Crossrail

[Rigadon]

Originally Posted by Monkey

London gets less government spending per capita ...... than any other region in Britain.

You said that before and it isn't true.

Spending per head.

1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02
Region
North East 4,507 4,845 5,119 5,787
North West 4,332 4,580 4,826 5,386
Yorkshire & Humber 4,020 4,165 4,624 5,148
East Midlands 3,768 3,981 4,190 4,657
West Midlands 3,974 4,173 4,408 4,919
South West 3,774 3,999 4,205 4,615
Eastern 3,647 3,837 4,073 4,430
London 4,736 4,929 5,027 5,870
South East 3,632 3,729 3,912 4,438

[Rigadon]

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/...ed_version.pdf


98-99 roads and transport spending per head

North East 134 North West 119 Yorkshire 106 East M 130 West M 120 South W 140 Eastern 156 London 218 South East 155

01-02

North East 154 North West 152 Yorkshire 151 East M 164 West M 154 South W 143 Eastern 177 London 381 South East 190

[Mauritz]

South-East's tax 'funds rest of UK'
Residents in the South-East are being stung for thousands of pounds in taxes to subsidise the rest of the country, it was claimed today.

But while the region is funding public services in other areas, its own police and NHS facilities are being neglected, according to research. The apparent divide is highlighted in a study by Local Government Futures and Oxford Economics.

London subsidising rest of UK to tune of £13bn a year
London is bankrolling less affluent areas of the country to the tune of more than £13bn a year, new research reveals today.

The report from Oxford Economics, an independent think-tank, shows that the average person living or working in the capital pays about £1,740 a year more in tax than he or she gets back in public spending on infrastructure such as roads and schools. The South-east and East Anglia contribute more than £1,000 a head to the nation's coffers each year, while the rest of the country is a drain on Whitehall.

[sarflonlad]

You can post that all you like. God knows how many times we've tried to tell our fellow countrymen, but they don't listen and try argue that somehow they're hard done by and it's all London's fault.

[Bones]

Originally Posted by Rigadon

You said that before and it isn't true.

Spending per head.

1998–99 1999–00 2000–01 2001–02
Region
North East 4,507 4,845 5,119 5,787
North West 4,332 4,580 4,826 5,386
Yorkshire & Humber 4,020 4,165 4,624 5,148
East Midlands 3,768 3,981 4,190 4,657
West Midlands 3,974 4,173 4,408 4,919
South West 3,774 3,999 4,205 4,615
Eastern 3,647 3,837 4,073 4,430
London 4,736 4,929 5,027 5,870
South East 3,632 3,729 3,912 4,438

The argument is not that London gets less spending per capita. That would be an incorrect statement. The point is that London has much higher wages and therefore pays an even more disproportionate amount of tax. This combined with high VAT receipts from foreign visitors etc. accounts for the imbalance.
Even though London has higher wages, it has vastly higher costs, and these incomes are skewed towards the top end. For people in occupations that pay middling wages, that could be performed in the regions, London is not a good place to live. The net migration of British born residents out of London is confirmed by ONS statistics.

[Bones]

Originally Posted by Martin S

I don't know what the answer is but surely if putting in measures to cool down the economy of the London area is 'mad', how do you describe the belief that continued economic expansion is the answer?

It has been estimated that the growth of City type financial services in London, over the last few years, has accounted for around half of the UK's total economic growth. ie.1.5% out of 3.0%. If the City stops expanding ( a quite realistic scenario for 2008) then Britain's rate of economic growth will halve and the budget deficit will expand enormously. The resulting budget constraints will affect every region. This is part of the reason why there may not be an election before 2009. Although Britain has been a big winner from globalisation it does have one drawback. As the international division of labour grows, we become more dependant on our dominant winning industry-financial services. If it turns down then we all suffer.

[Irwell]

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

And what has it achieved? Paris is still the overwhelming dominant force in France.

But not as overwhelmingly dominant as London is in the UK. Just look at the effect a little extra Government investment had in 1996 after the bombing.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

That link tells me thus:

Daily patronage of around 52,000 passenger journeys. Annual patronage of 18.8m passenger journeys

The total network is approximately 37km (23miles) in route

So 18.8 million passengers / along 23 miles of route = approx. 800,000 passengers per mile.

That's not over 1 million! What position am I to look at again?

I was hoping you'd jump straight on that figure without reading the rest! Yes, it does indeed say that. Now take a quick look at the document again and note that it was 2004 when Metrolink hit that figure!

Here is the 2006 document.

http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pdf/advertising_pack2006.pdf

"Over 20 million passengers per year"

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

So, again, hypothetically, I ask you; if you're in a position of power in government, which extension would you prefer to give money to? - A tram in London that generates over 1 million receipts per mile of route or the Metrolink in Manchester - a credible system, which despite going through the core (and dare I say areas of far more importance to UK PLC than the London tram) generates less than 1 million receipts per mile of route.

There's no right or wrong answer I guess - but I'd be interested in hearing your rationale...

If I was in Government I would invest in both as I'm very pro public transport, but if that wasn't an option I would choose the Manchester Metrolink as, per pound spent on it, it would bring more new riders into the system. Remember, the £500m from Government will more than double the number of places served by Metrolink.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

But WHY did they back Crossrail, if apparently their constituents (you) don't believe it's fair to have done so? Do you think it might be because your MP grasps London needs to compete with other World Cities who also undoubtedly receive disproportionate investment in public transport in their own countries? London is not competing against the likes of Manchester, Leeds etc. It's in an incredibly competitive league of which few countries can claim to be a part of.

Because Crossrail is an important thing to invest in. I'll say again, I'm all for Crossrail being built. Greater Manchester, however, now has some large scale public transport infrastructure improvements going before the Government and I'd hope they'd similarly fund that.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

I do think it's unfair UK cities have such inadequate provision for public transport - I really do! However, you like the rest of the tedium on this thread have a go at London's investment out of pure bitterness and resentment. You don't actually do anything pro active about it.

I actually took an active part in the campaign to get our Metrolink funding back in place (£500m), have been quite a vocal backer of our Transport Innovation Fund bid (£3bn) and am in contact with MPs regarding the planned improvements to Piccadilly (£2bn), so please don't assume I do nothing pro active about it. I'm also not having a go at London investment, I'm simply questioning the constant funding of London projects and sidelining of regional ones. If we get our fair slice of the cake too this time then I'm more than happy for Crossrail to get built.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

Furthermore, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that other UK cities receive the investment that London needs at present because:

1. London is the capital surrounded by one of the largest conurbations in the world (don't give me this 'the north of England' crap).

I never asked for the same, I asked for the same proportionally, i.e. per capita.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

2. London has greater problems with congestion and pollution than anywhere else in the UK.

The two boroughs of the UK with the highest rise in congestion over the last 5 years were Tameside and Oldham, both in Greater Manchester and both to be served by Metrolink Phase 3 and the TIF bid.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

3. London benefits the UK - even if as someone mentioned earlier - just so only UK businesses can have the prestige of an office in Central London to impress clients despite having their HQ in Birmingham or wherever.

Yes, London benefits the UK, and I'm more than happy for the Government to invest there. Just don't invest all the money in a place where a minority of people live.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

. London and the SE anticipate greater growth in population, economy and outside investment than anywhere else. Do we turn this away by neglecting its infrastructure? Investors generally don't think 'we can go to another city in the UK. How about Newcastle? That's got a good public transport.'. No, instead they'll go to Paris for their European business.

Yes, it anticipates greater growth, but not all that much greater than Greater Manchester does. In fact, rather unusually for the UK, Greater Manchester South is predicted to have the highest rise in Gross Value Added per capita.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

5. Other UK cities only stand only to potentially gain from more investment - no one will lose jobs because we're not building a tram in e.g. Leeds. Not investing in London right now will result in a loss of predicted investment, loss of existing/creation of new jobs and hurt the economy.

Part of our bid for Transport Innovation Fund money to tackle congestion was evidence that a failure to do so would cost Greater Manchester around 30,000 jobs over the following decade. Please don't try telling me there won't be any losses!

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

Maybe in the future when perhaps it's more appropriate to throw more money at other UK cities then this situation will change.

Or maybe right now is precisely when it is appropriate.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Irwell

Yes, the stats you used from the census were for London. London is a region which contains Greater London. London is the city region, Greater London is the equivalent of the Metropolitan County, though technically it isn't one.

What the hell are you talking about? For the umpteeth time i used stats for Greater London and Greater Manchester. Where the hell is this mythical "London is a region which contains Greater London"? WTF??

Originally Posted by Irwell

Monkey, I've told you what the stats are for both Metropolitan Counties and told you where to get them. From those, London has only 20% more population growth than Manchester. If you choose to constantly disagree with the ONS figures and choose a comparison of a region to a county then feel free, but it doesn't make you any more correct.

I linked you to the ONS stats myself and I compared Greater London to Greater Manchester - a totally valid and correct comparison.

Originally Posted by Irwell

As for the 5 times investment, London has three times the population of Greater Manchester. Lets call it 70% of the growth rate of London. That means that London should have around 4 times the investment Manchester has for it to be equally apportioned. In reality it has 5 times what Manchester has. Geddit?

First of this is based on your maths which, as we have established already is complete bullshit. Manchester's population has shrunk by 22,000 since 1991 wheras London's has grown by 1 million.

Originally Posted by Irwell

You most definitely haven't demolished them already, you complete buffoon! I cited the figures, gave you the sources AND told you why the figures you were using were wrong! If you want to continue living in cloud cuckoo land, that's fine with me, but don't then try claiming you're actually right about things!

And I linked you to the ONS figures, did the calculation in front of you, and have had to suffer you floudering around with the defintion of Greater London - a very simple concept that yopu apparently do not understand. Let me make it simple for you. In offical terns there is only one defeintion of London - and that is Greater London. London = Greater London and Greater London = London. Can you understand that or is it all a bit intellectually complex for you?

Originally Posted by Irwell

No, London is the goose that lays the golden egg because it has had proportionally more investment over a sustained period, leading companies to choose to invest there. It then becomes a cycle because those private investments lead to a larger "golden egg", meaning the Government throws more funding at it.

No there's a natural market-driven economic shift in favour London/SE just as there was a natural market-driven economic shift in favour of industrial mill towns in the Industrial Revolution.

Originally Posted by Irwell

As for Government spending, yes, indeed it does get less per capita. That, however, is Government spending across the board. The majority in the regions is related to Government employment. If you factor this out and look at infrastructure investment, i.e. the amount being spent to improve the area and attract more private investment, London comes out WAY on top per capita. I work on a contract for central Government and I'd be more than happy for them to cut down on Government jobs around here in exchange for increased infrastructure spend.

London gets more infrastructural investment because it has a rapidly growing population. It therefore needs new transport infrastructure as a matter of urgent priority. The spending follows the demographics - not the other way round.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Irwell

But not as overwhelmingly dominant as London is in the UK. Just look at the effect a little extra Government investment had in 1996 after the bombing.

Paris is arguably more dominant of France than London is of Britain. Britain's provincial cities are larger than their French counterparts. There is no substantial devolution of either political power or government departments as there is in Britain. Some French cities reveive more government investment than their British cities but that's because 1) the French state spends a higher percentage of national GDP than Britain's, and 2) French provincial cities, at least in the south of France, are growing faster than Paris in percentage terms (ie the opposite of Britain where population growth is concentrated in London/SE).

[Irwell]

Originally Posted by Monkey

What the hell are you talking about? For the umpteeth time i used stats for Greater London and Greater Manchester. Where the hell is this mythical "London is a region which contains Greater London"? WTF??

You want to know what I'm on about? Your 2006 population figure was taken from this:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloa...ne95_Dec06.xls

Am I correct so far? That document, as anyone who looks at the tables can see, shows the populations of the REGIONS, i.e. London, North West, North East, etc. (North West being table 6, London being table 11). You then compared this figure to the unadjusted 2001 census figure for Greater London (London had an undercount like Manchester, which is why I used the 2001 mid-years instead).

Now think about it. You compared a smaller area, with an undercount, for 2001 to a larger area for 2006 to calculate your population change!

Will you please follow the link I gave you earlier and use the ACTUAL population figures? I gave you the figures earlier too, but I doubt you'll trust me on them.

Originally Posted by Monkey

I linked you to the ONS stats myself and I compared Greater London to Greater Manchester - a totally valid and correct comparison.

No Monkey, as per usual you failed to read your own sources and came up with completely inaccurate figures. Please now go and read your sources, then go and read mine. I wonder if you'll come back and say sorry.

Originally Posted by Monkey

First of this is based on your maths which, as we have established already is complete bullshit. Manchester's population has shrunk by 22,000 since 1991 wheras London's has grown by 1 million.

As I pointed out, yes, London was growing and Manchester was shrinking 15 years ago. Why should this impact on current public transport spend at a time when both are growing at about the same rate, meaning that the impact on both systems is roughly the same?

You're using irrelevant figures to try to back up your initial false assertion that everywhere outside London is stagnant!

Originally Posted by Monkey

And I linked you to the ONS figures, did the calculation in front of you, and have had to suffer you floudering around with the defintion of Greater London - a very simple concept that yopu apparently do not understand. Let me make it simple for you. In offical terns there is only one defeintion of London - and that is Greater London. London = Greater London and Greater London = London. Can you understand that or is it all a bit intellectually complex for you?

It's quite obviously you that's struggling with the complexities of this Monkey, as you always seem to do, which is why I don't usually bother replying to you. It's like trying to explain calculus to a toddler.

Now please go and read both your sources and my sources. Mine are the official ONS figures for each constituent authority. Yours use two different definitions. It's very simple.

Originally Posted by Monkey

No there's a natural market-driven economic shift in favour London/SE just as there was a natural market-driven economic shift in favour of industrial mill towns in the Industrial Revolution.

No, there is an economic shift caused by higher levels of investment in London. Investment attracts investment. It's a cycle. Note that since 1996 Manchester has had an increase in investment from Government. Why 1996? It was the year of the bombings. This investment created more economic growth, so the Government decided to increase investment again and the growth gap with London shrank even more. Do you think that maybe if we had the same level of investment we might also see the same rate of economic growth?

A difficult concept, I know.

Originally Posted by Monkey

London gets more infrastruictural investment because it has a rapidly growing population. It therefore needs new transport infrastructure as a matter of urgent priority. The spending follows the demographics - not the other way round.

Think about it Monkey. If the figures you gave earlier were correct, London should be seeing somewhere in the region of 15 times more investment than Manchester. If mine were correct it should be in the region of 4 times more. In reality it's 5 times more. Why, if I'm right, is it different to my figure you may ask? It's quite simple, it's to do with the London weighting. Costs are higher in London, therefore capital projects have more invested in them.

Does it make economic sense to throw more money into a place per capita because it costs more to build there? No it doesn't, which is the main reason a lot of people complain about the investment London gets compared to the regions. For each new person Greater Manchester has less spent on transport than London gets. Fair? No.

[Irwell]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Paris is arguably more dominant of France than London is of Britain. Britain's provincial cities are larger than their French counterparts. There is no substantial devolution of either political power or government departments as there is in Britain. Some French cities reveive more government investment than their British cities but that's because 1) the French state spends a higher percentage of national GDP than Britain's, and 2) French provincial cities, at least in the south of France, are growing faster than Paris in percentage terms (ie the opposite of Britain where population growth is concentrated in London/SE).

Monkey, the cities may be smaller, but economically they are stronger. Just take a look at Lyon. Why are they economically stronger than British cities? The reason is because they get more capital investment from the Government! This economic strength then stimulates growth, with leads to further funding. Do you not see this cycle effect?

[sarflonlad]

Originally Posted by Irwell

But not as overwhelmingly dominant as London is in the UK. Just look at the effect a little extra Government investment had in 1996 after the bombing.

I love the way you word that 'a little extra Government investment' in the context of a bomb!... God, people do go on about the Manchester Bomb - but is the exchange square and high end retail stores really something to endlessly dwell on?

I was hoping you'd jump straight on that figure without reading the rest! Yes, it does indeed say that. Now take a quick look at the document again and note that it was 2004 when Metrolink hit that figure!

Here is the 2006 document.

http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pdf/advertising_pack2006.pdf

"Over 20 million passengers per year"

So you're trying to trick me or you didn't read the year of the document yourself? I don't get it.

Not to mention Metrolink according to that document still did not take 1 million receipts per passenger mile! 20.1 million passengers over 23 miles of route is not 1 million per passenger mile!

If I was in Government I would invest in both as I'm very pro public transport, but if that wasn't an option I would choose the Manchester Metrolink as, per pound spent on it, it would bring more new riders into the system. Remember, the £500m from Government will more than double the number of places served by Metrolink.

That's fair enough. However if you extend anything you'll bring new riders on to the system - the point is, which one would bring more? Who would benefit more from relieving congestion?

Because Crossrail is an important thing to invest in. I'll say again, I'm all for Crossrail being built. Greater Manchester, however, now has some large scale public transport infrastructure improvements going before the Government and I'd hope they'd similarly fund that.

I actually took an active part in the campaign to get our Metrolink funding back in place (£500m), have been quite a vocal backer of our Transport Innovation Fund bid (£3bn) and am in contact with MPs regarding the planned improvements to Piccadilly (£2bn), so please don't assume I do nothing pro active about it. I'm also not having a go at London investment, I'm simply questioning the constant funding of London projects and sidelining of regional ones. If we get our fair slice of the cake too this time then I'm more than happy for Crossrail to get built.

Firstly, well done for getting involved. Ignore my sarcastic mockary thus far : I truely believe this is why Metrolink 'got back on track' - the campaigning by locals. Leeds had no such campaign. Crossrail well had pretty much every organisation supporting it except George Gallaway. The UK is full of moaners combined with apathy.

But again you raise this idea of something not being fair... I assume you mean:

I never asked for the same, I asked for the same proportionally, i.e. per capita.

Strictly within the domain of Public Transport... London contributes more and yet still doesn't get back what it contributed. Secondly London caters for millions each day coming in from the home counties as well. London also acts as a transport hub for connections to the rest of the country. And finally the points I made before:

London is the capital.

London has the worst problems with pollution and congestion in the UK...

The two boroughs of the UK with the highest rise in congestion over the last 5 years were Tameside and Oldham, both in Greater Manchester and both to be served by Metrolink Phase 3 and the TIF bid.

Right so what's your point? Two boroughs have an increase in congestion and something is getting done about it. That still leaves London congested and it still leaves it with the worst congestion.

Yes, London benefits the UK, and I'm more than happy for the Government to invest there. Just don't invest all the money in a place where a minority of people live.

Bloody hell, the government does not! It spends so much more on other things like Schools, NHS etc. outside of London. It also spends a greater subsidy for rail and light rail per passenger outside of London.

And what's this about a minority? That's quite a delusion of grandeur you've got going on there. Have you ever been to the SE even?

Yes, it anticipates greater growth, but not all that much greater than Greater Manchester does. In fact, rather unusually for the UK, Greater Manchester South is predicted to have the highest rise in Gross Value Added per capita.

Yawn yawn yawn. Do you call the equivalent of Leeds moving in to London by 2016 as on par with the growth of Manchester? Seriously, look at this with open eyes and not from an insular Mancunian perspective.

Part of our bid for Transport Innovation Fund money to tackle congestion was evidence that a failure to do so would cost Greater Manchester around 30,000 jobs over the following decade. Please don't try telling me there won't be any losses!

It would cost the creation of jobs. Not the relocating of companies. I'm sorry, you might not like it, but the competitiveness of London is more important than the competitiveness of Manchester.

Or maybe right now is precisely when it is appropriate.

Why? I really think Manchester in particular has been deluded in to thinking it has some sort of almighty potential. It doesn't offer any niche or anything unique. What does Manchester excel in? The local council there gets all excited by the relocation of BBC departments to the city - this is how desperate it is to find something. I know it, they know it, but Mancunians themselves pretend the city has something already to offer.

Maybe when the likes of China become less economically sound to obtain goods from, you'll see a resurgence of non-service industry in the UK and a reason to invest more in the infrastructure of places.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Irwell

You want to know what I'm on about? Your 2006 population figure was taken from this:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloa...ne95_Dec06.xls

Am I correct so far? That document, as anyone who looks at the tables can see, shows the populations of the REGIONS, i.e. London, North West, North East, etc. (North West being table 6, London being table 11). You then compared this figure to the unadjusted 2001 census figure for Greater London (London had an undercount like Manchester, which is why I used the 2001 mid-years instead).

Now think about it. You compared a smaller area, with an undercount, for 2001 to a larger area for 2006 to calculate your population change!

I did use the offical census figure for 2001 yes. I see no reason to use the adjustments. I used unadjusted figures for Greater Manchester too - strictly comparable.

And for the upteenth+1 time there is such separate entity on ONS stats as a "London region". What "smaller area" are you talking about? There is Greater London and only Greater London. What part of that do you not understand???

Originally Posted by Irwell

Will you please follow the link I gave you earlier and use the ACTUAL population figures? I gave you the figures earlier too, but I doubt you'll trust me on them.

I have used the actual figures and linked to you the ONS sources and provided you wioth the calculations.

Originally Posted by Irwell

No Monkey, as per usual you failed to read your own sources and came up with completely inaccurate figures. Please now go and read your sources, then go and read mine. I wonder if you'll come back and say sorry.

It's you that doesn't understand basic maths and you that owes the apology.

Originally Posted by Irwell

As I pointed out, yes, London was growing and Manchester was shrinking 15 years ago. Why should this impact on current public transport spend at a time when both are growing at about the same rate, meaning that the impact on both systems is roughly the same?

Growth, whether fast or slow, positive or negative, can only occur over a period of time. It does not happen at a single point or moment. Over the period of time since Crossrail has was first proposed London's population has grown by 1 million and manchester's has shrunk by 2001. The growth rates are not similar even in percenatge terms even since 2001.

Originally Posted by Irwell

You're using irrelevant figures to try to back up your initial false assertion that everywhere outside London is stagnant!

But Britain's population growth outside London/SE is largely stagnat. There are small local shifts between suburbs and city but overall the north west of England is not growing or shrinking by much very at all. That is not the case with London/SE which is growing quite rapidly, has been for some time, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

Originally Posted by Irwell

It's quite obviously you that's struggling with the complexities of this Monkey, as you always seem to do, which is why I don't usually bother replying to you. It's like trying to explain calculus to a toddler.

That's a bit rich coming from someone who cannot understand percantages, the meaning of "growth", and who seems to think there are two offical measures of London - Greater London and some other region called London that is somehow something separate.

Originally Posted by Irwell

Now please go and read both your sources and my sources. Mine are the official ONS figures for each constituent authority. Yours use two different definitions. It's very simple.

My sources are from the ONS and they use exactly the same defintion - exactly the f***ing same!!

Originally Posted by Irwell

No, there is an economic shift caused by higher levels of [government] investment in London.

Bullshit!!

Originally Posted by Irwell

Investment attracts investment. It's a cycle.

What is larger? Private or government investment? You seem to think it's government investment that dictates private investment. In the case of Britain and transport it's absolutely the other way round. The government only invests to match private investment decades after the pressures have become unbearable - for instance London having to wait 30 years for the government to provide new transport capacity despite London/SE seeing a 2 million population increase over the period. The fact that you guys think government is master of the economic universe is probably because you've all been in the dole queue all your lives and are incapable of imagining it any other way.

Originally Posted by Irwell

Do you think that maybe if we had the same level of [government] investment we might also see the same rate of economic growth?

No. Because you are not receiving the same amount of private investment. Government investment in transport capacity is reactive towards economic trends - not directive. Look at the time lags for chrissakes! It's obvious!!

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Irwell

Monkey, the cities may be smaller, but economically they are stronger. Just take a look at Lyon. Why are they economically stronger than British cities? The reason is because they get more capital investment from the Government! This economic strength then stimulates growth, with leads to further funding. Do you not see this cycle effect?

And look at Lisle. It's weaker. Unemployment is high and productivity and GDP are low. Ditto Marseille. And that's despite of all this marvelous investment. According to you the only factor in economics is government spending (that perception must come from a lifetime spent in the flatcapped dole queue waiting for government handouts... ). The concepts of market forces and trends are obviously completely alien to you. Perhaps that's how Manchester became "cottonopolis" in the first place? It was all down to government investment right? Man I bet all the traditional cathedral cities were mightily pissed seeing all that unfair government favouritism and investment in favour of those upstart mill towns...

[Irwell]

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

I love the way you word that 'a little extra Government investment' in the context of a bomb!... God, people do go on about the Manchester Bomb - but is the exchange square and high end retail stores really something to endlessly dwell on?

No, that isn't something to dwell on. What we should dwell on, however, is how much of a difference the increased investment made. If this was raised to the same level, per capita, that London gets, maybe the regional economies would see similar growth rates. Just as a small example, Urbis was originally commissioned to be the regional assembly building for the North West, a region of similar size to London in terms of population and substantially larger geographically. You would, therefore, expect it's needs in terms of space and facilities to be similar to that of the GLA. Less than 1/4 of the money spent on the offices of the GLA was spent on Urbis. If the two had cost the same, do you think maybe it would have had a greater impact on the local economy? That's one example alone.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

So you're trying to trick me or you didn't read the year of the document yourself? I don't get it.

Neither. I was trying to show you where your 18.8 million figure came from.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

Not to mention Metrolink according to that document still did not take 1 million receipts per passenger mile! 20.1 million passengers over 23 miles of route is not 1 million per passenger mile!

You are quite correct, it didn't during that year, but maybe that was due to the major resurfacing that was taking place up until this summer, reducing the service substantially.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

That's fair enough. However if you extend anything you'll bring new riders on to the system - the point is, which one would bring more? Who would benefit more from relieving congestion?

Possibly London would benefit more from relief of congestion, but then maybe Manchester would benefit more from the economic boost. Who knows.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

Firstly, well done for getting involved. Ignore my sarcastic mockary thus far : I truely believe this is why Metrolink 'got back on track' - the campaigning by locals. Leeds had no such campaign. Crossrail well had pretty much every organisation supporting it except George Gallaway. The UK is full of moaners combined with apathy.

Indeed it is, and it's one of the things that annoys me about people from other cities complaining about Manchester getting something they didn't get. It's not like we didn't put in a lot of work to get it back on track.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

But again you raise this idea of something not being fair... I assume you mean:



Strictly within the domain of Public Transport... London contributes more and yet still doesn't get back what it contributed. Secondly London caters for millions each day coming in from the home counties as well. London also acts as a transport hub for connections to the rest of the country.

Commuting from outside is something we'll never match London on, but we still get a fair number of commuters from the Cheshire Belt. We're a transport hub for the north, with all traffic between Leeds and Liverpool and Sheffield and Liverpool passing through the area, as well as those from the three cities coming into Manchester, hence the £2bn feasibility study for Piccadilly. We also have an airport which serves more international destinations than any other airport in the UK.

Yes, in terms of transport we aren't a match for London, but size for size I think we hold our own quite well.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

And finally the points I made before:

London is the capital.

As is Berlin in Germany.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

London has the worst problems with pollution and congestion in the UK...

And Greater Manchester is second worst, as well as having the fastest increases in congestion.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

Right so what's your point? Two boroughs have an increase in congestion and something is getting done about it. That still leaves London congested and it still leaves it with the worst congestion.

Yes, London has worse congestion, but we're second to you in that unfortunately and the gap is narrowing. It's narrowing because jobs are being created in the city centre much faster than public transport is being extended to cover them.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

Bloody hell, the government does not! It spends so much more on other things like Schools, NHS etc. outside of London. It also spends a greater subsidy for rail and light rail per passenger outside of London.

Maybe it was a slight exaggeration, but as was said earlier, per capita London gets substantially more capital expenditure.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

And what's this about a minority? That's quite a delusion of grandeur you've got going on there. Have you ever been to the SE even?

It's not delusion at all. More people live outside London than live in it.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

Yawn yawn yawn. Do you call the equivalent of Leeds moving in to London by 2016 as on par with the growth of Manchester? Seriously, look at this with open eyes and not from an insular Mancunian perspective.

In relative terms, yes I do. Greater Manchester, over the same period, will grow by over 1/4 of the population of Leeds, despite being only 1/3 of the size of London. That's a pretty similar growth rate.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

It would cost the creation of jobs. Not the relocating of companies. I'm sorry, you might not like it, but the competitiveness of London is more important than the competitiveness of Manchester.

You said it wouldn't cost the creation of jobs. Either way, there are a number of firms who have specifically stated they would consider relocating if nothing is done about congestion in the area. Greater Manchester police have already moved out of the city centre because of it.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

Why? I really think Manchester in particular has been deluded in to thinking it has some sort of almighty potential. It doesn't offer any niche or anything unique. What does Manchester excel in? The local council there gets all excited by the relocation of BBC departments to the city - this is how desperate it is to find something. I know it, they know it, but Mancunians themselves pretend the city has something already to offer.

Manchester's niche is in the biotech industry.

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

Maybe when the likes of China become less economically sound to obtain goods from, you'll see a resurgence of non-service industry in the UK and a reason to invest more in the infrastructure of places.

Manchester and Leeds are both primarily service-led economies, so this would have less of an impact on us than Liverpool or Birmingham for example.

[Irwell]

Originally Posted by Monkey

I did use the offical census figure for 2001 yes. I see no reason to use the adjustments. I used unadjusted figures for Greater Manchester too - strictly comparable.

And for the upteenth+1 time there is such separate entity on ONS stats as a "London region". What "smaller area" are you talking about? There is Greater London and only Greater London. What part of that do you not understand???

In terms of Government Offices there is no difference in the definition. In terms of ONS definitions, however, there is a difference. That is why the London population figures are higher than the Greater London ones. What part of that do YOU not understand? Now, please go and look at my sources and compare them to yours.

Originally Posted by Monkey

I have used the actual figures and linked to you the ONS sources and provided you wioth the calculations. It's you that understand basic maths and you that owes the apology.

I looked at your sources and told you why they are wrong. You obviously have yet to look at mine, otherwise you'd see the difference in the definitions used by ONS. It's time for you to look at the sources as you're back to doing the whole making yourself look stupid thing again.

Originally Posted by Monkey

Growth, whether fast or slow, positive or negative, can only occur over a period of time. It does not happen at a a single point or moment. Over the period of time since Crossrail has was first proposed London's population has grown by 1 million and manchester's has shrunk by 2001. The growth rates are not similar even in percenatge terms even since 2001.

Since 2001:
Greater London = +2.6%
Greater Manchester = +1.5%

Source: Office for National Statistics Total Resident Population Mid-Year Estimates

Looks pretty similar to me!

Originally Posted by Monkey

But Britain's population growth outside London/SE is largely stagnat. There are small local shifts between suburbs and city but overall the north west of England is not growing or shrinking by much very at all. That is not the case with London/SE which is growing quite rapidly, has been for some time, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.That's a bit rich coming from someone who cannot understand percantages, the meaning of "growth", and who seems to think there are two offical measures of London - Greater London and some other region called London that is somehow something separate.

Why are you now comparing regions? Since when has the North West been Manchester? Seeing as you are using the region of London, which is defined as a city region, why not also use Manchester's city region as defined by the Department for Communities and Local Government, rather than the whole of the North West?

Originally Posted by Monkey

My sources are from the ONS and they use exactly the same defintion - exactly the f***ing same!!

Which is why the population figures for both are different every single year?

Originally Posted by Monkey

Bullshit!!

Such a succinct argument. Well done.

Originally Posted by Monkey

What is larger? Private or government investment? You seem to think it's government investment that dictates provate investment. In the case of Britain and transport it's absolutely the other way round. The government only invests to match private investment decades after the pressures ghave become unbearable - for instance London having to wait 30 years fro the government to provide new transport capacity despite London/SE seeing a 2 million population increase over the period. the fact that you gusy think government is master of the economic universe is probably because you've all been in the dole queue all your lives and are incapable of imagining it any other way.

Just because that is the current thinking behind Government investment does not mean it is the only possible thinking there can be. Time and time again it has been shown that, with a bit of public investment, areas start to catch up to London in terms of growth rate. Unfortunately, though, we then go right back to square one because the long term trend is for London to get more. Government investment increases private sector confidence. It's a well known economic phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Monkey

No. Because you are not receiving the same amount of private investment. Government investment in transport capacity is reactive towards economic trends - not directive. Look at the time lags for chrissakes! It's obvious!!

I never said this wasn't the case. I did, however, point to times when this trend has been reversed. When this happens you see a spike in economic growth in that area and it closes the gap on London. The increased investment then goes away and the economic growth falls back again. It's the main weakness in British economic policy as stronger regions would add substantially to the strength of London.

[pricemazda]

People are also forgetting that 6 of the 10 poorest districts in the UK are in London.

[URBANISER]

I wonder what the value of government administration or the Civil Service is to London. The capital benifit's hugely from this and we ALL contribute taxes for it, it is a massive employer. A recent study published in 'The Economist' actually proves that London receives 'THE MOST' in tax per head. Another example is the BBC, 3b spend PA, 27,000 jobs, 80% in London, should be renamed the LBC. Only 5% is relocating north. If you moved the CS north you would see the real cost to value ratio of government administration. It ain't just about transport.

[sarflonlad]

Originally Posted by Irwell

No, that isn't something to dwell on. What we should dwell on, however, is how much of a difference the increased investment made. If this was raised to the same level, per capita, that London gets, maybe the regional economies would see similar growth rates. Just as a small example, Urbis was originally commissioned to be the regional assembly building for the North West, a region of similar size to London in terms of population and substantially larger geographically. You would, therefore, expect it's needs in terms of space and facilities to be similar to that of the GLA. Less than 1/4 of the money spent on the offices of the GLA was spent on Urbis. If the two had cost the same, do you think maybe it would have had a greater impact on the local economy? That's one example alone.

How much did the Scottish Parliament cost again? Also, while we're on Scotland - they take your tax each year and decide what costs to allocate projects such as Metrolink.... what do you get back? £10bn is what England gave Scotland last year - think how many Metrolinks you could build for that... and yet you and no one else ever goes on to a Scottish thread to complain.

The GLA collects it's own monies through council taxation. So I don't think it wise of you to compare the projects.

Neither. I was trying to show you where your 18.8 million figure came from.

You are quite correct, it didn't during that year, but maybe that was due to the major resurfacing that was taking place up until this summer, reducing the service substantially.

You've constantly being saying Metrolink has achieved over 1,000,000 passengers per mile - and yet it hasn't and now you finally admit that. I'm reading your other posts to Monkey as well - and I wonder - maybe your Maths is not cracked up to be so great?

Indeed it is, and it's one of the things that annoys me about people from other cities complaining about Manchester getting something they didn't get. It's not like we didn't put in a lot of work to get it back on track.

Ah, the call of the hypocrite. These annoying people who complain about investment elsewhere? how dare they!

Commuting from outside is something we'll never match London on, but we still get a fair number of commuters from the Cheshire Belt. We're a transport hub for the north, with all traffic between Leeds and Liverpool and Sheffield and Liverpool passing through the area, as well as those from the three cities coming into Manchester, hence the £2bn feasibility study for Piccadilly. We also have an airport which serves more international destinations than any other airport in the UK.

And London is the transport hub of the UK - which means it brings people in to come to Manchester.

Also Ibiza, Greece and lovely Spain might be "international" - but please, Manchester Airport predominantly caters for the bucket and spade budget traveller - yes it has business travel, but how frequent are its connections to the less touristy hotspots around the globe? I imagine more mancunians come to London to fly elsewhere.

Yes, in terms of transport we aren't a match for London, but size for size I think we hold our own quite well.

Well there you go. What's the problem? Do you want Manchester to be London?

And Greater Manchester is second worst, as well as having the fastest increases in congestion.

Yes, London has worse congestion, but we're second to you in that unfortunately and the gap is narrowing. It's narrowing because jobs are being created in the city centre much faster than public transport is being extended to cover them.

If this is true, then in time you'll have to lobby to build whatever is suitable for the city. The government supports a free market economy where strength emerges - it does not invest without the concrete need to do so already in place.

Maybe it was a slight exaggeration, but as was said earlier, per capita London gets substantially more capital expenditure.

Oh dear god, this again.

London subsidises Manchester. Manchester does what for London?

It's not delusion at all. More people live outside London than live in it.

Well done Columbo!

But I don't think you get it. The London Area is basically the entire South East of England. The two are interlinked - have you lived down here at all? You'd know exactly what we're talking about if you ever had to relocate to the south. And even if we were just to talk about London - is the 7.5 million people who are concentrated there, that's well over 10% of the UK, "just a minority"? Errr no. I think not.

In relative terms, yes I do. Greater Manchester, over the same period, will grow by over 1/4 of the population of Leeds, despite being only 1/3 of the size of London. That's a pretty similar growth rate.

Maths dear boy... 1/4 or 0.25 is ummm less than the 1/3 or 0.333 'relative comparison' you are suggesting. Manchester also has the capacity to deal with increases in population that better than London.

In the context of Crossrail, it's serving the entire South East - not just London - which will increase in population by 2.whatever million.

The UK is experiencing natural population growth. This is disproportionate however owing to immigration and relocation to London.

You said it wouldn't cost the creation of jobs. Either way, there are a number of firms who have specifically stated they would consider relocating if nothing is done about congestion in the area. Greater Manchester police have already moved out of the city centre because of it.

No no no... I said no one would lose jobs because we are not building trams everywhere. London would lose jobs if Crossrail did not go ahead.

And Greater Manchester Police have moved out of the city centre? The shock! The horror! Where are they based now? Greater Manchester? I mean that's almost as unthinkable as the Metropolitan Police being based in the City of Westminster rather than the City of London.

Manchester's niche is in the biotech industry.

Great - and this massive net contributor to the economy needs what infrastructure to support it? I mean it's the sort of industry you have located bang in the centre of a city right?

Manchester and Leeds are both primarily service-led economies, so this would have less of an impact on us than Liverpool or Birmingham for example.

Haha... I'm sorry, but most of Manchester's woes come from it's former redundant industrial status. Certainly not a self supporting service led economy it seems.

[El_Greco]

Awww poor northerners bad boy London is stealing their money and is responsible for all their problems...heres a hug for you -


Seriously though London is capital and most important city in the UK so its natural that it gets more money than other cities.
Stop crying.