for extra funds to attract people. If they aren't doing that then tough.London is still the one seeing the advantages, weather or not it is all down to them or not. It really does come down to the government in order to change this, however I get the feeling that it has all gone too far and no matter what anyone tries it will all be in vein.

I think you will find that London is a net contributor to HM Treasury, unlike almost all the other English regions and indeed all three other nations.

You will also find london has the highest concentration of public jobs by cumulative earnings by a massive margin.. all these jobs are paid for by tax payers money - of which the overwhelming majority comes from *outside* london. In essence, the rest of the UK props up london.

In many of London's boroughs almost a staggering one in two workers work for the state, with the other one working in a tertiary private sector job dependent on the existance of the public sector job.

If London's public sector assets were shared equally and propotionately across the UK according to the tax revenues collected by those areas, a sizeable part of london's raison d'etre would cease to exist.

London is fabulous

Now shut up you pack of moaners, it's just jealously really.

I think it would be beneficial for both London and the UK to spread public sector jobs out a bit. It would give the SE a bit of breathing space while helping other cities.

London is fabulous

Now shut up you pack of moaners, it's just jealously really.

This too. No joke.

I like the fact that all the stupidly high prices and work stress is located in London. That way you can take it or leave it.

The people who moan about London tend to point to the differences of their cities and wax lyrical about how they are better. But then in the next sentence suggest they want a piece of London's action locally. Doesnt compute. If you like the London lifestyle then live there. Otherwise live somewhere else.

Birmingham used to be such a fun, vibrant place. The heart and soul of everything. Then London came along...

It's like Tokyo or Mexico City, the big city that drives a national economy. But that hasn't prevented other cities in Japan or Mexico from becoming vital, interesting places, it's just that the big boy gets most of the attention.

I like the fact that all the stupidly high prices and work stress is located in London. That way you can take it or leave it.

The people who moan about London tend to point to the differences of their cities and wax lyrical about how they are better. But then in the next sentence suggest they want a piece of London's action locally. Doesnt compute. If you like the London lifestyle then live there. Otherwise live somewhere else.
It does compute.

We want it spread out so it's not all in one place, which should make each city/region more wealthy and attractive without it all being located in one place which overcrowds an area, which highers housing rates to the extreem etc. We don't want it all just a little bit.

It's also surprising how many tourists come to this country and never step foot outside of London. From the outside London and the rest of the UK is one and the same, when infact each city and each region has so much to offer. Why is this?, because yet again we come down to everything being London centric.

That is the way it has developed. Even if the public jobs were spread out a bit and with better transport London would still be way and above the most dominant city.

Olympics, London only. Enough said.

London is a hugely important global city in a relatively tiny country, so it's pretty obvious it is going to attract more investment, jobs and overall greatness than any other UK city.

That's just life, so deal with it.

Olympics, London only. Enough said.
Rubbish

Football? Sailing? Mountain Biking? and probably more I can't think of. Olymic Games do tend to be based in a single city, Its not GB 2012 or Brazil 2016 is it?

Of course it is. But we up here in the north need not worry ourselves anymore, because the south east is sinking - probably as a result of several factors:

1) too much over development in London alone
2) too many people moving down there
3) the water table around the Thames valley area rising

I read somewhere that London is actually sinking at the rate of 0.5 to 1cm every year or summat like that so if that was the case then in the next 20 years, it would be 8 inches closer to the rising level of the river Thames.

But why does everything have to be London-centric? Just look at Germany, the cities appear to share an equal importance in various sectors. This sort of structure is far more beneficial.

Birmingham used to be such a fun, vibrant place. The heart and soul of everything. Then London came along...


I do love your ironically optimistic sense of humour

:lol:

London is a hugely important global city in a relatively tiny country, so it's pretty obvious it is going to attract more investment, jobs and overall greatness than any other UK city.

That's just life, so deal with it.

not at all. you're thinking of it too simplisticly, assuming London is hugely more important "just because it is". A lot of it is engineered, at the expense of the rest of uk. There is no reason the whole UK has to prop up london so that everything is centred in London. Change the public sector distribution of jobs and govrnment offices, and the government centralisation, and the private sector tertiary jobs, investment, and HQs will follow.

Numerous other european countries are different to london, and the uk/london centralised model wasnt like it is now up until very recently. It is only in the last 4 decades or so that london has become the centre of the uk where a huge disparity between the capital and the rest of the uk has been witnessed.

But why does everything have to be London-centric? Just look at Germany, the cities appear to share an equal importance in various sectors. This sort of structure is far more beneficial.

Germany has no London or Paris type mega city though, and from recollection never has. It just developed that way. How much of London dominance (excluding recent times) has been specifically engineered and what has just developed naturally.

Germany has no London or Paris type mega city though, and from recollection never has. It just developed that way.

Was Berlin not once one of the largest cities in the world?

Was Berlin not once one of the largest cities in the world?

Yeah that was before it was bombed to shit and then divided in half and left to stagnate.

Remember that the financial and political heart of Germany was ripped out of Berlin and transplanted in Frankfurt and Bonn respectively.

Was Berlin not once one of the largest cities in the world?

No. Not if it hurts my argument.

So if WW2 had never happened we could have a UK/London or France/Paris type situation. Basically, you can't get that situation without a blank slate, literally, to spread out everything intelligently. Same goes for USA/Australia etc comparisons. They didn't develop over a long time period the way the London/UK did so you can't really compare. Are there any historic countries with one huge dominant city that spread out its public sector without having a massive war to create a blank slate?

not at all. you're thinking of it too simplisticly, assuming London is hugely more important "just because it is". A lot of it is engineered, at the expense of the rest of uk. There is no reason the whole UK has to prop up london so that everything is centred in London. Change the public sector distribution of jobs and govrnment offices, and the government centralisation, and the private sector tertiary jobs, investment, and HQs will follow.

Numerous other european countries are different to london, and the uk/london centralised model wasnt like it is now up until very recently. It is only in the last 4 decades or so that london has become the centre of the uk where a huge disparity between the capital and the rest of the uk has been witnessed.


The UK has always propped up London in some form. This isn't some recent thing.

Yes more could be decentralised and that is happening, albeit slowly, but London has always and will also be the focal city of the United Kingdom whether it be politically, economically or culturally.
Regional UK cities have an opportunity to specialise in certain fields, as they did historically. They should instead look at that and stop blaming London for everything they have failed at or failed to make a reality.

As for London effectively bleeding the UK dry, London generates 20% of the entire wealth of the UK and as such has developed industries and services tailored to that role and it excels at such things.

I like the fact that all the stupidly high prices and work stress is located in London. That way you can take it or leave it.

The people who moan about London tend to point to the differences of their cities and wax lyrical about how they are better. But then in the next sentence suggest they want a piece of London's action locally. Doesnt compute. If you like the London lifestyle then live there. Otherwise live somewhere else.

There is plenty of work stress outside of London.

The UK has always propped up London in some form. This isn't some recent thing.

Yes more could be decentralised and that is happening, albeit slowly, but London has always and will also be the focal city of the United Kingdom whether it be politically, economically or culturally.
Regional UK cities have an opportunity to specialise in certain fields, as they did historically. They should instead look at that and stop blaming London for everything they have failed at or failed to make a reality.

As for London effectively bleeding the UK dry, London generates 20% of the entire wealth of the UK and as such has developed industries and services tailored to that role and it excels at such things.

exclude the wealth raised to the coffeurs from the whole public sector centralised government offices and departments in london (paid for by the whole of the uk), then exclude all the private sector industry and employment that exists directly as a result of it, and you're left with wealth creation not above and beyond any other region. The only exception of course is the wealth creation from The City, that is London's only major specialisation.

When you look at it in the way I have described, then both politically and economically - London is engineered, at the expense of the rest of the UK. The only category left is culture, which largely is not engineered - u cant force cultural assets. That said, if other regions *were* given a level playing field by giving proportionate distribution, you'd find strong economically and politically strong regions which would naturally develop strength culturally over time too, and that is ignoring proportionate distribution of the 100s of tax funded museums and galleries in london.

I think you really over-estimate how much London is based on the public sector. Youa re basically saying without it and the city London is nothing. Which I really don't accept. These things are all intertwined of course but London is more than just a public sector and the city. It is the centre for all kinds of industries.

Doesn't London dominate the UK in a way that only Paris could dream of? And that says much!

Yeah that was before it was bombed to shit and then divided in half and left to stagnate.

Remember that the financial and political heart of Germany was ripped out of Berlin and transplanted in Frankfurt and Bonn respectively.
This is a slightly superficial argument because historically the fractured German lands guaranteed no London/ Paris/ Madrid would develop.

The fact that Berlin was at one point was more the historical anomaly that was German UNIFICATION that occurred only after 1000 years of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation came into existence.


95% of the 1200 years of Germany and "Germany" (including now), it has had no dominant city.

These things are all intertwined of course but London is more than just a public sector and the city. It is the centre for all kinds of industries.

Yes, but the point is most of them have been engineered thanks to the insistence of politicians down the years regarding London as a 'special case'. When industries died in London, the areas they existed in (ie: Docklands) were propped up by the public purse and heavily invested in infrastructure-wise to a degree unheard of anywhere else, until the likes of canary wharf became attractive to private investment. Repeat for the Olympics, or the south bank, or the Barbican etc. Listen to a (adopted) metropolitan Londoner talk about it though, and you'll hear a completely different take. They like the idea that it has all been built by their own ingenuity and that the chav infested regional cities are just lazy or stubborn and should not be 'propped up'. Major hypocrisy.

This is all recent stuff though. London didn't become the dominant metropolis thanks to all these interventions.

This is all recent stuff though. London didn't become the dominant metropolis thanks to all these interventions.
Since the French conquered your isle 1000 years ago, London has been a juggernaut in English terms. London centralized power in England and its successor states to a degree that the French revolutionaries would have collectively orgasmed if it was the case for Paris.

More and more companies and public bodies are moving to Manchester these days and people hopefull in years to come at least we will have Britains version of a Barcelona and Madrid.

Since the French conquered your isle 1000 years ago, London has been a juggernaut in English terms. London centralized power in England and its successor states to a degree that the French revolutionaries would have collectively orgasmed if it was the case for Paris.

Firstly the Normans conquered England, not the French.

Secondly the capital at the time was Winchester, not London.

And thirdly power was not centralised in London for many, many centuries. Indeed the concept of having a permanent seat of government is a (relatively) recent one.

Olympics, London only. Enough said.

Why? Do you think the IOC would have voted and awarded the Olympics to Hull?

Personally I'm still baffled they didn't choose a more attractive city, like Paris.

I think it would be beneficial for both London and the UK to spread public sector jobs out a bit. It would give the SE a bit of breathing space while helping other cities.

You mean like Student loans in Glasgow, Benefits Agency in Newcastle, DVLA in Swansea....just as a few examples?

Firstly the Normans conquered England, not the French.
:no:

And what language did the Normans speak?

A langue d'oil that was one of the many dialects of northern France that would coalesce to modern French.

And where do you get "Law French" from? Welsh?

The royal motto?

The Latinization of English from its Anglo-Saxon roots?

Secondly the capital at the time was Winchester, not London.
barely decades after the successful French invasion, Winchester was left to rot as the Norman French kings made London their base of power, partly because of its defensibility.

And thirdly power was not centralised in London for many, many centuries. Indeed the concept of having a permanent seat of government is a (relatively) recent one.
:crazy: England DEVELOPED the first centralized nation-state in Europe!

What was the Domesday book for? For the barons? :lol:

We have one of the greatest cities in the world on our doorstep but still all we can do is moan. If anything it's constant moaning is what sucks the like out of Britain.

LOL, no. Did some northern cunt start this thread? Perhaps it should be vice-versa!

(j/k)

Personally, I feel the provincials should be made to come to London on their knees and pay tribute to their London masters. :yes:

There are a few points I find quite, well, pointless in this article.

But even fans of London admit it is too expensive, too dirty and too crowded.

Too expensive, maybe, but too dirty? I was in Bristol a few weeks back and found it no different to London. London isn't a dirty city, no different to Frankfurt where I live. Sure, it's no Singapore, but many would be glad about that. As for too crowded, I don't even see that. I have to agree the Tube can get pretty packed, and Oxford Street on a Saturday afternoon is quite busy but hey, it's a big city. We can all live in villages if we don't like crowds.

It is home to national museums, galleries and theatres and the place where multinational companies have their headquarters.
Capital cities and any nations largest city almost always have the bulk of museums. How is this different to Paris, New York, Washington etc? The US is a vast country with a large number of important cities. Ask most people to name 5 or 6 of their most famous museums and galleries, no doubt most would be in NY or the nations capital. That said, there are still plenty of great museums right across the UK. It's just pretty obvious that the largest city would have the largest quantity of the largest size.

But in a global context, London is the exception rather than the rule. (and then goes on to mention Australia, US etc which have many important cities)

No, it's not the exception. France has Paris, Belgium has Brussels, Sweden has Stockholm, Argentina has Buenos Aires, Chile has Santiago. The list is pretty long with countries and one dominant city.

London is hugely crowded, hugely busy and full of people not really interested in each other
How is this different in any large city. I've lived in London, granted, only a year, and found it no different than anywhere else I have lived. The further out in the suburbs you go, the closer ties you have with your neighbours.

Londoners have to pay the price for the capital's status. Residents have sky-high house prices in many areas of the capital - the average house price is now over £1.25m in Kensington and Chelsea - and have high-cost travel, congestion, crime and grime.
For a start, it mentions the price in the wealthies neighbourhoods. What sort of reporting is this? Look at the weathiest neighbourhoods in any city in the world and they will be high. Secondly, the crime in London is pretty low for such a large city. I remember seeing a report a few years ago that compared it to other cities in Europe and it was then considered one of the safest.

Londoners are said to be rude and insular, and they look down their nose at anyone from the provinces.
Is there a scientific study on this? Funny thing is that you hear exactly the same about any nations large cities. People from the country or small towns just don't get cities. Go to the US and people from small towns will always say that New Yorkers are rude. Go to France and they will say Parisians are rude, go to New Zealand and it's the same thing for Aucklander's.

It's one of the worst articles I've seen on the BBC for quite some time.

It's also surprising how many tourists come to this country and never step foot outside of London. From the outside London and the rest of the UK is one and the same, when infact each city and each region has so much to offer. Why is this?, because yet again we come down to everything being London centric.

It's not surprising at all. How do these other cities advertise and promote themselves in other countries? I have never seen ads on TV here in Germany, or in Australia, New Zealand or anywhere else I have lived promoting any other part of the UK.

This won't happen by itself, If Manchester want's tourists, it has to promote itself, same for Birmingham or anywhere else. The thing is, maybe with the exception of Edinburgh, few people outside the UK or Ireland know anything about the other cities. It's not their fault.

'Justme' hit the nail on the head really. London is a big city -- and it's one of the "elite" cities, along with Paris, Tokyo and New York. We should consider ourselves lucky to have such an amazing global city as our capital as most countries do not have a capital with such an enormous global presence, nor do they have a capital that is one of the world's few great and successful melting pots.

London does not suck the life out of Britain -- in fact, on the contrary. London's success as a leading global financial centre benefits the entire United Kingdom, as does the tourism that London attracts.

Cities such as Birmingham and Manchester do just fine and have their own identities. They do not need to steal any of London's thunder, nor can they.

Justme also hit the nail on the head concerning complaints about London and Londoners. London is a huge, fast paced city, much like New York or Paris. People are not necessarily rude; it's just that they don't have time to be outwardly polite. London is also home to a gazillion different cultures and races, all of which live on top of one another. Seriously, your complaints about London would also apply to Paris, New York or Tokyo.

Wow, I just realized something: Chicago is like the London of Illinois!

You mean like Student loans in Glasgow

this one is unforgivable. that'll be for the student loans scots DON'T pay!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/london-season/

this one is unforgivable. that'll be for the student loans scots DON'T pay!

It was moved to Glasgow donkey's ago well before devolution. We are still a United Kingdom and think of it this way, it probably saves the taxpayer money having all those Glaswegians on the payroll.

Anyway much of this issue is about decent local, city wide government. If Birmingham or Manchester had strong, city wide government with decent powers over transport, policing, housing, promotion people would feel less aggrieved. When Ken first started as Mayor he had few powers but he acted as a city champion and was a figurehead to promote the city and it's interests.

If other cities had strong local government these feelings of unfairness would disappear.

They all want to live in £1mln pound shoeboxes and work 14 hour days like Londoners.

There is plenty of work stress outside of London.

Sure. But there is a noticeably calmer atmosphere to working life in other UK cities. I dont have much experience of working in other places outside London so I am basing this on Bristol and Edinburgh, the two places where I do work from time to time. In both cases there isnt quite the same pressure cooker feel to things. You certainly dont feel guilty leaving your desk before 6.00pm and people seem to have a bit more time in their lives to do things. The lack of a life outside work for most of my London colleagues is remarkable. Most of them have little time in the evenings and live for the weekend where they are too exhausted to get up earl and then spend 3 hours in traffic jams trying to do a day trip somewhere. In contrast I find the workers who are doing a similar job outside london to be full of chatter about the things they have been up to. I dont know if this is a general trend or just specific to my industry.

this one is unforgivable. that'll be for the student loans scots DON'T pay!

Oh and don't think you've got off our bet Mr Bossman. Penance please!

They all want to live in £1mln pound shoeboxes and work 14 hour days like Londoners.

A shoebox and 14 hour days? You are lucky. I have to live in a matchbox, get to work before I go to bed and work 6 days with no sleep on the trot. Pah! 14 hours a day, you don't know you are even born!

Anyway much of this issue is about decent local, city wide government. If Birmingham or Manchester had strong, city wide government with decent powers over transport, policing, housing, promotion people would feel less aggrieved. When Ken first started as Mayor he had few powers but he acted as a city champion and was a figurehead to promote the city and it's interests.

If other cities had strong local government these feelings of unfairness would disappear.

Absolutely.

What really grates is when the cities have to go cap in hand to Westminster. And what really gets on my tits is that London and the South East get all the plum infrastructure projects whilst the North gets overlooked time and time again.

You mean like Student loans in Glasgow, Benefits Agency in Newcastle, DVLA in Swansea....just as a few examples?

Yeah.....what is your point?

this one is unforgivable. that'll be for the student loans scots DON'T pay!

We do pay student loans, it is tuition fees that we don't pay.

Sure. But there is a noticeably calmer atmosphere to working life in other UK cities. I dont have much experience of working in other places outside London so I am basing this on Bristol and Edinburgh, the two places where I do work from time to time. In both cases there isnt quite the same pressure cooker feel to things. You certainly dont feel guilty leaving your desk before 6.00pm and people seem to have a bit more time in their lives to do things. The lack of a life outside work for most of my London colleagues is remarkable. Most of them have little time in the evenings and live for the weekend where they are too exhausted to get up earl and then spend 3 hours in traffic jams trying to do a day trip somewhere. In contrast I find the workers who are doing a similar job outside london to be full of chatter about the things they have been up to. I dont know if this is a general trend or just specific to my industry.

I would agree with all of that, but I think it's also fair to say that people in London are way more likely to have interesting jobs that they don't mind staying late for, mainly because there are lots of jobs that aren't really proper jobs (ie things in the media).

It will be interesting to see what effect the BBC's move to Salford Quays has, and whether it can spark a wider media industry outside London - lord knows Manchester needs one after recent goings on at the MEN.

Absolutely.

What really grates is when the cities have to go cap in hand to Westminster. And what really gets on my tits is that London and the South East get all the plum infrastructure projects whilst the North gets overlooked time and time again.

You are spot on. Economist Fred Harrison points out the the bias towards London to the point that it sucks the rest dry.

"we see that public expenditure on a per capita basis is more than twice invested in London than other regions in the transport and housing sectors."

"thanks to the tax system - that there is an automatic bias in directing investment towards London."

"London in the growth years, makes a net contribution to the public coffers between 2 billion and £9 billion. This is disingenuous. The calculation ignores the capital gains that flow from public spending. Public money invested in London yields huge gains in the private sector - in the appreciation in capital assets - that far exceed the financial subsidies that are transferred to the regions."

"Per capita London is 30% more productive on average - 17% per employee. When taking transport and housing into account that is 30% of more taxes raised is taken into the equation."

"If the London property market is overheating, the chancellor may put up the national interest rate, yet property is not overheating in the north east and they suffer because of the raised interest rate."

"The boost to London's infrastructure out of the public purse overspills to higher land values, which translates to easier financing arrangements for entrepreneurs who secure an advantage to their competitors in the regions."

Sure. But there is a noticeably calmer atmosphere to working life in other UK cities.

I find Liverpool like London. The people are used to stress having gone through real bad times, however they can mix humour and stress as they go along. I find Londoners are more German in that it is work time, or play time and the two don't mix. Crack a joke in some London offices and they think you are not taking the job seriously.

I would agree with all of that, but I think it's also fair to say that people in London are way more likely to have interesting jobs that they don't mind staying late for, mainly because there are lots of jobs that aren't really proper jobs (ie things in the media).

It will be interesting to see what effect the BBC's move to Salford Quays has, and whether it can spark a wider media industry outside London - lord knows Manchester needs one after recent goings on at the MEN.

The BBC going to Salford is a good step. Unfortunetaely it is the wrong city. Liverpool is more arty all around with film studios with a greater world profile than Manchester. I think the Salford complex would better placed in Liverpool as it would be more sure of greater success. Manchester is best at what it did very well and that is manufacturing.

^^ Divide and conquer is a time honoured trick to make the regions dance to London's tune. Petty inter-city squabbles should have no bearing on changing the reality of those economic facts you stated earlier.

Whether Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol or Merthry Tydfill - the move should be welcomed and form a basis for future devolution and spread of the goodies.

The BBC going to Salford is a good step. Unfortunetaely it is the wrong city. Liverpool is more arty all around with film studios with a greater world profile than Manchester. I think the Salford complex would better placed in Liverpool as it would be more sure of greater success. Manchester is best at what it did very well and that is manufacturing.

You from Liverpool by any chance Bert?

You from Liverpool by any chance Bert?

Yes. And I see it as it is. I would say having a large manufactutring plant put in Liverpool is wrong as that is what Manchester does better than Liverpool. It is like putting a steel mill in Liverpool, which is ridiculous as Sheffield do that better. Liverpool is more arty, a tourist and comercial city.

Here is what Jeremy Paxman has to say about Liverpool in his book about the English people:

The north of England contains a series of mainly nineteenth-century city states. Manchester and Liverpool may only be thirty miles apart, but they are quite distinct in character, Manchester a protestant seat of heavy industry, Liverpool a more Catholic dock city, the one an aggressive mill and trading town, the other a gentler, more wise cracking port. Manchester has more in common with Leeds or Sheffield, its commercial rivals across the Pennines, and Liverpool with Newcastle, than either has with the other.

Hmm.

The other point that people miss is that the highly complex amalgamation of historical and human factors has led to London having immense emergent properties where it becomes greater than the sum of its parts, like for example, the human brain. You can not just hack bits out, transplant it and hope for the same properties to magically re-appear as was warned in the golden goose fable. You are far more likely instead to just kill off the attractive emergent properties in London and then watch it diminish on the global stage. What other cities in the UK need to do is to specialise and find niches via strong local governance. For example any town or city could easily create a place that has a distinct urban makeup that promotes a great lifestyle but affordable for people to migrate to. Currently towns and cities across the UK are unimaginative living off irrelevant past glories and are both whores and slaves to Transport department regulation and Whitehall.

Cities had the opportunity to raise income for significant transport projects a la the Congestion Charge but none so far have introduced one.

Currently towns and cities across the UK are unimaginative living off irrelevant past glories and are both whores and slaves to Transport department regulation and Whitehall.

So when London's Dockland's was unimaginative and living off irrelevant past glories, how were the gigantic transport infrastructure investment hand outs any different?

^ Docklands was a development corporation and relied on public money to kick start private investment, just as Merseyside had, Manchester along the canal to Salford, Banks of the Tyne in Newcastle, Bristol, Birmingham, Leeds. They all had the same powers that Docklands had.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_Corporation

And look at how successful some of them have been? Cardiff Bay, regeneration along the Tyne are just two examples. You are also forgetting that London didn't have a city council, it was abolished, and all the powers went to central government. Hence why there was a Minister for London.

Cities had the opportunity to raise income for significant transport projects a la the Congestion Charge but none so far have introduced one.

Are / were City airport, DLR, countless new bridges, new heathrow terminals, crossrail, St Pancras, Jubilee extension etc. etc. etc. all really entirely funded by the ingenuity and sacrifice of Londoners?

I suppose Manchester Metrolink, Commonwealth Games, Liverpool Capital of Culture... and so on and so on were simply just the hard graft of northerners?

Relative crumbs.


You are spot on. Economist Fred Harrison points out the the bias towards London to the point that it sucks the rest dry.

"we see that public expenditure on a per capita basis is more than twice invested in London than other regions in the transport and housing sectors."

"thanks to the tax system - that there is an automatic bias in directing investment towards London."

"London in the growth years, makes a net contribution to the public coffers between 2 billion and £9 billion. This is disingenuous. The calculation ignores the capital gains that flow from public spending. Public money invested in London yields huge gains in the private sector - in the appreciation in capital assets - that far exceed the financial subsidies that are transferred to the regions."

"Per capita London is 30% more productive on average - 17% per employee. When taking transport and housing into account that is 30% of more taxes raised is taken into the equation."

"If the London property market is overheating, the chancellor may put up the national interest rate, yet property is not overheating in the north east and they suffer because of the raised interest rate."

"The boost to London's infrastructure out of the public purse overspills to higher land values, which translates to easier financing arrangements for entrepreneurs who secure an advantage to their competitors in the regions."

Yes. And I see it as it is. I would say having a large manufactutring plant put in Liverpool is wrong as that is what Manchester does better than Liverpool. It is like putting a steel mill in Liverpool, which is ridiculous as Sheffield do that better. Liverpool is more arty, a tourist and comercial city.

Bert, you're a maniac.

So when London's Dockland's was unimaginative and living off irrelevant past glories, how were the gigantic transport infrastructure investment hand outs any different?

well I would argue that was just investing in one of the many emergent properties (happened to be the financial industry/global real estate) and securing it against global competition, note that it wasn’t a subsidy to keep hold of the shipping industry as it moved away to Rotterdam etc. The term investment is also a bit mis-leading, we don’t do investment that well in this country full stop. The real public investment in this case (I don’t call enterprise zones investment) didn’t turn up until everyone realised that the gamble that seemed to be working was about to go belly up, we had the rather rickety DLR and then a very late jubilee line extension that killed crossrail.

I think that the congestion charge example brought up earlier is more the succinct point as it hits the right notes of strong local leadership and imagination to find solutions to problems. I see little example of this in the UK, I just see the town and country planning act and transport department rules.

Are / were City airport, DLR, countless new bridges, new heathrow terminals, crossrail, St Pancras, Jubilee extension etc. etc. etc. all really entirely funded by the ingenuity and sacrifice of Londoners?

There is nothing wrong with pulling together to invest in something. London offers attractive investment opportunities and often opportunities that dwarf others. The UK is full of examples of such infrastructure.

We need to see more independence and strong leadership in other urban areas that is all, we dont need competition or a level playing field, we need niches, this is where urban emergent properties lie. Manchester was pathetically weak over the congestion charge; it would be madness to slowly pick at the golden goose just to subsidise the hopeless current status quo elsewhere.

^ Docklands was a development corporation and relied on public money to kick start private investment.

If you speak to Londoners they say Docklands was all private money. With the one third of the cost met by the government, for the infrastructure, it would not have happened. They even built a 35 station urban elevated rapid trasnit railway for it. While provincial cities can't get a few quid to improve their undergrounds (Liverpool), or trams (Manchester). Leeds needs a tram system but was not given any money.

Economist Fred Harrison
"the favourable tax treatment of London's Docklands, which was deemed to be necessary to expand space for insurance and banking corporations. £3.4 billion was invested in the extension of the Jubilee line [never mind the metro of the 30 odd station Dockland's Light Railway] to service Canary Wharf, while other centres of high population concentration (such as Liverpool) were denied a few hundred million pounds to extend the metros they needed."

we dont need competition or a level playing field,

This is laughable.

I suppose Manchester Metrolink, Commonwealth Games, Liverpool Capital of Culture... and so on and so on were simply just the hard graft of northerners?

To answer that, Supertram and the World Student Games in Sheffield were entirely funded by South Yorkshire without any help from central government so yes they were 'just the hard graft of northerners'.

What other cities in the UK need to do is to specialise and find niches

They need to rail against the unfair allocation to London of public money. Governments had a concerted plan to make London an artificial world city. It has to stop. The rest cannot be subsiising this city for ever.

To answer that, Supertram and the World Student Games in Sheffield were entirely funded by South Yorkshire without any help from central government so yes they were 'just the hard graft of northerners'.

So was Liverpool's capital of culture, while the London Olympics has got oodles of money and a whole Crossrail and Jubilee Line extension to boot. Not to mention making the M1 4 lanes - only in the south east. The 4 lanes will stop at Milton Keynes from London.

well I would argue that was just investing in one of the many emergent properties (happened to be the financial industry/global real estate) and securing it against global competition, note that it wasn’t a subsidy to keep hold of the shipping industry as it moved away to Rotterdam etc.


And what are the emerging properties in Stratford? Do they require security against global competition too?

As for cities and town's elsewhere 'finding a niche' - how can they possibly compete when the 'golden goose' has everything for itself?

The likes of Teesport and Hull have started to develop niche economies in logistics and renewables. Instead of gaining any help in expanding this, they will suffer as soon as the new London Gateway multi billion pound port is built. It's too good for the north.

And the thames Gateway project takes public investment mollycoddling into the stratosphere:

PM Gordon Brown in a 2008 speech:
As Yvette said, today for the first time we are publishing the comprehensive delivery plan for the next three years. This sets out detail of large, new capital investment in education, health, transport, housing, local government services, right across this gateway.
In total, and this is over and above the Crossrail project, over £9 billion will be invested in the communities in the periods to 2016. Let me just confirm to you the scale of what is being proposed and will happen.
There will be three new university campuses, an expansion of Medway Universities.
There will be 27 new primary and secondary schools. There’ll be 90 new Sure Start centres for children. We will complete eight new hospital developments, and there will be a £40 million programme to rebuild and improve NHS primary care facilities.

So, we’re announcing also today with the development plan a £200 million joint economic investment fund with the three south east regional development agencies and private sector partners to support some of the key economic and environmental priorities in the Thames Gateway for the years ahead. We’ve already identified what
will be four economic hubs; Canary Wharf, the Olympic site, Stratford, London Gateway Port at Shellhaven, and Ebbsfleet, and in each of these focal points we will do more to attract new businesses and new jobs.
And, as everybody knows, taking the right long term decisions to improve our transport infrastructure is the key. We’ve already seen the rise of Canary Wharf as a key financial district. It is served by the Jubilee Line, and over the next decade we will see a major transformation of transport links in this part of the country.
A new £100 million community infrastructure fund will support local road and rail schemes, 13 of them across the Thames Gateway. Both the Docklands Light Railway and the East London line will be extended. Ruth Kelly, our Transport Minister, is today announcing a commitment to address the largest remaining transport bottleneck and that’s Junction 30 off the M25. I remember the day in 1998 when John Prescott told a packed House of Commons that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project, which had been on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse, was to be saved. This month saw the opening of the finest railway station at St Pancras, and we now have new high speed Eurostar trains linking London with Paris in just over two hours.

And we've recently, as you know, given the green light to what is £16 billion of new investment, the private public Crossrail project connecting Canary Wharf and points east directly with Central and West London.

I spoke to the CBI this week and I told them just how important moving people into work and training is for the future. Tomorrow we’ll announce details of a new working neighbourhoods fund to turn our most deprived neighbourhoods into job creating communities and in the Thames Gateway, where there are 190,000 people of working age who today are not in a job or in education, there is a real opportunity,with the jobs on offer, to be at the cutting edge of a new chance with economic opportunity.
And there’s no point in creating jobs if there are no skills, and skilled workers, to fill them. So the Learning and Skills Council is developing something quite new, a Thames Gateway Skills Plan, to help local people develop the skills needed to fill the jobs on offer. 1.6 billion will be invested in teaching and learning alone. £850 million in new further education facilities. The Creative Way Lifelong Learning network will generate hundreds of extra student places for local residents, to give them vocational qualifications and to provide specialist training for local people to fill jobs at the Olympic Park.
And to get the benefit of the Olympics being in London in 2012, I can also announce that the Olympic site will become a National Skills Academy for construction. Full details will be set out in a few weeks time, but the academy will provide 1,000 job placements for people enrolled on local further education courses in construction. There will be a further 1,000 training placements for local people, and there will be
more than 500 apprenticeship places. We will help local residents to get jobs on the site, meeting our aim that a large proportion of the construction workforce in this area will come from the five local boroughs.
Now, together, all these measures, I believe, represent an unprecedented effort to give the residents of the Thames Gateway new opportunities to move into work, to improve skills and to progress into better jobs. We are creating in total, we believe, 13,500 apprenticeships and 10,000 college places for local people across the Gateway.

And the Clincher

And none of this would be possible unless we were together prepared to make these long term commitments: to fund new investment, over nine billion pounds; new transport infrastructure; reforming welfare with job opportunities; improving our planning system; changes in our environmental standards.

London was a world city centuries ago. You do know that london has 4 times the population of it's nearest UK cities? The south east has nearly 1/3 of the entire UK population. And yet, you are still claiming that Runcorn and Redcar are subsidising! Get a grip.

Are you saying government should have had a concerted plan to make Sheffield a world city?

Bert, you're a maniac.

Do you think Liverpool should have the steel industry?

Just to reiterate then, in answer again to the original question of the thread:

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, YES, YES, YES, YES and YES!!!

On all counts. End of.

Are you saying government should have had a concerted plan to make Sheffield a world city?

No. We don't need a 'world city'.

Think about it for a moment.... the worst possible thing that could have happened to the rest of the UK a few years ago - (as far as funding for much-needed regional infrastructure projects was concerned) - was that London won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics instead of Paris. Result = well you know the rest surely......

Something which always facinates me is why some smaller cities or towns appear to be more successful than larger cities.

For example, Brighton and Hove is not a large city, perhaps an urban population of 400K in the conurbation, but it offers a range of stores, educational institutions, services,/activities night life etc. of a city many times its size - and this is not due primarily to tourism. Aside from the beachfront, Brighton is practically as busy in the winter as in the summer - and it has relatively poor road and rail infrastructure connections to the rest of the UK in comparison with other more highly populated cities in the midlands, north, etc.

Compare Montreal - and what it has to offer in terms of commerce, industry, retail, culture, education, etc with similar sized UK cities such as Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow, and it is difficult to believe that they are similar in size, yet they are not so disimilar. It should be kept in mind that Montreal is not the rich city it once was either, nor is it a political capital, though it does receive huge amounts of govt support. Similar could be said of comparing many British cities with their European equivilants.

British regional cities have been turning themselves around in the last couple of decades, which is good, but I'm sure they could do better if they looked at their equivilents in Europe and around the world, and developed development strategies accordingly.

They need to rail against the unfair allocation to London of public money. Governments had a concerted plan to make London an artificial world city. It has to stop. The rest cannot be subsiising this city for ever.

artificial compared to what?

London was a world city centuries ago.


Liverpool was the world's first world-city. Mentioned on Time Team TV prog.


You do know that london has 4 times the population of it's nearest UK cities?


Because of the effort in making it a large world city.


The south east has nearly 1/3 of the entire UK population. And yet, you are still claiming that Runcorn and Redcar are subsidising! Get a grip.


The rest of the country does subsidise it without a doubt. Econmists state that, not me.

It is just out of proportion. There is this massive city in the rural south east of the country, the worst place for easy communications, with a full underground and urban rail and a separate Docklands metro, while the rest are paupers in comparison. Only Liverpool has a decent Underground of the rest while London's dwarfs it. Then all is concentrated in it: media, TV, government, fianacvial, etc, etc.

It is just plain wrong. It is not healthy for the country as whole.

artificial compared to what?

Unfair investment, at the expence of others, made it a large city with superb infrastructure. Read my first post.

British regional cities have been turning themselves around in the last couple of decades, which is good, but I'm sure they could do better

They could do a lot better if their tax money was not poured into London..

The inequalities between some of our larger cities here in the UK can't go unnoticed either when it comes down to certain infrastructure issues. There are quite clearly what we could consider as 'winners' and 'losers' when you take into account things such as transport, culture, amenities, etc....



For example, Glasgow has a long had an exceptional public transport network: buses, trains, underground, motorways, etc... Manchester is probably the closest to Glasgow in this respect - as it has pretty much as dense a network of both road and rail, plus of course the Metrolink. Then we have Liverpool - the third UK city equipped with a comprehensive public transport network (long prided due to proper integration with road and rail even after deregulation) with its Merseyrail suburban system frequently voted one of the best in the UK. Newcastle upon Tyne has its Tyne and Wear Metro - another success story that has continued for more than 3 decades.

Only a couple of other regional cities outside of the South East are starting to play catch up - notably Nottingham and its tram network, as well as Sheffield. Leeds may not yet have a tram system but its central rail station has been one of the key success stories. It, along with Edinburgh Waverley, is now claimed to be the largest and busiest main station outside London. I know, because I still travel to Leeds very often (my wife originally comes from there and her parents still live in Kirkstall) and the station has benefitted enormously from a lot of new investment. Leeds supertram has been a huge political pawn for years now and it looks as if typical government noncommitment will - as with Liverpool's similar scheme to the planned football stadium at Kirkby - ultimately knock the project on the head.

This just leaves one other major city remaining: Birmingham. Judging from its appalling road and motorway network (or whats left of it as they're all crumbling to pieces mainly cos they're all elevated concrete monstrosities) and its horrendously congested rail network - centred on that infernal black hole that is New Street cesspit, it's looking more like a 'Cinderella city' now. I'm surprised at the continual lack of proper investment into redeveloping Birmingham's railways because they really need to be vastly improved. Even the tram is a bit of a poor man's version - I've travelled on it once out of curiosity one time I was down in the city last year, and the vehicles are so short they're inadequate. I know that New Street is now in line to get a facelift too but that's just the concourse and nothing is going to be done to address the capacity of the lines. Is Birmingham suffering because it's closer to London than the other major cities, and therefore a lot of its infrastructure is just left to crumble?

Unfair investment, at the expence of others, made it a large city with superb infrastructure. Read my first post.

I read your first post, and all it contained was a general equivocation about the nature of public investment. Of course it will translate into certain amount of private sector gain. That's the point of it. It doesn't detract from the fact that the London metropolitan area generates almost 30% of the UK's GDP, and is a net contributer to public finances.

I read your first post, and all it contained was a general equivocation about the nature of public investment. Of course it will translate into certain amount of private sector gain. That's the point of it. It doesn't detract from the fact that the London metropolitan area generates almost 30% of the UK's GDP, and is a net contributer to public finances.

Ah yes and so, given the nature of public investment and the way it translates into private sector gain, we can expect the London metropolitan area to account for an increasing proportion of the UK's GDP in future years. When it accounts for perhaps 40 or 50% of the UK's GDP no doubt all the London lovies can continue to beat their chests and proclaim how great the capital is! Even though its growth will have been at the expense of lack of public investment in infrastructure and other areas in the regions, the corresponding lack of private sector gain with fewer jobs and lower wages which means that many bright and ambitious people will have to 'get on their bike' and head south where all the opportunities are. So the whole dispicable circle continues with wealth, talent and opportunity being sucked out of the rest of the country into the vortex of London.

Here in the UK we just love to have to be seen to be have the biggest and best don't we. The English Premier league for example (which ceased to be English quite some time ago) which has sucked the life out of the lower leagues and knackered the chances of up and coming young English players coming through the ranks. That might help explain Englands woeful world cup performance which had every football fan across the land tearing their hair out. Nevermind eh, we have the best, most expensive, most popular, most flash league in the world with all the best players here and everyone loves us. Its a pity our national team is so wank but all will be forgotten when the premier league gets up and running again and we can all be reminded how good we are.

Or what about the city and Gordon Brown proclaiming in Lehman's new headquarters in Canary Wharf barely 4 years ago that we had entered a golden age of world banking? Shame the rest of the country and every other industry or province that had been overlooked in favour of the new 'masters of the universe' had to bail out the wankers with hundreds of billions of taxpayers pounds. Let's not learn from these terrible mistakes though and continue to feather the nest of the capital whilst forgetting that a country of 50 million people exists outside it. Just as the premier league has knackered the leagues below it and the the precious bankers fucked everyone and every other industry in the country over too. But at least we can say we have the best football league, the best financial sector and one of the best and biggest world cities. It makes me so proud to be British.

This just leaves one other major city remaining: Birmingham. Judging from its appalling road and motorway network (or whats left of it as they're all crumbling to pieces mainly cos they're all elevated concrete monstrosities) and its horrendously congested rail network - centred on that infernal black hole that is New Street cesspit, it's looking more like a 'Cinderella city' now. I'm surprised at the continual lack of proper investment into redeveloping Birmingham's railways because they really need to be vastly improved. Even the tram is a bit of a poor man's version - I've travelled on it once out of curiosity one time I was down in the city last year, and the vehicles are so short they're inadequate. I know that New Street is now in line to get a facelift too but that's just the concourse and nothing is going to be done to address the capacity of the lines. Is Birmingham suffering because it's closer to London than the other major cities, and therefore a lot of its infrastructure is just left to crumble?

The refurb of New Street station is pretty much cosmetic, although it will address the passenger capacity issues. It is handling over twice as many passengers as it was designed to (because it was built at a time when it was believed that passenger numbers would fall). The investment into New Street station is a very major coup for the city but, as you say, it does not address some of the much larger problems that need sorting.

The road network is certainly not the greatest, although to say the motorways are crumbling is a little off the mark. ;) Spaghetti Junction is undergoing major remedial work but this is costly and does not hide the fact that the whole junction may need reconstruction at some point in the future. I think the council have recognised that there are major issues with the road network in Birmingham and have negotiated and completed one of the most important contracts of their time. The maintenance of the entire road network is being transferred to a private company, Amey, for 25 years in a £2.4 billion contract. This should give Birmingham a much more robust network, devoid of the usual redtape and funding issues that councils seem to suffer from now.

The tram "network" is definitely poor at the moment. Labour had approved a new funding package in outline just before the election which has since been scrapped. Not only would it have extended the line to New Street station, allowing lines to stem off from this in various directions, but it also would have allowed for the construction of a new depot and the purchase of newer, larger vehicles. Now this isn't to be and the whole project is very much in limbo.

I think the major investment point will come from High Speed 2. It will bring a brand new city centre station into Birmingham which in time can see the transfer of some more railway services from New Street to it. But that leaves us talking about a timescale of at least 20 years and you only have to look at what Birmingham was like 20 years ago to see how much can change in that period of time...

I think this is a pivotal moment of Birmingham, which is starting to lean towards the negative. It all depends on what Birmingham can produce out of the pledges of it's Big City Plan (a masterplan for the future of the entire city centre, if you didn't know :) ).

Ah yes and so, given the nature of public investment and the way it translates into private sector gain, we can expect the London metropolitan area to account for an increasing proportion of the UK's GDP in future years.

anyone got any justification on why the government spending on public transport per capita is only 13x that of lincoln?

High Speed 2. It will bring a brand new city centre station into Birmingham which in time can see the transfer of some more railway services from New Street to it. But that leaves us talking about a timescale of at least 20 years and you only have to look at what Birmingham was like 20 years ago to see how much can change in that period of time...
.


To be honest, I think that even 20 years timescale is being wildly optimistic by the UK government's standards. It's a given that the next 20 years will fly past even faster than the previous 20 years, and yet I suspect that London will have monorails and cable car systems in operation around the site of the Olympic Village before cities like Birmingham and Manchester get their High Speed rail routes. At the risk of sounding negative, Im not convinced that HSR is actually going to happen at all. Something is bound to come along and derail it (pardon the pun!).

Pfft!!

If England, Scotchland and Sheepland have investment to improve links to London then I demand subsidisied air fares for us Norn Iron folk!!

Denial of such a system is clearly racist.

Liverpool was the world's first world-city. Mentioned on Time Team TV prog.

lol :|

London was a world city centuries ago. You do know that london has 4 times the population of it's nearest UK cities? The south east has nearly 1/3 of the entire UK population. And yet, you are still claiming that Runcorn and Redcar are subsidising! Get a grip.

Actually it accounts for a 3rd of England's population and a quarter of the entire UK population.

Are you saying government should have had a concerted plan to make Sheffield a world city?

A ridiculous notion. However Sheffield, along with Manchester and Leeds, forms a formidable urban belt in the North. Investment in these cities, critically in terms of better infrastructure between them, along with the coastal cities of Hull and Liverpool could create a realistic economic counter weight to London and the South East. Look at the Ruhr region in Germany for an example of a successful, polycentric urban model with excellent infrastructure.

Sheffield, along with Manchester and Leeds, forms a formidable urban belt in the North. Investment in these cities, critically in terms of better infrastructure between them, along with the coastal cities of Hull and Liverpool could create a realistic economic counter weight to London and the South East. Look at the Ruhr region in Germany for an example of a successful, polycentric urban model with excellent infrastructure.

Didn't Will Alsop have this amazing vision a few years ago of a super city stretching from the Mersey to the Humber with all the gaps in between filled with blocks of dayglo perspex and plasticine...? He was laughed off the face of the earth by critics for being too 'conservative' or summat wasn't he? ;)

I would like to know the actually figures here. I am pretty sure London actually spends less than the tax it generates. And if that is indeed correct, why do some people on this thread expect London to subsidise other cities? London gets the transport because it generates the money. I am happy to be proven wrong if anyone is willing to get the figures.

Something which always facinates me is why some smaller cities or towns appear to be more successful than larger cities.

For example, Brighton and Hove is not a large city, perhaps an urban population of 400K in the conurbation, but it offers a range of stores, educational institutions, services,/activities night life etc. of a city many times its size - and this is not due primarily to tourism. Aside from the beachfront, Brighton is practically as busy in the winter as in the summer - and it has relatively poor road and rail infrastructure connections to the rest of the UK in comparison with other more highly populated cities in the midlands, north, etc.

Compare Montreal - and what it has to offer in terms of commerce, industry, retail, culture, education, etc with similar sized UK cities such as Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow, and it is difficult to believe that they are similar in size, yet they are not so disimilar. It should be kept in mind that Montreal is not the rich city it once was either, nor is it a political capital, though it does receive huge amounts of govt support. Similar could be said of comparing many British cities with their European equivilants.

British regional cities have been turning themselves around in the last couple of decades, which is good, but I'm sure they could do better if they looked at their equivilents in Europe and around the world, and developed development strategies accordingly.

Do you reckon that the local elected councilors and mayor of Montreal has somewhat more say over where money is spent in theat city compared to Liverpool and Birmingham in the UK?

Why do you suppose Montreal has a substantial subway yet no where outside London does?

However Sheffield, along with Manchester and Leeds, forms a formidable urban belt in the North. Investment in these cities, critically in terms of better infrastructure between them, along with the coastal cities of Hull and Liverpool could create a realistic economic counter weight to London and the South East. Look at the Ruhr region in Germany for an example of a successful, polycentric urban model with excellent infrastructure.

From Liverpool to Hull it needs very fast electric trains to interconnect all cities to each other. Look at the money poured into Crossrail and the Jubilee Line extension.

The Liverpool to Hull belt and down to Birnmingham is a high population triangle, more than London. It needs fast trains beteen all cities. Not just fast lines to London making them dependent on London.

I would like to know the actually figures here. I am pretty sure London actually spends less than the tax it generates. And if that is indeed correct, why do some people on this thread expect London to subsidise other cities? London gets the transport because it generates the money. I am happy to be proven wrong if anyone is willing to get the figures.

Look at post 71
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=59917743&postcount=71

The Liverpool to Hull belt and down to Birnmingham is a high population triangle, more than London. It needs fast trains beteen all cities. Not just fast lines to London making them dependent on London.

This is where I think the review of the HS2 line will prove useful as it will probably see a change of the plan where we will see these cities not only have a fast connection to London but, ultimately, a fast connection to the rest of Europe.

Not really solid enough, I want simple figures not a bunch of quotes. That is why I ignored that post the first time.

I would like to know the actually figures here. I am pretty sure London actually spends less than the tax it generates. And if that is indeed correct, why do some people on this thread expect London to subsidise other cities? London gets the transport because it generates the money. I am happy to be proven wrong if anyone is willing to get the figures.

Of course London now contributes more in tax than it gets back.

After having so much more spent on that corner of the UK for the last 50 years with naff all being spent elsewhere, something must have gone seriously wrong if the economy of the South East was not massively out performing the rest of the country.

In the South East the government will invest in infrastructure that will enable econoic growth.

Outside the South East the government, of all colours, always make it incredible hard for investment to take place ensuring that loads of tax payers money ends up flooding to these poorer areas in benefits. Benefits which will never solve the long term problems of the regions.

This is where I think the review of the HS2 line will prove useful as it will probably see a change of the plan where we will see these cities not only have a fast connection to London but, ultimately, a fast connection to the rest of Europe.

But not to each other.

Out of interest, why is it that London got the mayor and the assembley without the 32 boroughs agreeing to it first?

This gave London an enormous helping hand.

Look at what happens in the regions, small authorities pitched against each other in a way that ensures that none ever become strong enough to generate serious wealth.

alonzo-ny - what do you think would be the situation in 50 years if London suddenly had the same investment per capita as say Lincoln does today, and if we increased the investment per capita in lincoln to that of the average Londoner today?

I suspect strongly in 50 years London would be a basket case and Lincoln performing just as well as London does today.

Not really solid enough, I want simple figures not a bunch of quotes. That is why I ignored that post the first time.

The economist put in enough to get it over to the average man.

Out of interest, why is it that London got the mayor and the assembley without the 32 boroughs agreeing to it first?

This gave London an enormous helping hand.

Look at what happens in the regions, small authorities pitched against each other in a way that ensures that none ever become strong enough to generate serious wealth.

That is true. Divide and rule is the way for them. For e.g., most of Merseyside should in Liverrpool and run as one.

So was Liverpool's capital of culture, while the London Olympics has got oodles of money and a whole Crossrail and Jubilee Line extension to boot. Not to mention making the M1 4 lanes - only in the south east. The 4 lanes will stop at Milton Keynes from London.

The 2014 Commonwealth Games is being financed by Glasgow City council along with some public private partnership while being underwritten by the Scottish Government from their budget to run the country.

The 2012 Olympics on the other hand have direct separate UK Government funding of £9.4bn for infrastructure and venues and will also receive Lottery Money to the detriment of projects all over the UK.

The figure of £9.4bn dedicated to the Olympics is a third of the total budget Scotland receives to run all its affairs in a single year!

This is just one example and I'm sure there are many more from all other areas of the UK of the bias shown towards London.

alonzo-ny - what do you think would be the situation in 50 years if London suddenly had the same investment per capita as say Lincoln does today, and if we increased the investment per capita in lincoln to that of the average Londoner today?

I suspect strongly in 50 years London would be a basket case and Lincoln performing just as well as London does today.

Surely it costs less per capita to have adequate transport for Lincoln than London? A little town may only need one bus so hardly any cash per person but a huge city needs undergound, trains, etc. Though it could be conversely true because of the amount of people these big projects serve.

The economist put in enough to get it over to the average man.

If you mean that bunch of incoherent quotes then you are incorrect.

The 2014 Commonwealth Games is being financed by Glasgow City council along with some public private partnership while being underwritten by the Scottish Government from their budget to run the country.

The 2012 Olympics on the other hand have direct separate UK Government funding of £9.4bn for infrastructure and venues and will also receive Lottery Money to the detriment of projects all over the UK.

The figure of £9.4bn dedicated to the Olympics is a third of the total budget Scotland receives to run all its affairs in a single year!

This is just one example and I'm sure there are many more from all other areas of the UK of the bias shown towards London.

That does not take into account Crossrail and the M1. The hockey is to be held at Milton Keynes. Would Crossrail have been given the go without the Olympics? Projects that were shelved and on a wish list were accelerated.

That does not take into account Crossrail and the M1. The hockey is to be held at Milton Keynes. Would Crossrail have been given the go without the Olympics? Projects that were shelved and on a wish list were accelerated.


Well that is even worse if that is true. :ohno:

A new tram line connecting some venues for the games and which was part of the bid is currently now not going ahead as there is no funding.

The planned reopening of a closed rail tunnel which would give a train line to the main arena and stadium has also been canceled.

In addition, Glasgow Crossrail has been on the drawing board since the late 1970's but has never been able to receive funding.

lol :|

Time TEam on Liverpool (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cmP55NWVaY)

It says, "the world's first truely global city"

Surely it costs less per capita to have adequate transport for Lincoln than London? A little town may only need one bus so hardly any cash per person but a huge city needs undergound, trains, etc. Though it could be conversely true because of the amount of people these big projects serve.

No, the amount of money spent on subsidising the tube - £4.5bn / year and the amount of money spent on subsidising buses - huge (cannot recolect the number) are nothing like comparable to the amount of money spent anywhere else in the country.

Then we get to capital infrastructure transport projects.

We have Jubilee line, DLR, Thameslink 2000, CrossRail, HS1..... all in London.

Name anything touching those ANYWHERE outside London, in the other THREE quaters of the country.

You cannot as they don't exist, the simple fact is practically ALL investment in infrastructure in the UK goes to London, as such it is no surprise whatsoever that London is an economic success whilst those places staved of investment REALLY struggle.

While I am not getting into which projects around the country are just as worthy of funding I will say that not all of the rest of teh 3/4 of the country doesn't need big infrastructure like that. Only say the Birmingham region and Liverpool/Manchester/Leeds and possibly Scotlands central belt (but not really apart from maybe the Glasgow airport link) need big infrastructure. And of course HSR which serves those regions.

Well that is even worse if that is true. :ohno:

A new tram line connecting some venues for the games and which was part of the bid is currently now not going ahead as there is no funding.

The planned reopening of a closed rail tunnel which would give a train line to the main arena and stadium has also been canceled.

In addition, Glasgow Crossrail has been on the drawing board since the late 1970's but has never been able to receive funding.

Is that to make Glasgow into a more fuller metro?

Liverpool has about 5 miles of tunnels under the city and all waiting for recommissioning into the underground rail netowork. No inquires, no large compulsory purchase orders, just lay the rails and cut out some stations. Metro rail creates economic growth. I found this. Interesting:
Merseyrail extension (http://tinyurl.com/mllyjr)

Rapid transit rail needs to be run into all this. There was talk of tram-trains using the tunnels and running into the dock complexes. If it was London it would have been done 25 years ago.
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/7925/albertdock1.jpg

Compare Montreal - and what it has to offer in terms of commerce, industry, retail, culture, education, etc with similar sized UK cities such as Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow, and it is difficult to believe that they are similar in size, yet they are not so disimilar. It should be kept in mind that Montreal is not the rich city it once was either, nor is it a political capital, though it does receive huge amounts of govt support. Similar could be said of comparing many British cities with their European equivilants.


This is quite true. One of the key deciders is how important a city is within it's region. When it is a clear regional capital, then it usually has more retail, commerce and infrastructure. To become such a regional capital it generally needs to be within a clear geographic seperation from other important cities. In almost all cases where large cities are located close to each other, they become diluted in many ways. This is certainly the case for many cities in northern England. It also helps when they are also a governing capital as well, such as for a state or provence.

We have Jubilee line, DLR, Thameslink 2000, CrossRail, HS1..... all in London.


Channel Tunnel Rail Link (£1.9bn), St Pancras (£800m), Heathrow Terminal 5 (£4.3b), Heathrow Terminal 2 rebuild (£1.5bn), East London line extensions (£1.5bn) ∞

While I am not getting into which projects around the country are just as worthy of funding I will say that not all of the rest of teh 3/4 of the country doesn't need big infrastructure like that. Only say the Birmingham region and Liverpool/Manchester/Leeds and possibly Scotlands central belt (but not really apart from maybe the Glasgow airport link) need big infrastructure. And of course HSR which serves those regions.

Liverpool has the second biggest metro system in the country and needs a station at John Lennon airport. Local Merseyrail, Liverpool-Manchester line and the London line are adjacent. The Manchester line (which brings in trains from North Wales) and the local Merseyrail need running into the aiport. It can also do freight at a planned feight terminal. A relatively cheap job to do. That infrastructure would make a hell of difference to Liverpool in economic growth. If it was London it would have been done 50 years ago.

No, the amount of money spent on subsidising the tube - £4.5bn / year and the amount of money spent on subsidising buses - huge (cannot recolect the number) are nothing like comparable to the amount of money spent anywhere else in the country.

Then we get to capital infrastructure transport projects.

We have Jubilee line, DLR, Thameslink 2000, CrossRail, HS1..... all in London.

Name anything touching those ANYWHERE outside London, in the other THREE quaters of the country.

You cannot as they don't exist, the simple fact is practically ALL investment in infrastructure in the UK goes to London, as such it is no surprise whatsoever that London is an economic success whilst those places staved of investment REALLY struggle.

It's a bit like the question, "which came first, the chicken or the egg". Did London's economy rise because the infrastructure was put in place, or was the infrastructure put in place because London's economy was large?

It is only natural that the largest (by far) and most important city (by far) would have the greatest infrastructure. I am not saying that the other major cities in the UK should not, I believe they should, but you can't blame London for this.

And is the national government really to blame? Many countries, including the one where I live, leave it to the cities to fund their own public transport services. As you may know, despite this, our cities in Germany tend to have pretty good PT infrastucture, despite on the whole being financed by the city proper government. If German cities can do it this way, why can't UK cities?

Ah yes and so, given the nature of public investment and the way it translates into private sector gain, we can expect the London metropolitan area to account for an increasing proportion of the UK's GDP in future years. When it accounts for perhaps 40 or 50% of the UK's GDP no doubt all the London lovies can continue to beat their chests and proclaim how great the capital is! Even though its growth will have been at the expense of lack of public investment in infrastructure and other areas in the regions, the corresponding lack of private sector gain with fewer jobs and lower wages which means that many bright and ambitious people will have to 'get on their bike' and head south where all the opportunities are. So the whole dispicable circle continues with wealth, talent and opportunity being sucked out of the rest of the country into the vortex of London.

Here in the UK we just love to have to be seen to be have the biggest and best don't we. The English Premier league for example (which ceased to be English quite some time ago) which has sucked the life out of the lower leagues and knackered the chances of up and coming young English players coming through the ranks. That might help explain Englands woeful world cup performance which had every football fan across the land tearing their hair out. Nevermind eh, we have the best, most expensive, most popular, most flash league in the world with all the best players here and everyone loves us. Its a pity our national team is so wank but all will be forgotten when the premier league gets up and running again and we can all be reminded how good we are.

Or what about the city and Gordon Brown proclaiming in Lehman's new headquarters in Canary Wharf barely 4 years ago that we had entered a golden age of world banking? Shame the rest of the country and every other industry or province that had been overlooked in favour of the new 'masters of the universe' had to bail out the wankers with hundreds of billions of taxpayers pounds. Let's not learn from these terrible mistakes though and continue to feather the nest of the capital whilst forgetting that a country of 50 million people exists outside it. Just as the premier league has knackered the leagues below it and the the precious bankers fucked everyone and every other industry in the country over too. But at least we can say we have the best football league, the best financial sector and one of the best and biggest world cities. It makes me so proud to be British.

That is an uncharacteristically accusative post from you larven. Where did I wax lyrical about london's size? Where did I say the past trends should be continued? I just had had an issue with the isinuation that London was somehow a 'hanger on'.

While I am not getting into which projects around the country are just as worthy of funding I will say that not all of the rest of teh 3/4 of the country doesn't need big infrastructure like that. Only say the Birmingham region and Liverpool/Manchester/Leeds and possibly Scotlands central belt (but not really apart from maybe the Glasgow airport link) need big infrastructure. And of course HSR which serves those regions.

Hull has been trying to get funding for a main road from the eastern docks to go in a tunnel for 40 years. It is at bursting point and cuts the city centre off from the waterfront. We are talking about a constituent port in the Hull and Humber ports complex which handles 16% of ALL imports into the country, and is the fourth biggest in northern Europe. It is literally a half mile stretch of road and is the only point on the E20 trading route from St Petersburg to Limerick that freight comes to a standstill - at two sets of traffic lights!

It's a bit like the question, "which came first, the chicken or the egg". Did London's economy rise because the infrastructure was put in place, or was the infrastructure put in place because London's economy was large?


The former. The infrastructure drew companies into London. Not only local trasnport infrastrctutre, inter-city to get peopel from all majopr cities into London, while between themselves fast rail is none existant in most cases. Then there is the roads, schools, unis, ect.


It is only natural that the largest (by far) and most important city (by far) would have the greatest infrastructure. I am not saying that the other major cities in the UK should not, I believe they should, but you can't blame London for this.


In the early 1950s Liverpool, Manchester and some of the towns between were collectively richer than London with a smaller population. Today they can't sniff at London.


And is the national government really to blame?


Yes, all of them.


Many countries, including the one where I live, leave it to the cities to fund their own public transport services. As you may know, despite this, our cities in Germany tend to have pretty good PT infrastucture, despite on the whole being financed by the city proper government. If German cities can do it this way, why can't UK cities?

Germany has a better system and also a federal republic which really helps.

Another Elephant in the room:

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Move-south-it39s-too-grim.4383786.jp

Contradicts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_weighting

So should private sector workers move to the golden goose capital and give up on trying to drive economic wealth in their own cities? or should public sector workers move out of overpriced, overheated south east to reduce the burden on the rest of the country of another unnecessary expense?

Policy Exchange.

The former. The infrastructure drew companies into London. Not only local trasnport infrastrctutre, inter-city to get peopel from all majopr cities into London, while between themselves fast rail is none existant in most cases. Then there is the roads, schools, unis, ect.

I'd say it was a bit of both. London was already a large city then, and the question can also be asked, why did other cities in those days not build their own underground systems?


In the early 1950s Liverpool, Manchester and some of the towns between were collectively richer than London with a smaller population. Today they can't sniff at London.

I don't know UK history terribly well, but from what I remember, most of those cities were industrial towns. As the industry dried out, unlike other cities around the world in similar circumstances, they didn't seem to adapt quick enough to the new service and financial economies. And it is not surprising that many international businesses didn't choose them as bases. Right up until the 90's many of these cities were still rather grim places. This has certainly changed in recent years, and I am sure that in the years to follow more businesses will move into these regional centers.
Germany has a better system and also a federal republic which really helps.
By Germany having a better system, are you referring to my point that the cities themselves fund their own public transport? If so, then why don't UK cities revert to this system?

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (£1.9bn), St Pancras (£800m), Heathrow Terminal 5 (£4.3b), Heathrow Terminal 2 rebuild (£1.5bn), East London line extensions (£1.5bn) ∞

Why are you including privately funded projects?

Is that to make Glasgow into a more fuller metro?

Liverpool has about 5 miles of tunnels under the city and all waiting for recommissioning into the underground rail netowork. No inquires, no large compulsory purchase orders, just lay the rails and cut out some stations. Metro rail creates economic growth. I found this. Interesting:
Merseyrail extension (http://tinyurl.com/mllyjr)

Rapid transit rail needs to be run into all this. There was talk of tram-trains using the tunnels and running into the dock complexes. If it was London it would have been done 25 years ago.


Yeah, much the same as Glasgow, there are many miles of disused underground rail lines which could be incorporated into the subway/suburban railway.

One of the proposals was to open up an old tunnel under London Road from Bridgeton and build a new station at Celtic Park. This would provide a low-level rail connection from Celtic Park, which is hosting the opening ceremony, to the SECC, arena and auditorium which is hosting events. It would support the transport for the games after would be used by fans traveling to the football.

The Crossrail scheme would cost £120m using closed lines/bridges (which are still there) and connect amongst others Ayrshire to the East and North without stopping at central station and walking to Queen street station and provide a link with the subway.

http://i31.tinypic.com/n5ne9s.jpg

By Germany having a better system, are you referring to my point that the cities themselves fund their own public transport? If so, then why don't UK cities revert to this system?


If it was that simple we'd have done it already :cry:

If it was that simple we'd have done it already :cry:

Then again, maybe the politicians in these cities just don't even try. Maybe they believe it's the job of the central government to pay for these services. Since it isn't coming, maybe they should change and start paying for it themselves.

If you want something done properly, you have to do it yourself.

That is an uncharacteristically accusative post from you larven. Where did I wax lyrical about london's size? Where did I say the past trends should be continued? I just had had an issue with the isinuation that London was somehow a 'hanger on'.

It wasn't meant to be accusative at you but picking up on a lot of other issues that have been raised in this thread. I guess I picked up on what you said first which may have given the impression I was just accusing you. If I gave that impression then it was unintended and I apologise.

http://i31.tinypic.com/n5ne9s.jpg

Interesting. Can you explain what is what on the map. What is tunnel, used, disused, mainline, urban, etc? The subway is a circle with the trains very small, so only interchanges can be had at any of its stations.

I don't think it's that fair to include the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and Heathrow Terminal 5 as just 'London' projects.

At the very least, they benefit the whole of the Southeast, in terms of jobs and transport (especially Kent with the former) but really they're for the whole of the UK.

Certainly T5 makes it much more pleasant for BA passengers from across the UK to connect to other BA flights, it was shite before. And the CTRL has plenty of connections, if people are willing to change trains at Euston/St P/Kings X, then they can receive the benefits.

Hopefully direct trains will be possible with HS2, but this has to be the first step.

And plenty of the Olympic events are happening outside of London, and will attract many thousands of tourists, all paying 20% VAT on lots of goods and services, buying booze/fags, paying airport taxes etc.... the funds from which will be going straight into the national coffers, as well as benefitting local businesses too.

Then again, maybe the politicians in these cities just don't even try. Maybe they believe it's the job of the central government to pay for these services. Since it isn't coming, maybe they should change and start paying for it themselves.

If you want something done properly, you have to do it yourself.

This makes no sense. As has already been explained, UK cities are not like German cities with their own budgets and powerful mayor.

If it was London it would have been done 50 years ago.

Thats why I chose to base myself in London rather than my nearest 'home city' of Bristol. If you cant beat them, join them.

And beleive me, you cant beat them. All these arguments about why London has become what it is, fairly or otherwise, are wholly irrelevant. It has now reached such a point of critical mass where we neglect it at our peril.

With the greatest of respect Octoman, that is a gigantic load of bollocks.

As I've stated earlier, the 'can't beat 'em, join 'em!' argument could equally apply to the millions of workers in London who benefit from London weighting, if London weighting had never existed.

Anyway, there are clear, set objectives to aim for in achieving a fairer distribution, but they won't be achieved if everybody ups sticks and moves to the already massively congested and overheating south east. It is a nonsensical suggestion, based around the most risible types of snobbery, greed and ignorance (Im talking about the likes of Policy Exchange, not you!)

Thats why I chose to base myself in London rather than my nearest 'home city' of Bristol. If you cant beat them, join them.


That is a defeatist attitude. The over reliance of London is just not good for the UK.

That is a defeatist attitude. The over reliance of London is just not good for the UK.

Do something about it then. Don't moan. Start up an independent business, employ people, pay them decent wages, improve your city's economy...

How many of your city's sons are doing this?

And beleive me, you cant beat them. All these arguments about why London has become what it is, fairly or otherwise, are wholly irrelevant. It has now reached such a point of critical mass where we neglect it at our peril.

I don't think the issue is neglecting the capital, it's more about the regions getting a fairer slice of the pie. If we were to follow that logic then surely London would eventually become some super huge megacity containing an increasing share of the UK population within its realm with all the additional pressures to would bring to bear?

I dont think its defeatest, bollocks or whatever.

London is on such a scale that there is nothing that even comes vaguely close in the UK. Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Brimingham and so on are fine cities with their own qualities but they have a way lower level of activity and are quite frankly on massively smaller scale. Its not necessarily a bad thing and I wouldnt want to get drawn into bigger is better discussion because in all honesty if I could make a living in Norwich I would be there tomorrow. But just being in and around London for any period of time you get a real sense of the vast amount of activity taking place and the incredible scale of it - not just London but the interconnectedness throughout the Southeast.

I really cannot see how we can unpick that and spread it around the country without serious hardship.

A starting point might be to abandon the daft idea of putting another quarter of a million homes in the Thames Gateway. Despite all the talk of over investment in London's transport, anyone who knows the place well will also know that the transport network is only just coping. If we cant improve it then it seems stupid to add another half a million people to the local population.

So perhaps new homebuilding should be targeted at the regional cities other than London. And perhaps immigration should be directed away from the Southeast too. I note that the government is planning tax incentives for copanies to locate outside London so its a start.

Either way this isnt a quick situation to fix, with or without HSR and like I said before there is a distinct possibility that London has reached a point of such gravity that we may just have to live with the situation.

London is great. And its not sucking life out of Britain. Manchester has had loads of investment in the past 20 of so years and is getting a huge Metrolink extension.

The Glasgow crossrail example is a false one. I do believe the Scottish government has powers over transport and also the ability to raise income tax.

Crossrail in London has been on the drawing boards in some form since the end of the 19th century. However, length of time on the drawing board is irrelevant, projects may only become worthwhile after a certain point of economic benefit.

Crossrail isn't £15 billion as some people are claiming, Londoners are paying the majority of the cost, both as income tax and council tax payers, the Mayor's office is borrowing money and the private sector including Heathrow, Canary Wharf and the City have all contributed money and businesses across the capital are paying higher business rates to cover the cost. So a tiny amount is being supplied by central government.

This is precisely the kind of innovative funding structures that other cities should be following. The problem as I see it, is competing and squabbling councillors and an attitude of waiting for central government first. If you are a local councillor or leader of a council, would you A) put up Council Tax, ask government to put up local business rates and borrow money with the opposition ready to go after you in election time or B) wait for central government to give you the cash and if they don't blame 'London'?

It's a no brainer really. Until there are proper city wide mayor's and authorities with similar if not improved powers that the Mayor of London has this attitude won't change. But again, as the experience in London showed even this was fought tooth and nail by local authorities as councillors were not turkey's. And today we had the takeover of City Hall by former Tory council leaders intent on 'devolving' powers back down to council level. I can see that much as Bromley in London is the awkward squad, Trafford ain't going to want to be told by a Greater Manchester Mayor in Salford Quays how to run it's development, refuse, transport, housing policies.

The transport system is only just coping in the North too yet while Crossrail, Thameslink, the East London Line etc get built, the North gets nothing to improve links between its major cities. It will be interesting to see if any investment comes our way once the London projects are built out or whether the links between the rest of the cities in the UK will continue to be overlooked in favour of yet more London projects like the London Orbital Rail, Crossrail Part 2 and so on.

Crossrail isn't £15 billion as some people are claiming, Londoners are paying the majority of the cost, both as income tax and council tax payers, the Mayor's office is borrowing money and the private sector including Heathrow, Canary Wharf and the City have all contributed money and businesses across the capital are paying higher business rates to cover the cost. So a tiny amount is being supplied by central government.

I see but were Londoners asked to vote in a referendum over whether they wanted their taxes to rise to pay for Crossrail or not? Thats what happened in Manchester with the conjestion charge and as usual, if you ask people to vote to pay more they are probably going to say no, look to the California example for instance. Decisions like this are too important to be left to Joe Bloggs to decide, most of whom probably wouldn't have the first clue or be too self interested to care about what benefits long term infrastructure benefits could bring to their city or region.

Do something about it then. Don't moan. Start up an independent business, employ people, pay them decent wages, improve your city's economy...

How many of your city's sons are doing this?

Come over to the Hull subforum and speak to the likes of Steve Plater, a local entrepreneur in the former wholesale fruit market district who has used one of the old units to open a local attraction amongst a sea of derelict, but characterful old warehouses, or speak to the guys behind these similar projects in that particular part of the city:

http://www.fruitspace.co.uk/theatre/something_hidden.html

http://www.museumofclubculture.com/

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/hull-daily-mail/mi_8073/is_20100617/fruit-market-lease-life-arts/ai_n54099524/

I'm sure that if you do speak to any of them, they will all say exactly the same thing - that they have achieved what they have in spite of many obstacles, and thanks to a far higher than average personal financial outlay and far less public funding to get a cultural attraction up and running . For a start, the fruit market district is seperated from the rest of the city centre by the very same docks road I mentioned earlier - the one that has been at the centre of applications to go into a cut and cover tunnel for 40 years, and stymies footfall along the waterfront. The area has received little to no funding and the regeneration company meant to be promoting the area has been dissolved in the recent cuts.

The idea that people outside of London get what they deserve due to a lack of will and laziness is wrongheaded. In fact it is shameful. These types of arts projects would have been funded, up and running in seconds if they were in London, as would the A63 cut and cover.

This is because of central government 'rules' they only fund one big project at a time. Next on the list is HSR to Birmingham.

But there were also plans for the electrification of the transpennine route and GWR, both unlikely to happen now.

Remember the WCML just had an 18 billion upgrade which was the previous 'big' project to crossrail.

And again the East London Line was funded by TfL and borrowing by the Mayor's office.

You can't really have a pop at Thameslink which is a Network Rail project to refurbish stations and some track and signalling improvements, when those type of works have occurred all over the country, think of Manchester Piccadilly, the eventual Birmingham New Street, most stations have been upgraded in some way.

Some posters have included all sorts of projects as 'London getting this and that' when they haven't bothered to find out how they've been financed, some are entirely privately financed, some PFI, some through the Mayor's office, someone even complained about the new project by P&O for a new port on the Thames estuary.

No one is doubting that there are real needs right across the country but these threads get full up of people who basically spite London and it becomes a pointless discussion. It's a perennial thread on SSC.

This makes no sense. As has already been explained, UK cities are not like German cities with their own budgets and powerful mayor.

I think his obvious point was that we should do them save. Instead of moaning about London being so fabulous you do something fabulous yourself.

The transport system is only just coping in the North too yet while Crossrail, Thameslink, the East London Line etc get built, the North gets nothing to improve links between its major cities. It will be interesting to see if any investment comes our way once the London projects are built out or whether the links between the rest of the cities in the UK will continue to be overlooked in favour of yet more London projects like the London Orbital Rail, Crossrail Part 2 and so on.



I see but were Londoners asked to vote in a referendum over whether they wanted their taxes to rise to pay for Crossrail or not? Thats what happened in Manchester with the conjestion charge and as usual, if you ask people to vote to pay more they are probably going to say no, look to the California example for instance. Decisions like this are too important to be left to Joe Bloggs to decide, most of whom probably wouldn't have the first clue or be too self interested to care about what benefits long term infrastructure benefits could bring to their city or region.

Orbirail is more about allowing freight trains from the rest of the country to get to Europe easier, it's less about London. Currently, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to run freight trains from Manchester through to the Channel and beyond.

But you should put the blame on local councillors in Manchester or Edinburgh for the failure of leadership not London, Londoners, or central government. A lack of clear leadership at city-wide level allowed jumped up councillors representing tiny districts of the entire conurbation to block the plan by demanding a vote, they knew full well it would be probably be rejected. By having a mayor, Ken was able to push through schemes like the congestion charge which was highly controversial.

Manchester's councils could have years ago gone to central government and asked them for a Mayor. But they are more concerned with preserving their own fiefdoms.

I think his obvious point was that we should do them save. Instead of moaning about London being so fabulous you do something fabulous yourself.

These things need to be enabled first through fair and relatively modest public investments, just like the infrastructure costs to make Docklands viable in the 80's, otherwise the personal capital outlay and risk is too great. See my previous post for a couple of examples.

We've seen examples of the knock on effects and improvements to cities, and the response of the private sector with the likes of capital of culture, commonwealth games, metrolink etc. so this should provide the basis to repeat and increase the spread of wealth, but it doesn't go anywhere near far enough, and they remain tokenistic, with the vast, vast majority of infrastructure improvement funding staying where it is.

Devolving power in London from a centralised mayor to borough level is a good thing IMO. I can see that large pan London transport planning needs to be centralised but a central body certainly shouldnt be able to dictate housing policy to the borough of Richmond for example.

This raises an intersting point though. Reading the posts form non london residents there seems to be a perception that London is a unified city where everybody is equally satisfied with the new transport provision. In fact it is the opposite. Exactly the sort of frustration that you see between regional cities when one seemingly gets more than the other can be seen between parts of London. Only recently we have East London complaining about Boris scrapping a bridge and south londoners complaining that yet again Crossrail misses them out entirely and only serves North of the River. If you live in a part of London overlooked by public transport all these so called goodies that London gets are worthless. In that regard a resident of Thamesmead probably has just as much to gripe about on the transport front as a resident of Liverpool.

Come over to the Hull subforum and speak to the likes of Steve Plater, a local entrepreneur in the former wholesale fruit market district who has used one of the old units to open a local attraction amongst a sea of derelict, but characterful old warehouses, or speak to the guys behind these similar projects in that particular part of the city:

http://www.fruitspace.co.uk/theatre/something_hidden.html

http://www.museumofclubculture.com/

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/hull-daily-mail/mi_8073/is_20100617/fruit-market-lease-life-arts/ai_n54099524/

I'm sure that if you do speak to any of them, they will all say exactly the same thing - that they have achieved what they have in spite of many obstacles, and thanks to a far higher than average personal financial outlay and far less public funding to get a cultural attraction up and running . For a start, the fruit market district is seperated from the rest of the city centre by the very same docks road I mentioned earlier - the one that has been at the centre of applications to go into a cut and cover tunnel for 40 years, and stymies footfall along the waterfront. The area has received little to no funding and the regeneration company meant to be promoting the area has been dissolved in the recent cuts.

The idea that people outside of London get what they deserve due to a lack of will and laziness is wrongheaded. In fact it is shameful. These types of arts projects would have been funded, up and running in seconds if they were in London, as would the A63 cut and cover.

Its not about businesses though is it. Is this arguement about work ethic? Of course it isnt, its about urbanity and what form it should take.

London has proved the value of critical mass and density, it has proved this over centuries. It is its critcal mass that has helped it through the sorry 20th Century and the flawed suburbia/modernist ideas of urbanity followed by the car econonmy 1960s onwards. Other UK cities had their golden era when they too reached a critical mass.

Other cities around the UK have been haemorraging the population for decades. This is the 'laziness', the British population is lazy in terms of urbanity, we want sprawl and inefficient personal transport with all the support mechanisms for living lavishly spread out around us. We had to fill the urban swiss cheese with foreign immigrants!

The urban dismay in this country in the latter half of the 20th century was a collective decision by the UK population it was not a London conspiricy because London suffered too, only held abover the water by a vital critical mass.

Instead of moaning about London being so fabulous you do something fabulous yourself.

That completely misses the points being made. You can do something fabulous anywhere in the country but the point is there are inherent advantages to doing it in London. Should we all 'get on our bikes' and head south to further exacerbate the situation in London and the South-East? Should I move my business and all its employees south to pour more wealth into the London economy and weaken that of the region I am based in?

Devolving power in London from a centralised mayor to borough level is a good thing IMO. I can see that large pan London transport planning needs to be centralised but a central body certainly shouldnt be able to dictate housing policy to the borough of Richmond for example.

This raises an intersting point though. Reading the posts form non london residents there seems to be a perception that London is a unified city where everybody is equally satisfied with the new transport provision. In fact it is the opposite. Exactly the sort of frustration that you see between regional cities when one seemingly gets more than the other can be seen between parts of London. Only recently we have East London complaining about Boris scrapping a bridge and south londoners complaining that yet again Crossrail misses them out entirely and only serves North of the River. If you live in a part of London overlooked by public transport all these so called goodies that London gets are worthless. In that regard a resident of Thamesmead probably has just as much to gripe about on the transport front as a resident of Liverpool.

They are jealous of Londons critical mass. However the notion that critcal mass can be forcibably spread about (the 'new towns') to achieve the same success has proved to be wrong so most of the solutions on here are ill-conceived.

Your notion about the problems of an over-seeing body are merely ideological. If an over-seeing body understands a particular locality then there is no problem. The concept of 'London' is far more real than the boundary of a local borough.

Indeed people don't identify themselves as a Islingtonian or a Croydoner, if anything having a single person responsible for city wide issues is more democratic than a gaggle of councillors who no one can identify.

Orbirail is more about allowing freight trains from the rest of the country to get to Europe easier, it's less about London. Currently, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to run freight trains from Manchester through to the Channel and beyond.

Lol...I made up the Orbitrail as some fantasy London rail line that would follow the M25. I wasn't aware ther was an actual Orbirail project dedicated to freight between us and the continent, cheers for the info.

But you should put the blame on local councillors in Manchester or Edinburgh for the failure of leadership not London, Londoners, or central government. A lack of clear leadership at city-wide level allowed jumped up councillors representing tiny districts of the entire conurbation to block the plan by demanding a vote, they knew full well it would be probably be rejected. By having a mayor, Ken was able to push through schemes like the congestion charge which was highly controversial.

Manchester's councils could have years ago gone to central government and asked them for a Mayor. But they are more concerned with preserving their own fiefdoms.

Completely agree about the lack of local leadership, the small minded parochialism of some city councils drives me mad sometimes. We need strong leadership of our regiaonal cities to force these things through, not rely on half baked referendums to decide whether massively important projects get built or not.

They are jealous of Londons critical mass.

Oh please. Many of the arguments here centre on better infrastructure and the capacity it brings to develop and create wealth. I'm not jealous of Londons critical mass in the slightest, I'd just like better links between a number of cities in the North that together contain a population larger than London's.

^ well people in the regions are complaining in the Lib Dem/Coalition thread that the government is to introduce city region mayors and then hold a referendum post-introduction.

You might want to get in the thread to voice your support.

PS, in the interests of total clarity, orbirail in London is a proposed project, it has zero funding and is unlikely to happen.

That completely misses the points being made. You can do something fabulous anywhere in the country but the point is there are inherent advantages to doing it in London. Should we all 'get on our bikes' and head south to further exacerbate the situation in London and the South-East? Should I move my business and all its employees south to pour more wealth into the London economy and weaken that of the region I am based in?

I have no idea, that is up to the business surely? Is it local, is it national, is it global? The fact we have such a choice in the UK should be celebrated surely? One of the reasons why the US has traditionally been so successful compared to Europe even with a similar population size is because the population is free to move to where the employment is ie where the inspiration appears. Economic inspiration isnt something that can just be turned on or even predicted but you certainly should try to make the most of it when it does!

The other point worth discussing which has not been mentioned is urban history. A large number of the larger UK cities were a result of the economic inspriation of the industrial revolution, the moment was fairly brief but was it long enough to create something more? Do we let such places naturally whither or do we actively seek to intervene? The world is full of such urban places that have lost current meaning but have had historical moments, worse off still are those brief urban places that never saw anything more than a utiltarian use, we see this particulaly in the old Communist countries.

Europe with a large number of 'capital' cities and historically powerful cities ie medieval captial merchant cities seem to have whethered changing global economics with far more success. Europe should do everything to keep these successful cities burning bright.

Oh please. Many of the arguments here centre on better infrastructure and the capacity it brings to develop and create wealth. I'm not jealous of Londons critical mass in the slightest, I'd just like better links between a number of cities in the North that together contain a population larger than London's.

Of course, better transport links. But I really have no idea why this keeps coming down to this idea about London having all the transport! UK transport is not a London issue it is a national one.

Since when have the UK population put transport down as a election priority? Never! This is where the idea of laziness comes from. Peope like the status quo of failed past transport policies and are incabable of thinking outside of that.

We had the huge investment in the car for last 50 years. This was national not London centric.

London because of its critical mass has had to invest in mass transport. It led the world in mass transport. Transport in London is not pro-active it is reactive like everywhere else in the country, it is not treated differently. However because of its economic importance the patient is treated first because limited resources are always prioritised!

These are the critical points missed in these stupid debates. The focus should be on the public and how they see the urban environment and where investment should lie. We have already seen the pathetic result of the Manchester congestion charge as a sad indicment. Now lets see the future wailings on fuel tax and tax to spend on rail.

I dont think its defeatest, bollocks or whatever.

London is on such a scale that there is nothing that even comes vaguely close in the UK. Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Brimingham and so on are fine cities with their own qualities but they have a way lower level of activity and are quite frankly on massively smaller scale. Its not necessarily a bad thing and I wouldnt want to get drawn into bigger is better discussion because in all honesty if I could make a living in Norwich I would be there tomorrow. But just being in and around London for any period of time you get a real sense of the vast amount of activity taking place and the incredible scale of it - not just London but the interconnectedness throughout the Southeast.

I really cannot see how we can unpick that and spread it around the country without serious hardship.

A starting point might be to abandon the daft idea of putting another quarter of a million homes in the Thames Gateway. Despite all the talk of over investment in London's transport, anyone who knows the place well will also know that the transport network is only just coping. If we cant improve it then it seems stupid to add another half a million people to the local population.

So perhaps new homebuilding should be targeted at the regional cities other than London. And perhaps immigration should be directed away from the Southeast too. I note that the government is planning tax incentives for copanies to locate outside London so its a start.

Either way this isnt a quick situation to fix, with or without HSR and like I said before there is a distinct possibility that London has reached a point of such gravity that we may just have to live with the situation.

Good point re: the Thames Gateway. I think it would be an awful place to live and the cheap new-builds will become tomorrow's ghettos.

Milton Keynes and Ashford are much better, and I agree development and new housing should be spread out.

In certain Northern cities, like Salford and Stoke, there are streets and streets of perfectly good terraced housing stock which are either abandoned or without value. The government should put its efforts into cleaning up these areas and restoring these properties, rather than building new. We have these great assets, and they should be utilised.

But you have to deal with why they became unwanted, and why are these places down at heel? Is it a lack of jobs? A hostile and ugly urban environment? No civic pride? No transport links?

Once these are addressed, the housing issue can be. And I do agree some local political changes need to be made - mayors, borough councils converging/consolidating and revenue generating powers given.

They are jealous of Londons critical mass. However the notion that critcal mass can be forcibably spread about (the 'new towns') to achieve the same success has proved to be wrong


What proof do you have of this?

In certain Northern cities, like Salford and Stoke, there are streets and streets of perfectly good terraced housing stock which are either abandoned or without value. The government should put its efforts into cleaning up these areas and restoring these properties, rather than building new. We have these great assets, and they should be utilised.

But you have to deal with why they became unwanted, and why are these places down at heel?

Those houses are abandoned as people are more wealthy and have moved on. You are right the governmnet should pull them down.

What proof do you have of this?

Hemel Hempstead

Of course, better transport links. But I really have no idea why this keeps coming down to this idea about London having all the transport! UK transport is not a London issue it is a national one.

London because of its critical mass has had to invest in mass transport. It led the world in mass transport. Transport in London is not pro-active it is reactive like everywhere else in the country, it is not treated differently. However because of its economic importance the patient is treated first because limited resources are always prioritised!

UK transport very much becomes a London issue when, as you've pointed out, London always gets treated first. I'm interested in greater rail capacity and reduced journey times which will do a great deal to further integrate the UK. This would not only help relieve the pressure on the South East but greatly enhance the capability of the rest of the country to create wealth, jobs and enterprise above what they do currently. I agree with your point about transport never being a major election issue, in spite of the huge benefits it brings, and investment in the car has been the dominant prioroty for transport policy in the last 50 years. However demand for rail travel is increasing massively all the time, in the North too where there are real issues with conjestion, journey times and the poor quality of much of the rolling stock.

These are the critical points missed in these stupid debates. The focus should be on the public and how they see the urban environment and where investment should lie. We have already seen the pathetic result of the Manchester congestion charge as a sad indicment. Now lets see the future wailings on fuel tax and tax to spend on rail.

Why focus on what the general public thinks about transport anymore than we should about what they thought about the cancelled Chelsea Barracks project? Leave it to professional people trained in such matters and those elected to office to decide what is best for the long term interests of the country.

This is precisely the kind of innovative funding structures that other cities should be following. The problem as I see it, is competing and squabbling councillors and an attitude of waiting for central government first. If you are a local councillor or leader of a council, would you A) put up Council Tax, ask government to put up local business rates and borrow money with the opposition ready to go after you in election time or B) wait for central government to give you the cash and if they don't blame 'London'?


already happening in Manchester, although they had to jump through hoops to be allowed to do it including almost impose a congestion charge.

Phase 3 Big Bang revival, May 2009
At a meeting of AGMA (the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities), 12 May 2009, cross-party agreement was reached between representatives of all ten Greater Manchester authorities for an increase in Council Tax to cover a number of transport improvements. The list of 10 schemes costing £1.4 billion includes some road and bus improvements but crucially for Metrolink fills the gap in funding left by the shortfall of the "3a" scheme.

The money is to be found by a combination of an increase in council tax (by approx £2 per year per council tax payer), contributions from Manchester Airport, increased revenue from passenger journeys and the early release of some central government money, previously earmarked for transport improvements in the conurbation. The revived project was presented by the leader of Manchester City Council Sir Richard Leese as "a new plan" which had been drawn up after the failure of the Transport Innovation Fund referendum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Metrolink

As for London sucking the life out the the country, yes and no. If other cities where allowed to do their own thing more - ie not having to go to westminister everytime they wanted their schemes approved or paid for then there would be no resentment.

As for London attracting all our talented young people, well it did that to me as well :) I'll be upping sticks from 'oooppp north' to our glorious capital, 'dawwn sarff' when my six year spell at architecture school ends next may.

Of course, better transport links. But I really have no idea why this keeps coming down to this idea about London having all the transport!

You should go north of Waford then. Birmingham is a large city without rapid-transit transport. Manchester (trams are not r-t), Leeds, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Hull, Bristol, etc have none either. Liverpool has Merseyrail which is the second largest urban railway, yet it is tiny to London's. Liverpool and Glasgow need about £150 million each to expand their rail rapid-transit systems using existing disused tunnels, which will make a big difference and create economic grwoth - no money is given. They want minimal economic growth outsiode London. They want the power at the centre.

The difference from London the rest is so marked it raises big concerns. When peopel do go to London, they are thenn in the hands of the land and property sharks who exploit leasehold to the full. You can have half a lifetime in London and walk away when retired with little of assets. At the end of the day it is better to stay where you are and own a house and its land, as you will ultimately be better off.

Hemel Hempstead

A sleeper town for London.

With the greatest of respect Octoman, that is a gigantic load of bollocks.

As I've stated earlier, the 'can't beat 'em, join 'em!' argument could equally apply to the millions of workers in London who benefit from London weighting, if London weighting had never existed.

Anyway, there are clear, set objectives to aim for in achieving a fairer distribution, but they won't be achieved if everybody ups sticks and moves to the already massively congested and overheating south east. It is a nonsensical suggestion, based around the most risible types of snobbery, greed and ignorance (Im talking about the likes of Policy Exchange, not you!)

London weighting?! Its not a conspiricy! You are like something from the 1920s; this idea of an invincible British Empire taking wealth from the world at ease and pumping it into pivotal cities. You`ll be moaning next about Victorians investing in Bombay instead of Sheffield, it is all irrelevant now! It is 2010 and there is real competition out there! Population size and density is about to steam roll most European cities. London is one of the few viable candidates to play medium-term keep up. A long term strategy of linking instantly all critical urban areas in the UK is a possibility but will require a huge change in national psyche in terms of attitudes toward mass transit some that appears to be out-of-reach from past evidence. But one thing for sure is that the fire needs to be kept burning in London.

This idea that the South East is congested is utterly laughable. Sure it is congested compared to most other UK urban areas but is that really a suprise? You want to fight the Asian tigers with Bristol? The South East is congested also because of poor infrastructure. Look at Tokyo for an example of what can be done, or any Chinese city of note in the next 10 years or maybe somewhere like Mumbai in 30 years of what can be achieved. What about the Emirates in the middle east? What if they attract millions upon millions of migrants from Asia and Africa? There is a disctinct unstoppable desire in these places for urban revolution and to invest. The South East needs the population mass which is barely truely urban in most of it. The last thing we need is to spread populations forcibly in a bizarre notion of fairness because the British Empire no longer exists. It failed last time round in the 60s and 70s and we only just got out of that one only because the global competition was so weak.

You should north of Waford then. Birmingham is a large city without rapid transit transport. Manchester (trams are not r-t), Leeds, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Hull, Bristol, etc have none either. Liverpool has Merseyrail which is the second largest urban railway, yet it is tiny to London's. Liverpool and Glasgow need about £150 million each to expand their rail rapid-transit systems using existing tunnels, which will make a bigb difference and create economic grwoth - no money is given. They want minimal economic growth outsiode London. They want the power at the centre.

The difference from London the rest is so marked it raises big concerns. When peopel do go to London, they are thenn in the hands of the land and property sharks who exploit leasehold to the full. You can have half a lifetime in London and walk away when retired with little of assets. At the end of the day it is better to stay where you are and own a house and its land, as you will ultimately be better off.

There is enough money and skills in the UK to build all the infrastructure we desire. However the UK POPULATION is greedy. We invest the bare minimum because it is a low priority and the population is happy living in sprawl even though it is an economic dead end. You sit there suprised that such a limited resource is actually invested in where it is needed most because that is where it is guaranteed to reap most return?

UK transport very much becomes a London issue when, as you've pointed out, London always gets treated first. I'm interested in greater rail capacity and reduced journey times which will do a great deal to further integrate the UK. This would not only help relieve the pressure on the South East but greatly enhance the capability of the rest of the country to create wealth, jobs and enterprise above what they do currently. I agree with your point about transport never being a major election issue, in spite of the huge benefits it brings, and investment in the car has been the dominant prioroty for transport policy in the last 50 years. However demand for rail travel is increasing massively all the time, in the North too where there are real issues with conjestion, journey times and the poor quality of much of the rolling stock.



Why focus on what the general public thinks about transport anymore than we should about what they thought about the cancelled Chelsea Barracks project? Leave it to professional people trained in such matters and those elected to office to decide what is best for the long term interests of the country.

Yes but National Government is sadly elected with little scope for local inginuity and then urban environments are shoe-horned into a the town and country planning act and transport department dictate. It would be more interesting to see the debate centred on these mishaps rather than a success like London.

I would be the first to vote for tax rises and congestion charging to invest in a country wide high speed rail network and light rail system to link all towns and villages in the UK. But I also can see we need crossrail and a London tram network for the benefit of the UK. However I dont believe with limited resources that a tram network should be built in some other town instead of crossrail just because it is 'fair'.

There is no time for 'fairness'.

I think you've already demonstrated how you want the UK to develop Potto. A huge megacity effectively covering the South East to compete with existing and emerging megapolises like Tokyo and Shanghai. Thing is if that happens what happens to the rest of the country?

How is population size and density about to steamroll most European cities? What about the Ruhr urban area which is multi-polar yet only behind Paris and London in terms of the largest European Union urban areas? We could have a similar set up in the North as I mentioned before with a huge urban area effectively following the spine of the M62. Why not invest in both London and the creation of a secondary economic counterweight instead of feeding an ever growing monster city?

What proof do you have of this?

because London consistently generates emergent properties created by a critical mass/density.

No 'New' town has, and they have had 40 years. Even government departments were moved in the 70s, did somewhere like Swansea suddenly become a Berlin? Of course not. These places are dinasours, intersting but useless.

Those houses are abandoned as people are more wealthy and have moved on. You are right the governmnet should pull them down.

So you think these areas should be abandoned and obliterated, because the people have moved on and they're effectively dead?

Is thids not what some crackjob Tories were saying about how people should leave the dying north and move to Reading etc... ??

Please explain what you would see happen to the North's inner cities, in which unlike those great inner city areas of London, Bristol, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Brighton - the Victorian housing isn't appreciated and the areas aren't vibrant, full of professionals and upwardly mobile, but slums?

Is it the ugly red brick? The stone of Scotland and the Southwest is nicer than that of Lancs and Yorks perhaps? But Newcastle is splendid.

Or that they're more Victorian slum dwellings and railway/mill cottages, whereas the others are more Georgian and grand?

Do you advocate all these apartment blocks which are now sitting empty in northern cities instead? Or do you like uniform suburbia?

This idea that the South East is congested is utterly laughable. Sure it is congested compared to most other UK urban areas but is that really a suprise?

Contrary to popular belief, the UK has approximately only 7.5% of its land settled upon. The Urban plot of 4 million acres is only 6.6%. The UK actually has a surplus of land. Despite claims of concreting over the South East of England, only 7.1% is settled with the Home Counties being underpopulated. The North West of England is densest with 9.9% settled.

Look at the transport infrastructure to the North West and South East - the south east is far superior. The North West has approx 6.8 million, the South East 8.2 million.

There is enough money and skills in the UK to build all the infrastructure we desire. However the UK POPULATION is greedy.


You are right on the first point. The second is silly. Consumer Debt Is Mainly Mortgages - The media is full of tales of high consumer debt in the UK. Few state that 80% is actually mortgages, not debt for luxury goods; giving the impression the population of the UK are financially reckless and decadent. In short, the average person pays extortionate amounts for a tiny roof to keep themselves warm and dry.


We invest the bare minimum because it is a low priority and the population is happy living in sprawl even though it is an economic dead end.

Open countryside is in abundance. In persons per square kilometre the UK is about equal to Germany, yet Germany is not viewed as being small and short of land. The propaganda campaign has been so successful, you will find poor people in inner city sink estates agreeing that the countryside should not be built on; people who probably have never even stepped on a field.

Emotive terms have been formed and liberally used such as concreting over the countryside and urban sprawl. With only about 7.5% of the land settled, we can’t concrete over the countryside even if we wanted to. About two thirds of all new housing is built within existing urban areas with the remainder mainly built on the edge of urban areas. Very little is built on open countryside.

Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the other its expansion naturally tails off. In olden times this hour was on foot or on horseback, now it is in cars or on public transport. So we can’t “sprawl” too far either. In England the area of greenbelt has doubled since 1980, with nearly 21 million acres absorbed in total. The UK actually has greenbelt sprawl.

I think you've already demonstrated how you want the UK to develop Potto. A huge megacity effectively covering the South East to compete with existing and emerging megapolises like Tokyo and Shanghai. Thing is if that happens what happens to the rest of the country?

How is population size and density about to steamroll most European cities? What about the Ruhr urban area which is multi-polar yet only behind Paris and London in terms of the largest European Union urban areas? We could have a similar set up in the North as I mentioned before with a huge urban area effectively following the spine of the M62. Why not invest in both London and the creation of a secondary economic counterweight instead of feeding an ever growing monster city?

I dont envisage the whole of the UK and more forcibly pumped into the South East. What I am explaining to these ridiculous posters moaning about why their town doesnt have a tram is that the South East is not 'over-populated' by any imagination. There are such vast swathes of inefficient use of land and poor transport with guaranteed potential it would be madness not to go for it.

Sure link up urban areas in the UK, link up European urban centres, it looks like this is the way things are slowly being pushed (global competition) but the South East is our current global competitor and should be treated as such.

I believe that the sheer size of the inevitable populations in the rising cities paritcularly in the East, Far East and South America and once practical obstacles such as freedom of expression and health are overcome along with ther culural nuances are going to be forming immense emergent properites that will give every Western City a run for its money.

The West is basically living on past glories.

So you think these areas should be abandoned and obliterated, because the people have moved on and they're effectively dead?


Of course they are dead. They are not wanted. Unfit for purpose.


Please explain what you would see happen to the North's inner cities, in which unlike those great inner city areas of London, Bristol, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Brighton - the Victorian housing isn't appreciated and the areas aren't vibrant, full of professionals and upwardly mobile, but slums?


Some Northern inner-cities are bad because the housing was bad to begin with. They are inner cities because they do not have rapid-transit. In Liverpool and Glasgow Commuter Rail takes people from the outskirts and towns around into the centre by-passing the inner-cities as the residents watch them ride by in trains taking their jobs. Unlike London's inner-cities, they were disenfranchised - cut off, and no one invested.

So you think these areas should be abandoned and obliterated, because the people have moved on and they're effectively dead?

Is thids not what some crackjob Tories were saying about how people should leave the dying north and move to Reading etc... ??

Please explain what you would see happen to the North's inner cities, in which unlike those great inner city areas of London, Bristol, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Brighton - the Victorian housing isn't appreciated and the areas aren't vibrant, full of professionals and upwardly mobile, but slums?

Is it the ugly red brick? The stone of Scotland and the Southwest is nicer than that of Lancs and Yorks perhaps? But Newcastle is splendid.

Or that they're more Victorian slum dwellings and railway/mill cottages, whereas the others are more Georgian and grand?

Do you advocate all these apartment blocks which are now sitting empty in northern cities instead? Or do you like uniform suburbia?

I was more imagining a true shrinkage, ie a densification of the urban core to kick start a revival, ie more potential for emergent properties and a shrinking of the sprawl (however goodness knows how this could be managed in practice. Imagine trying to close down an executive estate :lol:)

I dont envisage the whole of the UK and more forcibly pumped into the South East. What I am explaining to these ridiculous posters moaning about why their town doesnt have a tram is that the South East is not 'over-populated' by any imagination. There are such vast swathes of inefficient use of land and poor transport with guaranteed potential it would be madness not to go for it.

Sure link up urban areas in the UK, link up European urban centres, it looks like this is the way things are slowly being pushed (global competition) but the South East is our current global competitor and should be treated as such.


If the south east were a separate country it would be the 20th largest economy in the world. It generates 15% of gross value added. Punching under is weight for its population. The region is parasite to London.

Fred Harrison:
"The formation of new businesses among people aged between 16 and 50 is highest in the South East. The rate for the North East is a third of what is achieved in the capital. Economists claim this is the consequence of people gravitating to the area with most profitable opportunities. But in the of rapid transportation, there is not good reason for this disparity in start-ups. The unequal distribution of opportunities is primarily due to the bias in taxation and public spending, not the defects in public transport systems or the superior talents of people starting their working lives in the South East."

"London and the South East receive a disproportionate share of the value enhancing investment in infrastructure, while the Northern regions rely disproportionately on body-and-soul spending which does not enhance the economy's productivity."

"It was not always like this. High culture can flourish in lands of relatively low productivity, providing the public policies are correctly framed.

There are no proposals for 'City Region mayors', just city mayors. Indeed, there are proposals for several mayors in certain city regions!

It's always a 'can't, can't, can't' attitude in the UK isn't it, apart from where London's concerned of course. Maybe we should all just move down there, admit defeat, turn it into this huge megacity. If I was going to go to the trouble of moving to an unfamiliar place though, I think I would do it properly and go somewhere worthwhile like the Netherlands, and indulge in my cycling nirvana.

I don't really buy some of this stuff about efficient use of land, fair enough a lot of it is sprawl, but the way some posters are carrying on it's as though the entire south-east should have skyscrapers built on it. Which brings us back to the megacity that sucks the whole UK into it, and it also brings us to Bert Coombes, who has been becoming ever more familiar looking since last night?

As the utter disasters of places like Basildon, Milton Keynes, Harlow, Hemel Hemstead and Stevenage have shown, a vibrant community consists of far more than just people and buildings. There is something else that cannot easily be picked up and moved. Its a quality that makes a place more than the sum of its parts. Its highly likely that trying to spread London around will reduce, rather than enhance the total prosperity of the country.

ever more familiar looking since last night?

I was thinking exactly that. Ding ding?

Your first paragraph can surely be just as easily applied to the idea coming from certain quarters that most of the country should just up-sticks to London, in the sense that places have certain qualities which you wouldn't want to just abandon simply to allow one city to retain economic dominance (unless the idea is that these places have qualities that are all bad of course).

It seems pretty clear that nobody is arguing for more new towns, or for London to be spread out, but for them to be allowed to develop their own economies using these qualities we mentioned. Instead all we seem to get is an argument that London is somehow entitled to national government funding but nowhere else is, as though the role of national government is to make quick 'returns on investment' rather than do the groundwork to allow the economies of other places to improve too. Or perhaps these ideas from certain people that because they felt compelled to move to London to make more money and sacrifice ties to their home ground to do so, everyone else should as well just to make a virtue of self sacrifice or some such.

Yes, ding ding indeed I'm afraid me duck.

I was more imagining a true shrinkage, ie a densification of the urban core to kick start a revival, ie more potential for emergent properties and a shrinking of the sprawl (however goodness knows how this could be managed in practice. Imagine trying to close down an executive estate :lol:)

Well this has been happening to some extent with the huge urban renaissance that has been taking place in many of our towns and cities off the back of the last building boom. Residential populations have significantly increased in the urban cores along with all the goods and services necessary to provide for them. Many city centres now have a real ‘night economy’ where perhaps 10-15 years ago they were dead, no go areas.

I guess when all the London infrastructure projects are completed they will encourage higher densities around the transportation nodes within the urban core. Surely this will help to enhance the London experience i.e. the unrivalled hustle and bustle of a huge city unlikely to be found elsewhere within the UK, whilst delivering more sustainable communities. London will have undergone a massive transformation by the time the Olympics are done and dusted and Crossrail is completed. I hope attention can then be turned to investing in better linkages throughout the UK such as electrifying key routes like the GWML, MML, TransPennine routes (including Manchester to Liverpool) and of course HS2.

Of course they are dead. They are not wanted. Unfit for purpose.



Some Northern inner-cities are bad because the housing was bad to begin with. They are inner cities because they do not have rapid-transit. In Liverpool and Glasgow Commuter Rail takes people from the outskirts and towns around into the centre by-passing the inner-cities as the residents watch them ride by in trains taking their jobs. Unlike London's inner-cities, they were disenfranchised - cut off, and no one invested.

Glasgow's West End is inner city, terraced, tenemented etc... and one of the most vibrant, interesting and progressive residential areas in the UK. Parts of the South Side are coming up as well.

Of course they are dead. They are not wanted. Unfit for purpose.

Some Northern inner-cities are bad because the housing was bad to begin with. They are inner cities because they do not have rapid-transit. In Liverpool and Glasgow Commuter Rail takes people from the outskirts and towns around into the centre by-passing the inner-cities as the residents watch them ride by in trains taking their jobs. Unlike London's inner-cities, they were disenfranchised - cut off, and no one invested.

Nonsense. Some of the inner city housing is among the best, most sustainable forms of housing we have and just about the most adaptable and flexible too.

Take a look at the following development to see how derelict inner city housing can be transformed into something very much wanted and fit for purpose, with a very positive assessment by CABE to boot.

Chimney Pot Park – Salford (http://www.cabe.org.uk/case-studies/chimney-pot-park)

Even if we were to raze it all the ground what do you propose to put in its place?

That's something I forgot to mention actually, a lot of areas of terraced houses are empty because the residents have all been thrown out for stalled 'housing market renewal' projects!

These are people from the North after the evil London government 'redeveloped' their homes. You can tell they are Northern because of the tracksuits.

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/57481860.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=45B0EB3381F7834D0BF964EA7DF2A47A86AA9937B093625010D45EB5EA1D40EC

Terrible stereotyping of Northerners :ohno:

Sheryl Cole is a northerner for example and she would 'get it'.

The picture isn't meant to be serious, but to highlight some of the hyperbole and exaggeration from some quarters in this thread.

Cheryl Tweedy lives in London.

I know, I was joking. I cant see the picture anyway.

Jimmy Nail is a northerner too.
And Piers Morgan.

it's a pity people missed my pertinent point. it works like this...

let's for the sake of it say that both lincoln and london have the same GDP of 20,000 per capita. lincoln then gets £80 per capita for transport spending, london gets £1,200, and the benefit cost ratio for both is 3.5.

london's gdp goes up to £21,200 and then there's a multiplier of 3.5 added to the £1,200 of spending giving it a GDP per capita of £23,600. lincoln is on £20,240. now say economic growth for the next year is 2.5% for both... london is now on £24,190 to lincoln's £20,746. the growth of london is massively compounded over years by the much, much higher transport spending and the benefits that the london economy gets for it. now, does anyone want to try and justify why london should have this benefit that the rest of the country doesn't have (apart from scotland which gets the barnett formula to top up its transport spending).

i wonder, has anyone here taken the higher cost of living in london compared to say lincoln, taken that into account to adjust for that differential, and then considered the effect that several decades of higher transport spending have had on GDP.

Cheryl Cole is a complete chav and does nothing for the Northern image - except for how thick tarts and nobodies are rewarded with great admiration and riches in this country.

it's a pity people missed my pertinent point. it works like this...

I hadn't missed your point. In fact I was reading in RAIL magazine lately that Lincoln is going to lose out on better connections to the ECML isn't it?

As you've said numerous times Lincoln and the surrounding area is one of the fastest growing regions ion the country population wise. Seems that no one really gives a stuff about servicing that demand though, in fact they clearly would rather scrap funing for any improvement and prioritise the London schemes as usual.


the growth of london is massively compounded over years by the much, much higher transport spending and the benefits that the london economy gets for it.

i wonder, has anyone here taken the higher cost of living in london compared to say lincoln, taken that into account to adjust for that differential, and then considered the effect that several decades of higher transport spending have had on GDP.

Exactly which is the point I was trying to make earlier. If you keep chucking money at London then the gap between it and the rest of the country is only going to continue to grow.

As you've said numerous times Lincoln and the surrounding area is one of the fastest growing regions ion the country population wise.

fastest growing areas are certain councils in lincolnshire and certain boroughs in london. one gets more spending as a result of the growing population with that population growth used to justify the spending, the other experiences cuts in services because it has growth and doesn't need the extra help! someone really should do a compare and contrast study between north kesteven and tower hamlets. the wikipedia page even points out that spending is so low (due to central government) that local parish councils levy additional taxes.

North Kesteven also has a relatively underdeveloped transport infrastructure. As a result, local communities have historically been self-reliant, with parish and town councils providing services, such as playing fields or play areas, which are frequently provided by district councils elsewhere.

the growth is almost exclusively around lincoln but due to the way the government has drawn the borders they have even got away with claiming it's a rural area. you could class aberdeen as a rural area if you tacked the grampians mountains on to it... but they don't do that. in doing this you then get to claim the urban area is smaller than it is, and that part of the urban area is in fact rural so doesn't need all that transport spending. the whole thing is a con.

http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=570&Itemid=110

In fact I was reading in RAIL magazine lately that Lincoln is going to lose out on better connections to the ECML isn't it?

i doubt this though. lincolnshire is now PURE blue... that's a lot of tory mps to piss off. it would make no sense anyway, they've spent 300 million quid upgrading the lines here to run those services and the new lincoln mp will be booted out of his seat come the next election if he can't secure that. incidentally, he was unable to make his maiden speech in the house of commons, fucked trains as usual.

the point can apply to anywhere, it could apply just as equally to barnsley. economic growth compounds, transport has a positive benefit cost ratio. the more you spend (up to a point) the greater the long-term economic growth.

I think they were downgrading the number of services to 2 per day, one in the morning and one in the evening. London to Lincoln in 3 hours on an East Coast HST.

that's what we already have! do you mean east midlands trains, or east coast mainline? east midlands runs one train a day to london, and one train a day from london. the idea is that the ECML will run half the services through lincoln instead of york.

the idea is that the ECML will run half the services through lincoln instead of york.

This is the one.

East Coast scraps plans for Lincoln-London direct services (http://www.publicsectortravel.org.uk/2010/06/18/east-coast-scraps-plans-for-lincoln-london-direct-services/)

well that's a tory mp out of a seat in the next election, and to think we donated a substantial sum of money to that fucker. he's going to get a letter informing him he's never getting another penny. i imagine a lot of others will be doing the exact same thing.

Four extra services will now operate between London King’s Cross and Newark as part of the new timetable.

that's newark, population 35,000, which has registered massive passenger growth thanks to all the traffic from lincoln to london. what i'm most confused about is that the ECML makes profit, both operating and absolute net after tax profit. how do government cut backs possibly affect a profit making (albeit temporarily nationalised) franchise, the most profitable one on the network? IT DOESN'T GET ANY SUBSIDY AND MAKES A NET CONTRIBUTION TO THE EXCHEQUER.

those services are also useless, and run almost at the same time as the east midlands trains ones so for example the east midlands train service leaves at 7.08, and then the east coast mainline one leaves at 7.22. the point of this is what?

now we have nice shiny relaid track, upgraded signaling and so on at the cost of £300 million. it's almost as bad as corby station which was built, and then had no trains as they didn't have any!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Lincoln_Station_from_bridge.jpg/800px-Lincoln_Station_from_bridge.jpg

I've no idea why they've shelved the extra services given the money spent to upgrade the track but it will be the government, as East Coast operator, overlooking your region again to save a paltry £9 million.

Help could be at hand though as Grand Central are apparently interested in taking on the extra services abandoned by East Coast.

EXCLUSIVE: Lincoln to London rail service could be saved by another train operator (http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/Lincoln-London-direct-rail-service-saved-train-operator/article-2344471-detail/article.html)

so they are saving £9 million in start up costs... whilst depriving the state owned franchise of rather a lot of extra revenue in the medium term. fucking morons. of course, the 300 million quid has already been spent and accounted for in 2006-2008... but it's now being wasted and the taxpayer will get almost no benefit! this is actually a brilliant example of complete and utter stupidity. who the fuck spends 300 million quid then doesn't complete it as they want to save less than 3% of the total outlay?

the BCR was estimated at about 3.5 to 1. they've fucked themselves out of £1,050 million of GDP growth over the next 30 years. assuming a govt tax take of 42% that's £441 million, or £14.7 million a year to save £9 million to be paid by profitable rail franchise, albeit state owned, having had network rail spend £300 million. all this means is the franchise makes a one-off profit of £9 million for the taxpayer in 2011. this wouldn't even apply had the franchise not been temporarily taken under government control. it makes my head explode. that also means that this £9 million has a cost benefit of £1,050 million or 116 to 1.

any londoners want to justify this sorry state of affairs? that's YOUR £300 million too.

I know its crazy. Think of waste and lack of joined up thinking and it doesn't get any worse than this. They've spent £300 million of taxpayers money which they are now not going to get any benefit from for the sake of saving £9million of taxpayers money!

This kind of shit really gets on my tits.

me thinks a high speed rail link to the north and south west can break down many a barrier.

I suppose what makes it even worse for Lincoln is that there isn't even an interchange station for trains to London, due to the bonkers layout at Newark. Also I suppose it's insanely high fares as demanded by the government that lead to these lines making a profit.

Maybe if some of these council's spent less on wasteful CCTV camera's and nanny state policies they could afford to upgrade their own public transport.

Sorry if I sound so harsh here, but it does seem a bit of a constant whine that the central government doesn't pay for each cities public transport developments. Sure, maybe some people feel it's unfair that it does for London, but constantly complaining about it will not change the situation. Since so many other cities around the world seem to get by, by financing their own public transport infrastructure, maybe this approach should be undertaken by the local council's in Britain.

I have a basic rule of thumb. If one approach doesn't work after several attempts, don't whine and try something new.

I don't want to upset anyone here as I can see that many people take this quite seriously. But honestly, continuing to hope the central government comes in to save the day is a bit of a waste of time as it really looks like it is not going to happen.

I also think so many of these regional centers seem to have done such good jobs in the last decade at renewing their city center's, that there is no reason why they shouldn't take it further and improve their own infrastructure.

I was in Bristol a few weeks ago and loved the town. For a city it's size, it can compare perfectly well and hold it's head up with any equivilent sized city I have seen in the world. The only thing missing really was a rail network. I think the city could justify a small underground metro system to connect the central neighbourhoods, or at the very least a tram network. But I can also assume that the central government will never fund this. Like most cities this size around the world, it would be up to the council to fund it themselves. Other than that, it is a fantastic place, very lively and business seems to be doing pretty well there.

Since so many other cities around the world seem to get by, by financing their own public transport infrastructure, maybe this approach should be undertaken by the local council's in Britain.

how? the government actively legislates against this.

you do realise the total cost for all london's CCTV cameras over the past decade were.... £200 million.

how? the government actively legislates against this.

you do realise the total cost for all london's CCTV cameras over the past decade were.... £200 million.

I'm not the person to ask. But maybe the council's can ask pretty much any other similar sized city to their's around the world. It seems a great deal have their public transport infrastructure financed at a local level.

We'll exactly. Before you accuse people of whinging maybe you should see that this is precisely what many of us are arguing for, with decisions to go ahead with projects and the means to raise funding for them being made on a local level. Why should somebody stuck in an office in Whitehall dictate to Manchester and Leeds what is best for them and allocate, or rather not allocate funding accordingly?

Do you want to know why this is?

It was started by Thatcher to control local authority spending and borrowing. She gave central government the powers to cap council tax rises, she redirected local business rates direct to the Treasury, she also kept all the money from council house sales.

Local authority borrowing was included in the national debt, which means higher interest rates. I have no idea why the markets and rating agencies do this for the UK, to include other legal authorities in the national debt but they do.

I know, Thatcher was the biggest centralizer of the lot.

But the problem of the national debt and borrowing still remains. If the government allow a free rein on borrowing the credit ratings agencies will throw a fit.

If they allow councils complete control over council tax, national government gets the blame for any rises, business rates are controlled centrally as well. Local authorities also have most of their functions dictated by statutory requirements.

I would allow councils control over all three, what's wrong with a bit of tax competition, if a local area wants more spent on their local police, let them raise business rates, if another prefer to attract more businesses let me them lower rates and cut services, I don't see why this needs to be done centrally.

I tend to agree with that. I think that the local authorities should be trusted to manage their own borrowing to some degree. We could easily avoid the problem of local authorities having to pay higher interest rates than if the central government borrowed on their behalf by having the Treasury underwrite the loans.

Look at how the US Municipal bond market works for a template. It allows bonds to be issued by bodies such as the San Francisco Bay Gas Board for example. If any municipality exceed as borrowing threshold the the Fed would issue its own bonds to buy pay off all the municipal bonds and then take control of the local authority finances. A nice simple system.

^ but that would be even worse - we'd have local authorities borrowing knowing central government would bail them out.

The system you propose is essentially the same as the eurozone now.

We need to get the markets to recognise that local authorities are responsible for their own debt, not national governments. If local authorities have proper tax powers then this becomes more credible.

Then it really would cost more. Local authorities would at best get a single A credit rating. Central government is AAA. The difference is around 0.75% interest payable on debt.

You might be able to mitigate this to some degree if the local authorities were only able to borrow if it is underwritten by assets, housing stock being the obvious example. The markets would realise that although there is no explicit guarantee from the government, they could never allow their social housing to be seized in the event of a default. There would therefore be an Implied guarantee which would bring with it an implied AAA rating.

This is how Feddie Mac was structured in the US.

how do US states get their ratings and German Lander?

People first, not Markets
Vote Cameron, Get Murdoch

We need stable markets that are not rigged as they currently are. Markets not subject to privilege. Economics was rigged merging LAND into CAPITAL 100 years ago. Ever since, we have had wild instability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku2yxP9ceRI

Voting Cameron is not having progress - the Tories have always wanted the status quo to protect privilege:

Keeping large landowners rich through taking rent - rigging LAND
Rigging WAGES, the CBI.
Yes, we do get Murdoch with Cameron.

Interesting what they were saying on Question Time last night about a school in Scotland which procured it's own build and managed to come in 25% cheaper than it would have done if it had gone via the local authority. This seems to be what Michael Gove is trying to do by devolving more power down to schools therefore allowing them to achieve better value.

This is what I've been saying on various threads now for quite some time. There is MASSIVE waste in how much the public sector pays for capital projects. One sorry example I heard about recently was a department calling out the architect to look at a leaky roof. It took two architects 2 days on an hourly rate to identify the source of the problem, costing the department I reckon well over £2k. What about getting a plumber out or even the manufacturer that installed the roofing material for free? Sure this example is a small fry figure but scale it up and the prospects for wasteful spending become rather frightening.

So devolve powers down to local institutions and allow them to seek best value for their project. The savings would not only make a good contribution to paying down the deficit but probably allow more people to keep their jobs too.

^ problem is, much like the proposals on GP fundholding (what a blast from the Major government) is this is public money and a GP and Headmaster is even more unaccountable to the taxpaying public than a council worker. How do the public get proper scrutiny? At least ministers are responsible for costs and can be voted out.

how do US states get their ratings and German Lander?

A lot of German issuance is via Pffandbriefs which are basically mortgage backed bonds. A very high quality version of US Sub Prime. I have never dealt with local Lander issues but looking at the details of an issue by Baden Wuerttemberg it appears there is some form of state oversight but without looking into the details I couldnt say whether its full underwriting. It is rated Single A so I doubt it.

US municipals vary in their rating but they keep borrowing costs down by offering highly attractive tax advantages for US citizens to invest in them. If you are recieving interest gross of tax then the muni can get away with offereing a lower interest payment. Generally they are not backed by the Fed but it is implied.

We need stable markets that are not rigged as they currently are.

If you mean financial markets I have no idea what gives you the idea that they are rigged. I can tell you categorically that they are not. There may be things about the way markets operate that prevent them from being optimal but to suggest there is some kind of murky Tory conspiracy to to manipulate them in favour of their pals is a ludicrous conspiracy theory.

There is definitely a case to be heard about the squeezing of the supply of land for development. But once again this is just economics. Keep your asset scarce and it keeps its value. The diamond markets are no different. What incentive is there for a landowner to dump all his land on the market at knockdown prices? Once again this is not conspiracy but common sense. Perhaps sitcking LVT on the land to make it uneconomical to sit on it might force the release of some land but I wouldnt bet on it. If you want an example look at the nightmare the Dutchy of Cornwall is having trying to sell off a large stretch of North Cornish coast. Nobody wants it because even without tax it costs millions of pounds per year to maintain. It has been on the market for £30k. Your solution is to add more tax on top of this cost and then let buyers build all over it to recoup the cost. No thanks.

Interesting what they were saying on Question Time last night about a school in Scotland which procured it's own build and managed to come in 25% cheaper than it would have done if it had gone via the local authority.

You are assuming that each school has a business type of headmaster. One example of a success does not mean it can be replicated over the whole country.

Perhaps you are assuming that the public procurement bodies have business type people making the decisions?

there is a con at work though with so called 'devolved' decision making. With schools, it is actually a centralisation. Sure the local school may manage their budget, but it is the Secretary of State that controls the situation. Take Free Schools, instead of local bodies taking the decisions on new schools, accountable to local voters, the decision to go ahead will be made by the Secretary of State.

Only at the point they are established. Its like saying that the government is interfering with the running of pubs because they are the ones that grant the alcohol license.

^ don't be so naive, each Education Secretary will want to be seen to make 'their mark' and each new government will have to respond to media stories, scandals, demands from the public to 'take action'.

The Education Secretary will be forced to deal with free schools that are failing, take special measures, what if one school refuses to teach sex education, or is failing to teach it properly? It is the education secretary that will step in. Funding will come solely from central government and none from local authorities or local taxpayers. What if an area is trying to build a new business base say in specialised manufacturing, surely it makes sense to have joined up system that would support those industries, schools will be removed from local economic planning and will be decided on ideological concerns whether religion or whatever. Local partnerships are key.

Basically, it removes local accountability and makes it a national concern.

I'll make a prediction, those schools will slowly end up under local control.

We'll exactly. Before you accuse people of whinging maybe you should see that this is precisely what many of us are arguing for, with decisions to go ahead with projects and the means to raise funding for them being made on a local level. Why should somebody stuck in an office in Whitehall dictate to Manchester and Leeds what is best for them and allocate, or rather not allocate funding accordingly?

well 9 million quid in saving for a catchment area of 300,000 plus... that's £1 per person per year over 30 years. in the scheme of things it's tiny, it's actually affordable by the local councils in and around lincoln who WOULD pay for it but they can't. it's not really a cut. it's a decision made by a profit making company taken back into state ownership to raise it's revenue by a one-off of £9 million. doing such a thing would not have been permitted at all under the franchise rules, had the franchise been privately owned.

even if local government could pay for transport i fail to see why they should pay for something like this that a privatised service would benefit from after only a few years.

oh yes, apparently this 9 million reduces by rather more than that the franchise payments the government will get when they flog the rail company off.

If Lincoln council had the chance I'm sure it could raise the £9m over 30 years that would have allowed these services to go ahead. However I agree with you that local councils shouldn't be funding items like this which in this case, would essentially reduce the start up costs of a service ran by what would otherwise be a privately owned operator. In any case the £9 million saving isn't part of the £300m cost to upgrade the 'infrastructure', which is what I believe local government should be able to finance independently, if it deems the need is great enough and can prioritise if it wishes, without having to defer to central government.

Bit of an update for you Gothic with a few selected quotes from the more in depth article in Rail magazine that isn't available online without subscription.

'The new services were to have started with the Eureka timetable on May 22, 2011, and would have used - along with the two-hourly stopping service to York - five class 180 five car DMU's. These will not now be required, providing the bulk of the savings, and instead EC has developed a timetable, which includes the York services, that can be resourced from its existing fleet.'

'Lincoln's newly elected Conservative MP, Karl McCartney, told RAIL: 'This sad news is another symptom of the mess the Labour government has left our finances in where cuts like this are having to be made.' He said he viewed the change as a delay not a cancellation.'

Curiously no mention in the article of the £300m spent on upgrading the infrastructure.

yeah... ? 55 + 233 million, ok it's 288 million but that's beside the point and doesn't include things like the cost of shutting the entire county's rail network down for weeks on end.

http://www.railwaypeople.com/rail-news-articles/lincoln-re-control-resignalling-1593.html

and from wiki...

In October 2008, Network Rail obtained funding for the £233 million upgrade of the line to allow frequent passenger and freight traffic to use the line and free up paths on the East Coast Main Line.

see what an utter fucking tool our mp is. doesn't even care at all.

i like how the DoT has deleted all it's press releases on this though, network rail has too as have the TOCs in question. the wiki article now points to blank page after blank page for sources.

We'll exactly. Before you accuse people of whinging maybe you should see that this is precisely what many of us are arguing for, with decisions to go ahead with projects and the means to raise funding for them being made on a local level. Why should somebody stuck in an office in Whitehall dictate to Manchester and Leeds what is best for them and allocate, or rather not allocate funding accordingly?

But I then ask, why should we expect someone in an office in Whitehall to solve Manchester and Leeds problems?

What I so often see in these threads, is people blaming London for their own city's shortcomings. This is fruitless. There is no doubt that London is big, it's famous and it's important. But it's a bit like a small, reletively unknown band blaming U2 for getting all the media attention, filling the stadiums and living the rock and roll dream. Blaming another place will not solve any problems here.

(sorry for using U2 as an example. Being a big fan of small independant bands myself, I can't for the life of me think of what could be the biggest band in the world at the moment ;O)

edit. reading the rest of the comments following my own was quite positive. It would be great if the right people in local government were also reading these as the debate throws many facinating questions and possibilities around. Far more productive in my mind than just blaming London.

But I then ask, why should we expect someone in an office in Whitehall to solve Manchester and Leeds problems?


They solve London's so why not those of Leeds?


What I so often see in these threads, is people blaming London for their own city's shortcomings.


What you have seen from me is proof that London gets far more investment than what it should be getting at the expense of others.

It is a city that is going to flood and in the bottom right hand corner being difficult to get to. Its indiginous inhabitants generally don't want to know anything north of Watford and have rarely been north of Watford - and that is true.

They solve London's so why not those of Leeds?

Well, Whitehall is in London afterall ;)


What you have seen from me is proof that London gets far more investment than what it should be getting at the expense of others.

London does get far more investment, but it is also far bigger, far more important and in fact, probably far more everything. That's life. Complaining about it won't ever change it. I am not saying you shouldn't complain about a lack of investment in your city, you certainly should. But directing those complaints at London will never change anything. It never has and it never will. It's like banging one's head onto a brick wall.


It is a city that is going to flood and in the bottom right hand corner being difficult to get to.

Well, the dutch seemed to have solved that problem. Come on, seriously, Tokyo is going to fall to an earthquake, New York by tidal waves and Paris probably by an alien invasion. Bottom right hand corner? Difficult to get too? Sorry, as an Australian, I can only laugh a bit at that ;) If you think you have problems getting to London from Leeds, imagine what people in Perth must think when they need to get to Canberra or Sydney ;)


Its indiginous inhabitants generally don't want to know anything north of Watford and have rarely been north of Watford - and that is true.

This arguement has always been made for every large city in the world I have ever been to and every country's largest city regardless of it's size on the global stage. Sydney Siders don't know what's beyond the Blue Mountains, Aucklander's have no idea what's south of the Bombay Hills. I've heard this arguement time and time again and always wonder what it's supposed to mean.

The picture isn't meant to be serious, but to highlight some of the hyperbole and exaggeration from some quarters in this thread.

Cheryl Tweedy lives in London.

This picture makes me think of Barnsley town centre. Clearly an area of disadvatage

London's position has been artificially highlighted at the cost of cities like Leeds though. For example, every major city used to have a stock exchange. They were all closed to have one centralised stock exchange in London.

Well, with Leeds a major economy now, among others, regional stock exchanges would work well.

The same can be applied in a number of fields, not just with stock exchanges. Regional cities do not get the most out of their success because it is creamed off by London.

London's position has been artificially highlighted at the cost of cities like Leeds though. For example, every major city used to have a stock exchange. They were all closed to have one centralised stock exchange in London.

Well, with Leeds a major economy now, among others, regional stock exchanges would work well.

The same can be applied in a number of fields, not just with stock exchanges. Regional cities do not get the most out of their success because it is creamed off by London.

Leeds' is not a major economy though, it's doing well by provincial standards but it's not a major economy because an economoy is international.

Well, Whitehall is in London afterall ;)

Yes, but it is the home of the UK Government, not the London Government! We don't have any other meaningful tiers of government (in England anyway).

London's position has been artificially highlighted at the cost of cities like Leeds though. For example, every major city used to have a stock exchange. They were all closed to have one centralised stock exchange in London.

Well, with Leeds a major economy now, among others, regional stock exchanges would work well.

The same can be applied in a number of fields, not just with stock exchanges. Regional cities do not get the most out of their success because it is creamed off by London.

Should we blame London for the Australian Stock Exchange which used to be seperate ones in each city merging into the Australian Securities Exchange based in Sydney (Australia's largest city)? What about all the other country's where most of their smaller stock exchanges have ceased to exist or merged into a single exchange generally based in their largest city? Is London to blame for all of these?

Seriously, this is taking it a bit too far.