Manchester Offices

[jrb]

Exactly.

Why?

Why split the bank? Why London? Why not another English city? As a nation, as a political system, have we still not moved on from the notion that everything has to be placed/kept/retained/etc in the Capital. In London to you and me. Is now not the ideal time to be lookiong beyond the M25 and once and for all start moving jobs, wealth, and important functions to other parts of the country.

70 jobs is still 70 jobs. 70 jobs are more important to places like Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield, etc, in the current economic climate. London won't miss 70 jobs. Provincial cities would welcome 70 jobs. What if, just what if, those 70 jobs then turned into 140 jobs. It's happened before. It will happen again.

It really is time London centric politicians grasped the mantle, grew some balls, and stated future jobs will be going outisde London, regardless.

BTW. Whatever happened to the Civil Service relcoations the rest of the country were going to benefit from. Exactly.

[LNGCats]

Because if having it in London makes the GIB just 1% better then that will have much more of an effect on the regional economies than putting such a small amount of jobs in the regions.

Out of interest, why when the criteria were discussed last autumn did no one complain then?

Using the criteria set down this was never going anywhere other than London or Edinburgh.

[heatonparkincakes]

Kurtokat says he is a banker. I trust him on this judgement.

There is another debate on whether many national organizations from the National Trust to say the National council of nurses need to be lodged in a hugely expensive central London address.

But there is no point expecting others to rush to Manchester's aid. We need to do it ourselves.

[LNGCats]

Yep - or the Salvation Army - huge offices right in central London.

There are some very 'odd' decisions about where some charities decide to spend money renting office space.

[iamafreeman]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

Because if having it in London makes the GIB just 1% better then that will have much more of an effect on the regional economies than putting such a small amount of jobs in the regions.

Out of interest, why when the criteria were discussed last autumn did no one complain then?

Using the criteria set down this was never going anywhere other than London or Edinburgh.

Instead of repeating yourself please explain why a competition was used if the criteria meant only two cities could possibly fulfill them which is what you claim? Is everyone else stupid except you?

[LNGCats]

The same reason that the IOC have bids for Olympics.

To make it open and fair.

Making it obvious what the criteria were and having a fair competition to see which cities met the criteria.

When the criteria were published last autumn and they were discussed on here - when i was saying ti would go to London based on the criteria - why did you not point out at that point you disagreed with the criteria?

[LNGCats]

P.S. As has been posted in the Liverpool forum, Joe Anderson was told in the autumn by Merseyside MPs that Edinburgh was a dead cert based on the criteria.

Not every was a fool, those who bothered looking at the criteria knew what was going to happen.

Those that ignored the criteria are now upset as they didn't consider the implications back last autumn.

[iamafreeman]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

The same reason that the IOC have bids for Olympics.

To make it open and fair.

Making it obvious what the criteria were and having a fair competition to see which cities met the criteria.

When the criteria were published last autumn and they were discussed on here - when i was saying ti would go to London based on the criteria - why did you not point out at that point you disagreed with the criteria?

It is not remotely like the Olympics bid.

As I said were all the bidding groups stupid as opposed to you who apparently knew the outcome from the start?

[LNGCats]

No, not at all.

Was the Manc bid for the Olympics stupid as they clearly were never going to win it?

[LNGCats]

You've still not said in what ways any other city is more suitable than London / Edinburgh for the GIB.

[LNGCats]

Also, thinking about it.

Can the government make such a placement these days without throwing it open to competition?

Are there not competition laws these days, especially in the public sector, that mean such decisions have to be very open and competitive.

[iamafreeman]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

No, not at all.

Was the Manc bid for the Olympics stupid as they clearly were never going to win it?

London wasn't supposed to win the 2012 Olympics but it did. It's not a simple as you think it is. And the Olympics bid is not remotely like what we are talking about it's a red herring you keep repeating.

[LNGCats]

It's exactly the same.

You are complaining about cities bidding for GIB that never could win it.

Manc bid, twice, for the Olympics and never had a chance of winning.

It's exactly the same.

Still, why did you not mention your unhappiness with the criteria back in the autumn when we discussed it back then?

It comes across as sour grapes that the best cities won.

[golden66]

LNGCats,how can Edinburgh be a sensible location when within this parliament it could have voted for independence? None of this is about common sense ,it's about bribery and ideology. Get real.

[iamafreeman]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

You've still not said in what ways any other city is more suitable than London / Edinburgh for the GIB.

As I have already pointed out Edinburgh is purely a political decision by HMG in a feeble attempt to boost union support and which they have now admitted.

But it won't work because the Scots are not as stupid as the morons in Westminster.

And are you seriously suggesting nowhere else could run a banking business other than London?

[LNGCats]

So which of the criteria does Edinburgh fail at?

[LNGCats]

I am not saying no where else could run it.

Never have.

Just saying Edinburgh and London are the BEST of a good bunch.

Have you forgotten the purpose of the GIB?

[Nathan Dawz]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

How would you chose the best place to put such a bank?

How would your criteria differ?

I would have ruled London out for a start.

And I would have made it clear that in an effort to decentralise the country and move it away from the economically moribund policy of placing everything in the South East, it would be better if new departments and agencies were located elsewhere.

Not that difficult was it?

[LNGCats]

But no one said as such back in the autumn.

Anyway, I will repeat, this importance is being massively over blown.

No one seems to be denying that having out these cities may well make them a tiny but more efficient, a tiny bit more successful.

With an initial budget of £3bn just a 1% improvement in basing in London and Edinburgh will increase the money available for the whole nation to spend on green technologies by £30m.

That will have a far greater positive impact on the regions than some superficial placement that makes very little difference to any area and does not fully exploit the potential investments of the GIB.

The HQ of the GIB has never been important, despite what many on here think, it is the results of their investment, right across the nation that need to be best optimised.

I'd suggest a London / Edinburgh HQ is the best way of maximising investment on green technologies in areas such as Manchester as it increase the size of the investment pot.

[iamafreeman]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

Anyway, I will repeat, this importance is being massively over blown.
.

It's significance is that we have seen a London based government using this as first a sop to Scots supporting the union and secondly sending out a message loud and clear that only London really matters in our lop-sided centrally based nation.