HS2 to Liverpool & Mcr - Use Ship Canal

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by Tyr

Some of that last stuff....
Considering the poster is a Liverpool nationalist I can't help but think that he knows this is a bad idea and he knows that doing away with the canal is showing a perfect example of horribly short term thinking. Me thinks....he knows this is a bad idea....but.... it could potentially hurt Manchester so yey!

And you think Liverpool should be absorbed into Greater Manchester...

Yes, Mad John is mad and clearly not very well. It's more tragic than funny really. Some of you though are worse - you're sane but complete twats. Let's start with you. Fuck off with your 'Manchester is Osaka' bollocks. It isn't. Indeed, such a statement makes you not much more in tune with reality than John is. Fact is, Manchester is an okay city in northern England. It doesn't stand out at all compared to pretty much any other large city in Britain. I get why Mancunian forumers love the place so much - it's their home, but you brain-washed lemmings take in anything the government and the BBC will tell you. I'm sure in some parallel universe, the BBC, Whitehall et al have a massive hard on for Liverpool and your equivelent on here is saying Manchester should be absorded into Greater Liverpool. If you want Durham absorbed into Greater Manchester, then that's your business (assuming the Mancunians would want such a union), but deluded as I am living in small, unimportant non-BBC regional news centre Liverpool, I feel Liverpool is well above deferring to a similar-sized place 50km or so away, which I wouldn't be too happy deffering to even if I was from Wigan or Bolton.

Then we have Malcom of Kent, who came out with this loaded statement - "What is it about Liverpool which, err, how shall I put it?, encourages such novel ideas in its citizens?" So we can compare c1'000'000 or so Liverpolitans to Mad John because he's typical of Liverpool is he? At this point, I'd make some disparaging comment about all people from Kent, the only thing stopping me is that I'm not a shithead.

As for Vulan's Finest, he must surely post on railforums.co.uk . His routine dismissal of Liverpool as if it's some small village in darkest Lancashire is so typical of that forum. This is a symptom of transport enthusiasts gaining their knowledge of towns & cities purely by what service they get via tranportation modes - especially rail services for that particular forum. Thus, Liverpool's under-service, most symbolicly on the Euston/West Coast services and Manchester's over-service on the same route makes the former seem less important than it actually is and the latter more important than it actually is. Transport enthusiasts never question these strategies however, always assuming, rather innocently, that these decisions are made purely due to demand for the service. These decisions are often political and based on ideology. You think Manchester has four times more demand to London than Liverpool? Seriously? You'd put your house on that? Well, the DfT want exactly that; 4 trains per hour to London as opposed to the current 3, leaving Liverpool at just 1 (despite Virgin talking about increasing this a couple of years back). The irony is, Transport for Greater Manchester don't want it. They fear it'll be detrimental to commuter services in the area. So why do the DfT want it? To create a 'turn up and go' service between the capital and its 'second city' outpost. Yes, it's ideologically driven and not too disimilar to your 'Mancsaka' dream. High Speed 2 is also ideologically driven, both in terms of the places it will serve and its inception in the first place. Even putting Liverpool's predictable shafting aside, it seems a worse and worse idea, the more I look at it. The lesson - we live in a stupid country, but, as this thread demonstrates, said stupid county contains many stupid people.

[heatonparkincakes]

Hope you dont mind, Gareth I had to re write your polemic to make it more readable.

Lack of paragraphs and lots of swearing erm.

I quite like Mancsaka. You need to copywrite that one. Someone will steal it. My friend.

John doesnt seem mad to me. Just in need of someone to offer him some boundaries to direct what ever drives him in a more productive way. Perhaps public forums are not the place for him, especially if he suggests a clearly irrational scheme as this and then laxks the skills or wit to realise he will be challenged.

I suggest he dabbles in some cyber punk writing. It wont offend any one.

[Tyr]

Originally Posted by Gareth

And you think Liverpool should be absorbed into Greater Manchester...

No I don't.

Yes, Mad John is mad and clearly not very well. It's more tragic than funny really. Some of you though are worse - you're sane but complete twats. Let's start with you. Fuck off with your 'Manchester is Osaka' bollocks. It isn't. Indeed, such a statement makes you not much more in tune with reality than John is. Fact is, Manchester is an okay city in northern England. It doesn't stand out at all compared to pretty much any other large city in Britain. I get why Mancunian forumers love the place so much - it's their home, but you brain-washed lemmings take in anything the government and the BBC will tell you. I'm sure in some parallel universe, the BBC, Whitehall et al have a massive hard on for Liverpool and your equivelent on here is saying Manchester should be absorded into Greater Liverpool.

The BBC and Whitehall? Huh? Thats got nothing to do with Manchester being the main city of the north. Has the BBC even got much of its move northwards done yet?
I'm not aware of the government making anything of Manchester's status. Its all London, London, London to them with a smidgin of Birmingham. Which is sad, Manchester really deserves a lot more recognition. But then so does everywhere in the north.
No. Manchester isn't quite Osaka. That's due to our country's inbalance of everything being on London. Manchester however SHOULD be Osaka. It should be a secondary major city in the north to partially counterbalance London in the south.

If you want Durham absorbed into Greater Manchester, then that's your business (assuming the Mancunians would want such a union), but deluded as I am living in small, unimportant non-BBC regional news centre Liverpool, I feel Liverpool is well above deferring to a similar-sized place 50km or so away, which I wouldn't be too happy deffering to even if I was from Wigan or Bolton.

'deffering to a similar sized place'
1: Manchester is significantly bigger.
2: Nobody will be deferring to anybody.
And Durham joining Manchester....err....what? That's just mad. Maybe if you were to say Durham joining Tyne & Wear you've have a point, but Manchester?

[Vulcan's Finest]

Gareth wrote: Quote: "As for Vulan's Finest, he must surely post on railforums.co.uk . His routine dismissal of Liverpool as if it's some small village in darkest Lancashire is so typical of that forum."

No, 'Vulan's Finest' doesn't post on that forum - and BTW you are utterly clueless about my thoughts on Liverpool and it's lack of rail connectivity to the various cities it used to be linked with. But hey ho, you clearly had a lot of vitriol to unload about everyone having it in for Liverpool so don't let me stop you.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by heatonparkincakes

Hope you dont mind, Gareth I had to re write your polemic to make it more readable.

Lack of paragraphs and lots of swearing erm.

I quite like Mancsaka. You need to copywrite that one. Someone will steal it. My friend.

There are paragraphs there. I just don't see the need to press the enter button after every second sentence. The swearing is moderate but necessary in reference to the 'doucheness' of the statements I was addressing. As for Mancsaka, Tyr has to take some credit for that one.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by Tyr

The BBC and Whitehall? Huh? Thats got nothing to do with Manchester being the main city of the north. Has the BBC even got much of its move northwards done yet?
I'm not aware of the government making anything of Manchester's status. Its all London, London, London to them with a smidgin of Birmingham. Which is sad, Manchester really deserves a lot more recognition. But then so does everywhere in the north.


No. Manchester isn't quite Osaka. That's due to our country's inbalance of everything being on London. Manchester however SHOULD be Osaka. It should be a secondary major city in the north to partially counterbalance London in the south.

Birmingham? 30 years ago maybe. It's now all London, London, London with slightly more than a smidgin of Manchester. So, for 'recognition', Manchester's doing rather well in the grand scheme of the state machine. If we lived in a less centralised country, then it (and pretty much everywhere else out side London, certainly Liverpool) would do much better. However, your Mancsaka thing seems to fly in the face of this and is more supportive of the centralized status-quo; only with Manchester's status as UKplc's main outpost outside of Greater London beefed up to new heights.

Manchester SHOULD be Manchester. It already is a 'secondary major city in the north', as are Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield & Newcastle. They should all be aspiring to be a bit more than that, but it is not possible under the current system we have in place in this country

Originally Posted by Tyr

'deffering to a similar sized place'
1: Manchester is significantly bigger.
2: Nobody will be deferring to anybody.
And Durham joining Manchester....err....what? That's just mad. Maybe if you were to say Durham joining Tyne & Wear you've have a point, but Manchester?

1. No it isn't.
2. Good. So there's no point giving Manchester this enhanced status then.
2a. Durham should be Durham

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by Vulcan's Finest

No, 'Vulan's Finest' doesn't post on that forum - and BTW you are utterly clueless about my thoughts on Liverpool and it's lack of rail connectivity to the various cities it used to be linked with. But hey ho, you clearly had a lot of vitriol to unload about everyone having it in for Liverpool so don't let me stop you.

Clueless, eh? I think your routine dismissal of Liverpool as a rail destination on the first page of this thread says enough really.

You also refer to your self in the third person, which is somewhat annoying.

[Malcolm of Kent]

Originally Posted by Gareth

..Then we have Malcom of Kent, who came out with this loaded statement - "What is it about Liverpool which, err, how shall I put it?, encourages such novel ideas in its citizens?" So we can compare c1'000'000 or so Liverpolitans to Mad John because he's typical of Liverpool is he? At this point, I'd make some disparaging comment about all people from Kent, the only thing stopping me is that I'm not a shithead.
...

Yes, I suppose my "clever" comment which you quote could be read as an insult to all Liverpudlians. That was never my intention though, and I apologise for any offence taken.

Actually I'm not sure what my intention was at all really, since clearly John/George is also not really an appropriate target for that kind of (what was intended as) gentle fun-poking, as you point out. I could make the excuse that I was trying to ridicule his barmy ideas, rather than the man himself, but that is quite a tricky distinction to make, and I clearly did not succeed in making it. So on reflection I'm sorry that I made the comment at all.

As for the any shoulder-chips which Mancunians and Liverpudlians may have against the other city, justified or not, well perhaps you are right in your (implied) suggestion that those of us who have not lived in, or studied the history of, either city, should probably remain silent, at least until we have something constructive to say.

[Vulcan's Finest]

Originally Posted by Gareth

Clueless, eh? I think your routine dismissal of Liverpool as a rail destination on the first page of this thread says enough really.

You also refer to your self in the third person, which is somewhat annoying.

Not half as annoying as someone who doesn't bother to spell my forum name right.

[ill tonkso]

Originally Posted by Gareth

And you think Liverpool should be absorbed into Greater Manchester...

Yes, Mad John is mad and clearly not very well. It's more tragic than funny really. Some of you though are worse - you're sane but complete twats. Let's start with you. Fuck off with your 'Manchester is Osaka' bollocks. It isn't. Indeed, such a statement makes you not much more in tune with reality than John is. Fact is, Manchester is an okay city in northern England. It doesn't stand out at all compared to pretty much any other large city in Britain. I get why Mancunian forumers love the place so much - it's their home, but you brain-washed lemmings take in anything the government and the BBC will tell you. I'm sure in some parallel universe, the BBC, Whitehall et al have a massive hard on for Liverpool and your equivelent on here is saying Manchester should be absorded into Greater Liverpool. If you want Durham absorbed into Greater Manchester, then that's your business (assuming the Mancunians would want such a union), but deluded as I am living in small, unimportant non-BBC regional news centre Liverpool, I feel Liverpool is well above deferring to a similar-sized place 50km or so away, which I wouldn't be too happy deffering to even if I was from Wigan or Bolton.

Then we have Malcom of Kent, who came out with this loaded statement - "What is it about Liverpool which, err, how shall I put it?, encourages such novel ideas in its citizens?" So we can compare c1'000'000 or so Liverpolitans to Mad John because he's typical of Liverpool is he? At this point, I'd make some disparaging comment about all people from Kent, the only thing stopping me is that I'm not a shithead.

As for Vulan's Finest, he must surely post on railforums.co.uk . His routine dismissal of Liverpool as if it's some small village in darkest Lancashire is so typical of that forum. This is a symptom of transport enthusiasts gaining their knowledge of towns & cities purely by what service they get via tranportation modes - especially rail services for that particular forum. Thus, Liverpool's under-service, most symbolicly on the Euston/West Coast services and Manchester's over-service on the same route makes the former seem less important than it actually is and the latter more important than it actually is. Transport enthusiasts never question these strategies however, always assuming, rather innocently, that these decisions are made purely due to demand for the service. These decisions are often political and based on ideology. You think Manchester has four times more demand to London than Liverpool? Seriously? You'd put your house on that? Well, the DfT want exactly that; 4 trains per hour to London as opposed to the current 3, leaving Liverpool at just 1 (despite Virgin talking about increasing this a couple of years back). The irony is, Transport for Greater Manchester don't want it. They fear it'll be detrimental to commuter services in the area. So why do the DfT want it? To create a 'turn up and go' service between the capital and its 'second city' outpost. Yes, it's ideologically driven and not too disimilar to your 'Mancsaka' dream. High Speed 2 is also ideologically driven, both in terms of the places it will serve and its inception in the first place. Even putting Liverpool's predictable shafting aside, it seems a worse and worse idea, the more I look at it. The lesson - we live in a stupid country, but, as this thread demonstrates, said stupid county contains many stupid people.

Tell me, have you ever considered location? Manchester is better located geographically as a hub for the region. This is no different to the manner in which cross country services no longer serve Portsmouth but now all go to Southampton. Hub and spoke, it is better located on the SWML. Liverpool will always be a spur because of geography, not politics.

Dont forget I live in a part of the country where pretty much everything goes to one City, London.

[ScouseinManc]

MODS - Pls close this thread, for the sake of the sane...

[Angle42]

Originally Posted by ScouseinManc

MODS - Pls close this thread, for the sake of the sane...

I totally agree!

This thread has no purpose and consists mainly of people declaring that their's is biggest and making snide remarks about other contributors.

Please close it.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by Vulcan's Finest

Not half as annoying as someone who doesn't bother to spell my forum name right.

The difference is; that was a typo and hence, not deliberate. You referring to yourself in the third person almost certainly was. Also, if you think typos are more annoying than the pretentiousness of referring to oneself in the third person, then we're just going to have to accept that we're very different people.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by Malcolm of Kent

Yes, I suppose my "clever" comment which you quote could be read as an insult to all Liverpudlians. That was never my intention though, and I apologise for any offence taken.

Actually I'm not sure what my intention was at all really, since clearly John/George is also not really an appropriate target for that kind of (what was intended as) gentle fun-poking, as you point out. I could make the excuse that I was trying to ridicule his barmy ideas, rather than the man himself, but that is quite a tricky distinction to make, and I clearly did not succeed in making it. So on reflection I'm sorry that I made the comment at all.

As for the any shoulder-chips which Mancunians and Liverpudlians may have against the other city, justified or not, well perhaps you are right in your (implied) suggestion that those of us who have not lived in, or studied the history of, either city, should probably remain silent, at least until we have something constructive to say.

Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, but there's something unique within England (and it is England for some reason, not the UK as a whole) in the desire to characterize all people from Liverpool in certain, usually not flattering ways. So, whenever Mad John is let loose and it's outside of the Liverpool subforum, all we get is insinuations that his mental instability is typical of scousers, along with trollish posts about how Liverpool should stop being so inward-looking and embrace its role as a quirky suburb of big, international city, Manchester (which is both insulting and also impractical). If Mad John was from Manchester, Hull or Hereford, would people be making the same sweeping statements?

But fair does, no hard feelings.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

Tell me, have you ever considered location? Manchester is better located geographically as a hub for the region. This is no different to the manner in which cross country services no longer serve Portsmouth but now all go to Southampton. Hub and spoke, it is better located on the SWML. Liverpool will always be a spur because of geography, not politics.

Dont forget I live in a part of the country where pretty much everything goes to one City, London.

Manchester's in the south east corner of Whitehall's North West administrative region. It's nowhere near central to it. It often gets referred to as such, but that's usually a political statement rather than a geographic one. Liverpool's not in the centre either, mind, but then we come to the crux of the issue; the whole North West thing is complete poppycock. It has no historical pedigree, cultural pedigree or even any from of economic integrity, despite repeated efforts to make the rest of the area fall into providing some sort of supporting role to Manchester.

Likewise, there's no natural reason why Portsmouth's geographic situation means it has to be Southampton's bitch city. If all the intercity trains go there, then that's almost certainly a political decision. I feel you've been watching too much BBC South Today growing up, whose presence in Southampton is also political. But hey, if most citizens of Portmouth are content with that arrangement, fair enough to you. That said, Southampton & Portmouth are hell of a lot closer than Liverpool & Manchester.

I feel I must dispell the horrid myth that Liverpool is somehow on a limb and difficult to get to. Apart from being closer to the North East, Manchester is no easier to get to on the road network. Both cities are about equidistant from the M6/M62 intechange, making them equaly accessible from the north and south. The rail network gives similar parity to both cities, though in recent years, there's been a trend of cutting Liverpool's services and boosting Manchester's. Again, this is political, not geographical. It's complete crap - no one says New York is all isolated and out on a limb just because it's on the coast. No one says London can't have the rest of the country by the balls purely because it's in the far south east corner of Great Britain. People find reasons to suit their initial motives and this is what Whitehall does when it wants to justify marginalising other cities in favour of its administrative centres.

Of course, if High Speed 2 happens without drastic alterations to its design, then fair enough, we're totally screwed.

[Malcolm of Kent]

Originally Posted by Gareth

Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, but there's something unique within England (and it is England for some reason, not the UK as a whole) in the desire to characterize all people from Liverpool in certain, usually not flattering ways. So...If Mad John was from Manchester, Hull or Hereford, would people be making the same sweeping statements?

But fair does, no hard feelings.

I think you're right, people wouldn't. Liverpool does have an image problem. Dunno if being home to the (in my opinion) unfunniest tax-dodging comedian ever has something to do with that.

But to return to transport and Liv-Man rivalry, you could add the whole of Yorkshire and the whole of the East Midlands to the collection of places which are significantly nearer to Man than to Liverpool. (Of course the whole of North Wales goes the other way, but that is much more sparsely populated). Add that to the fact that Manchester is bigger (though there could be much dispute about how to measure it and therefore how much bigger) and there could be some objective justification for the Man-bias.

I seem to be thoroughly failing to follow my own advice about "outsiders keep out". Sorry!

[Scarecrow]

I had no idea that John Bishop was a tax dodger..

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by Malcolm of Kent

But to return to transport and Liv-Man rivalry, you could add the whole of Yorkshire and the whole of the East Midlands to the collection of places which are significantly nearer to Man than to Liverpool. (Of course the whole of North Wales goes the other way, but that is much more sparsely populated). Add that to the fact that Manchester is bigger (though there could be much dispute about how to measure it and therefore how much bigger) and there could be some objective justification for the Man-bias.!

But the whole of Yorkshire and the East Midlands isn't being purposely coerced into being a part of a Greater Manchester Plus, purely because the civil servant who drew the lines on the map decreed they were no a part of Manchester-land; instead, being a part of Leeds-land and Nottingham-land respectively.

As for size, yes Manchester is bigger but not exceptionally so. Agreed, you could dispute how to measure it, but if we're sensible and not counting most of south & east Lancashire as 'Manchester', then the difference is not particularly huge. Indeed, going to Manchester, it doesn't strike me as noticeably bigger.

On a final note and if reference to Tyr's 'Mancsaka' idea, let me tell you why it doesn't translate. For a start, although a fairly uniform & centralized country, Japan's national government & civil service does not have an obsession about running the entire country as a Tokyō-centric city state. Thus, Osaka's size as the second largest city (actually, it's third after Yokohama) is purely incidental. It benefits from no special treatment from central government over other places, as this concept of rank and municiple subordination doesn't exist; or at least exists significantly less than it does here. Osaka is in a region of Japan called Kansai, along with Kyōto, which as Kansai's second largest city, I'm guessing Tyr was seeing it as Liverpool to Osaka's Manchester. However, Kyōto has no subordinate role to Osaka. Kansai, unlike the North West, has a cultural & historical heritage to it. Yet, despite this, Kansai is hardly used at all as an administrative unit. It is used for things like geographic reference in weather forcasts. There is no bloated civil service based in Tokyō micromanaging the national economy through administrative regions, creating hubs around their regional headquarters. That's why Kyōto is a vibrant city in its own right and hosts company HQs has prolific as Nintendo.

Now, this is the part where ill tonkso should really pay attention; if Kyōto was Liverpool and Osaka was Manchester, Nintendo would've been farmed out to Manchester already, if not London, considering the profile of the company. This is what's been happening to Liverpool's computer game sector in recent years. Sure, it was fine years ago when computer games were seen as kiddy toys, but now with all the money in the sector, it cannot be allowed to stay in Liverpool. Manchester was designated, by the NWDA, no doubt with input and encouragement from GONW, as the North West's 'hub' for computer games. This is why ill tonkso looks on Manchester as the promised land and a place he'd consider to relocate too as it is now a 'hub' for the sector he works in, or wants to get into. In a not-so-different parallel dimension, he'll be viewing Liverpool in the same way, as in that dimension, Liverpool's being allowed to keep the sectors it cultivates for itself. This sort of market distortion & interference is not on and with essentially the UK's all powerful civil service insisting on it, how the hell can Liverpool do anything to stop it? It sure as hell doesn't happen in Kansai. Much better to be Kyōto, or even Kobe.

[ill tonkso]

Your last paragraph is bullshit. Sony Studio Liverpool is bigger than anything in Manchester and that is not set to change any soon. Also, the games industry is wholly private sector. It goes where it is attractive. The centre of the Industry is Guildford anyway, not because of any Government intervention, it was purely grassroots.

Liverpools grassroots games industry is not under threat at all, I can tell you that now. Also, if I was offered a Job there I would be more than willing to move to Liverpool (I would prefer to be near the Sea).

[LondonerMiles]

Just came to this thread, what was the deal with that George guy?