Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 66 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,443 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
From Centre for Cities:

City Views

How do Britain's cities see London?

As economic recovery takes hold and London takes the lead in supporting economic growth, the debate about London’s role in the UK economy has been revived. Is London regarded as helping or hindering the rest of the UK?

To understand more about perceptions of London around the country, Centre for Cities and Centre for London commissioned YouGov to conduct a national survey asking people what their perceptions are of London, and took the same poll to 16 cities including Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Bristol to find out how different places view the capital. Using these polls and a series of roundtable discussions around the country, the report City Views: how do Britain’s cities see London? offers a new perspective on London.

The findings are striking:

-While 66 per cent of respondents agreed that London benefits the UK economy, only 24 per cent felt it benefited their place – and that fell to less than one in 10 respondents in cities such as Hull, Sheffield and Liverpool.

-London is felt to dominate politics too much too: only 17 per cent of UK adults outside London think that Whitehall and Parliament are responsive to the issues in the city / town where they live.

-When asked to select from a list words that describe London, the most popular responses were expensive, crowded, cosmopolitan, lively and cultural.

-Only 32 per cent of adults outside London think the capital is a good place to raise a family.

You can see highlights from the poll findings on the Prezi, or download the report, which talks about what the findings mean for the UK and its cities.

Download the full report

http://www.centreforcities.org/assets/files/2014/14-05-12-City-Views.pdf

Also started a thread on the UK City Talk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,557 Posts
I've worked in Manchester and London - on and off. I believe London gets disproportionate investment in infrastructure but its the manner in which investment outside of London is looked at that is the problem.

If you compare Crossrail at £5 billion which has a BCR of about 1.5 compared against the Northern Hub scheme which has a BCR of about 2.5. Despite the North in being in dire need of new trains and better inter-city connections the Northern Hub has been a continual struggle. Even recently we have been led to believe that the folks at the DfT in London are dragging their feet in over the scheme to make savings. HS2 is yet another example and is geared to mostly benefit London by a London-centric government. The same can be said about the South West who receive little transport investment and even Scotland.

The real issue for me is the Westminster bubble. Having worked at Millbank just a few hundred metres from Big Ben I still felt as distant and disillusioned with politics as I ever have when I was growing up in Manchester. It goes back to my point about the folks in London at the DfT have no idea of how to split investment wisely and fairly which means London will always be fast tracked regardless of the cost and/or benefit. They are distant, out of touch and don't understand the predicament people across these isles are in. That for me is the crux of the matter

The simple answer is de-centralisation. It sounds far-fetched to think the British parliament would move from Westminster but a lot of people would support it. Establish an English Parliament in London and decentralise the national government to the centre of Britain - i.e. Northern England. We would be turning to a federal system of government but I feel a more accountable one for every man, woman and child across these isles. I actually believe the vast majority (i.e. the ones without the anti-English chip on their shoulder) Scottish voters would vote no if Tories seemed so out of touch. That was a very brief summary of my strand of thought BTW.
 

·
PoliticoJack
Joined
·
532 Posts
A city that IS a bit of a sponge, but also brings great investment and wealth into our country. We'd all be poorer without a strong London that is for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,328 Posts
Or even Manchester Likes London - Unlike Other Northern Cities. It's only Jonathan Schofield, but he does say this:

"...a grotesque leech on the British economy, a permanent imbalance..."

Actually he says that about "the City" rather than London. Because he's a numpty. I agree with the comment by James Smith:

"Absolute total and utter nonsense Jonathan, this city should never accept the mere scraps that it is thrown from the table of London..."

That's how it is, guys. London property process are sky-high for a reason. Because our government and its friends milk Manchester people with NI and VAT and income tax and ripoff bills and no interest etc, and pay out fat salaries in London. Don't think I'm some lefty with an axe to grind. Labour do this too. And then they'll all tell you that London subsidises you. That's bollocks. They massage the figures and say things like "Crossrail is a national project" so that you don't get to see how the spending is skewed to London.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
Farsight, I'd like to think that there is some national fiscal injustice going on, but repeatedly I've read that the opposite is true - that more tax is raised in London than is spent there, and thus that London is a net contributor to the national balance of tax and public expenditure. Do have have some reliable figures for what you're saying?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
The government just needs to spend more money outside London. Simples. It doesn't matter if London subsidies other cities - it's the same feckin country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,328 Posts
Farsight, I'd like to think that there is some national fiscal injustice going on, but repeatedly I've it asserted that the opposite is true - that more tax is raised in London than is spent there, and thus that London is a net contributor to the national balance of tax and public expenditure. Do have have some reliable figures for what you're saying?
Yes. See this report:

"The government spends more money on transport projects for Londoners than on those for the rest of the country combined, a think tank says. The Institute for Public Policy Research North says £2,700 is spent per person in London compared with £5 per head in the north-east of England...."

When we were talking about this previously we referred to official government statistics which I said were fiddled by the "national spending" ruse. Most of this "national spending" money gets actually spent in London. For example, in this report you can read this:

"Expenditure is allocated to countries and regions on the basis of the region that benefited from the expenditure or whom the expenditure was for, wherever possible..."

Look carefully. It wasn't where the expenditure occurred. Money is spent in London "for" the North West. Money is spent in London "for the benefit of" the North East. And so on.
 

·
10th February 2008
Joined
·
60,531 Posts
Manchester Confidential.

Manchester Likes London - Unlike Other Northern Cities

Jonathan Schofield on a capital reaction

Written by Jonathan Schofield. Published on Wednesday at 10:07 AM.

Manchester Likes London - Unlike Other Northern Cities

THIS is my favourite ever quote about Manchester’s attitude to London. It comes from the early twentieth century when the disparity between northern cities and the property bubble economy of London wasn’t so exaggerated.

Confidential reckons that Manchester is right to have a more positive attitude to the capital than that of other Northern cities.

In his autobiography Little Wilson Big God, Anthony Burgess wrote:

‘In those days, for a Mancunian to visit London was an essay in condescension. London was a day behind Manchester in the arts, in commercial cunning, in economic philosophy. True it had the monarch and the government and was gratuitously big. When foreigners came to Manchester they came to learn, not to feed ravens and snap beefeaters. Sometimes they learned too well, but that was not Manchester’s fault. Manchester was generous and London was not. London had some of the quality of Chorlton-cum-Hardy.’

That last line is laugh out loud stuff given how Chorlton has Hoxtonified over the last decade.

Now the Centre for Cities, commissioned by YouGov, has conducted a survey into how people view the capital and its impact on the rest of the country.

Manchester bucks a northern trend with more than a fifth of those polled (21%) believing that London has a 'very positive' impact on the city and 42% thinking it has a 'fairly positive' impact. 18% felt London benefited its economy.


Manchester - twice as positive about London than Liverpool

Elsewhere in the North it was very different.

Fewer than one in 10 people in Liverpool, a skip down the M62, thought London has a positive impact on the city’s economy. Indeed, Liverpudlians are among the most disaffected in the UK - along with people in Hull, Sheffield and Glasgow - when it comes to their view of how the capital looks at the provinces.

24% nationally believed London has a positive effect on their local economies.

So why is Manchester different from its brother urban centres in the North?

“It could reflect the fact that Manchester has a long history of strong leadership and relationships with Whitehall and as a result has more powers, funding and flexibilities to grow and shape the city,” the report's authors say.

“Manchester’s recent City Deal and the continuous growth of its tram network, for example, demonstrate how city leaders have worked alongside government in London to drive change and support the economy in Manchester.”

It also pointed to the strong city region partnership Manchester has developed between ten local authorities as contributing to additional investment and growth.

The survey took place across sixteen major UK cities. The results have led Centre For Cities to call on the government to devolve more powers and freedoms to cities so that they can take on more prominent economic, political and cultural roles.


Some Cockneys enjoying the property boom

The joint project with Centre for London, supported by Lloyds Banking Group, found that contrary to David Cameron's assertion that “we are all in this together” the British public does not feel that the UK is a 'one nation economy'.

Back to the stats.

Across the UK, only 17% of people believe London civil servants and politicians are responsive to issues in their own city – in Manchester its 20% and in Liverpool 8%.

And despite the BBC's move to Salford, national coverage of news stories and cultural events tends to be regarded as London-centric. Ironically perhaps – but sensibly - even the report describes it as ‘Salford in Manchester’.

In Manchester 27% of the poll thought national coverage was 'very focussed' on London and 48% thought it 'fairly focussed' on London.

Confidential reckons that Manchester is right to have a more positive attitude to the capital than that of other Northern cities. It’s best to be mature about these things, get on with the reality and attempt to change it from within.

One way of looking at this is by considering London so bloated, such an artificial bubble economy, that it exists as a separate country - although close enough for a lovely weekend away. In that case Burgess’s sangfroid above is the correct way to look at the relationship – with humour.

The other way to look at the Metropolitan Beast is with trepidation especially with regard to that Margaret Thatcher Frankenstein monster, The City of London and the 1986 Big Bang easing of stock market speculations. The latter is a grotesque leech on the British economy, a permanent imbalance.

When London's financial sector catches a chill it means the rest of us get pneumonia. If much of that grubby group in pin stripes were to go it might not be too bad a thing. Maybe we could concentrate on manufacturing a little bit more then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,328 Posts
Okay, that's spend. What about tax?
Huh? There's more tax collected per head in London because the government and its friends spends most of the money they rake in from the UK in London. The "and friends" thing is ripoff Britain with its back-door taxation. For example Barclays don't pay you any interest but they do pay out a £2.4bn bonus pot. Most of this goes to London employees, then a big slug of that goes to the government in tax. Which is why the government lets them get away with ripping you off.
 

·
10th February 2008
Joined
·
60,531 Posts
For me it's the difference in (infrastructure) spending.

It seems any Government, be it Labour, Conservative, Conservative/Lib Dem, has no hesitation in throwing money at London projects, while the regional cities(scoff!), have to beg, plead, and even borrow money to get their projects up and running, after years of discussion with Ministers and Civil Servants in London.

The best example being Metrolink. Not only was it cancelled by Labour, it then took *10 years* to get Metrolink from Piccadilly Train Station to the Etihad, which in 2002 was the Commonwealth Games stadium.

Then you have the London Road Firs Station CPO farce. Ed Pickles decided in favour of Britannia Hotels Limited. A minister who resides in London, and made his decision on case notes. That's right, he, *Ed Pickles*, made the final decision.

Decisions like that should be made in Manchester, not by a Minister holed up in some Government office in London.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,389 Posts
This all sounds like the bleating that you get from Scousers who say that Manchester gets all the investment at the expense of Liverpool.

London is a different place entirely, it is a global city that attracts billions from rich foreigners who 'want to be in London'. It attracts millions of tourists because it is an interesting place. Manchester and countless other secondary European cities can only dream.

We should focus on what we're good at instead of whinging about others.
The limit of Manchester's ambition is probably to be the best and most influential secondary city.

We need to work alongside our cousins in London,pointing out the opportunities here, not attack them and slag them off. That way we can attract the available investment to our city because it is seen as a friendly and positive place with a dynamic attitude to growth.
No-one wants to work with whingers.

As an aside, I've met quite a few Whitehall based senior civil servants over the years. It's always amazed me how many of them are northerners. I don't think I've ever met one who is actually from London.
 

·
*THEIYR'RE
Joined
·
7,325 Posts
Well put Lookin Up. Positive action triumphs of whinging. We need to attract companies head offices, not going on about how 'unfair' it is that London may get more tax money spent on it (many other cities have the same complaints about Manchester ;) )
 

·
*THEIYR'RE
Joined
·
7,325 Posts
Well put Lookin Up. Positive action triumphs of whinging. We need to attract companies head offices, not going on about how 'unfair' it is that London may get more tax money spent on it (many other cities have the same complaints about Manchester ;) )
I meant positive action triumphs OVER whinging. iPad won't let me edit post.... :(
 

·
10th February 2008
Joined
·
60,531 Posts
It's not bleating, it's fact!

HB made the point about infastructure spending. I'll find the article.

Regardless of London's statues in the World, Billionaires, Tourists, blah, blah, blah, it's about a level playing field, not only for Manchester, but for the other regional cities.

Governments and Ministers throw money at London projects like there's no tomorrow. You only have to look at the Olympic Games. Initial costings were £3.4bill. The final cost was around £10bill.

Compare that to the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games. The total cost for the whole event was in the region of £150mill-£200mill. And that included a temporary stand at one end of the stadium, and a 2 mile tram line that was never delivered. In fact, Manchester had to go back to the then Labour Government asking for more money, as the initial amount given wasn't enough.

I haven't got a problem with London getting money for their infastructure projects, etc, as long the other regional cities get treated the same, which they clearly don't
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,328 Posts
... It seems any Government, be it Labour, Conservative, Conservative/Lib Dem, has no hesitation in throwing money at London projects, while the regional cities(scoff!), have to beg, plead, and even borrow money to get their projects up and running, after years of discussion with Ministers and Civil Servants in London...

...Governments and Ministers throw money at London projects like there's no tomorrow. You only have to look at the Olympic Games. Initial costings were £3.4bill. The final cost was around £10bill. Compare that to the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games...
Well said jerb.


Lookin Up said:
...London is a different place entirely, it is a global city that...
Uhhn. Not world city London again. As if that makes everything OK.

Lookin Up said:
This all sounds like the bleating that you get from Scousers who say that Manchester gets all the investment at the expense of Liverpool.
It's totally different. Liverpool folk don't pay taxes to a Manchester government who spends it in Manchester and pretends it's for Liverpool too.


tomegranate said:
Google it and you immediately see that transport and arts spending is heavily skewed towards London. See stuff like this. Google again omitting certain keywords and you see economic development spending is skewed towards London. See this to appreciate that one thing that isn't skewed towards London is spending cuts. Have a read of London – the subsidy junky.

All that ain't the half of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
I'm not disputing that more public money is spent in London than elsewhere, disproportionately when you measure it per-head of population.

What I'm asking for is really simple: proof this spending adds up to a net flow of taxation and spending from the rest of the country into London (as in your post #6), as opposed to the reverse: that taxes raised from economic activity in London more than cover public spending in the capital, and also makes a net contribution to public spending in the rest of the country.
 
1 - 20 of 66 Posts
Top