Is London sucking the life out of the UK?

You and pap are showing your usual provincial sludginess with this kind of lazy response. With pap's lack of mental alertness in failing to read beyond a headline, you two should get on like a house on fire.

 

London's economic dominance over the rest of the UK is not down to population size. That would just make it bigger than other cities not immensely richer.

 

I tell you what: get on a train, if your provincial salary can take the strain, and come to London. Have a good look around. See what's happening, rather than peddle your provincial hard-done-by stereotypes. You'll be amazed. Just within a mile of where I live, we have two premier league clubs, arguably the best restaurant in London, an architects' practice that is world famous, a leading theatre, cinema and gallery venue, one of the most popular concert venues in London, the wonders of the River Thames, a famous international tennis venue, some of the finest riverside Georgian architecture in Britain...as well as multinationals like Coca Cola and Disney, creative-industry stalwarts like the BBC and HarperCollins, and much, much more. All within a mile. And I live in a quiet part of town.

 

So it's not just about population. But whether you come down here or not, please do feel free to stay in your comfort zone. It's a perfect place for some...

I know you're not in the business of starting threads, but generally, it goes down like this if you want to avoid the hanging "discuss?" calamity. Pick a topic, preferably one that will divide opinion. Pose a couple of provocative questions, and see what the response is. As far as I can tell, I haven't offered one opinion of my own on the subject yet. Your posts on this thread suggest a lot of pre-judgement and very little reading. You missed the headline, the quote, the suggestion that decentralisation might be one means to curb London's power ("it's about central government", you say - as if the point hadn't already been made).

FWIW, I think London a fantastic city. I've worked there, met some extremely bright people and it doesn't deserve the reputation of unfriendliness that it gets. Most people are not from the city and have an incentive to make friends, at least that was my experience.

I don't agree with your assessment that the provinces can't or don't compete. I've worked in very similar businesses in both London and the North West and have seen plucky forty-person design agencies snatch huge accounts from London-based behemoths.

Anyway, for someone who is taking the hump about stereotypes, you're being very dismissive about the achievements of the provinces, perhaps because you are not aware of them. The lowly city of Dundee, for example, is a nerve centre of videogame development. GTA was conceived and originally developed north of the border. Northern Ireland excels in aviation. The likes of Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool have been producing excellent bands for years. There's a reason that Liverpool is the only other city that most foreigners know other than London, and it isn't because the Kinks were more famous than the Beatles.

London too, has contributed greatly to all parts of British life, but it's the "provincial salary can take the strain" attitude that gets it much of its bad name. It's not so bad when you have a clan of visiting cockneys arriving in Swaythling remarking on how "good it is to be in the country". I get it. They're a mile or two away from actual huge, green spaces. Your attitude seems to be the inverse. "Ha ha! I'm in London, and you provincial slugabeds are not". I paraphrase and openly admit to a bit of Wurzel licence here, of course - but that's the vibe I'm getting.

It is a superb city, somewhere I'd definitely consider living later in life, but as Stephanie Flanders video points out, it is almost like being in a different country. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why London has raced so far ahead of other cities, or whether it's worthwhile attempting to redress the balance.

London obviously pays you **** as you have not parted with a fiver for 4 and a 1/2 years and yet contribute (debatable) an awful lot ya tramp:D

So:-

1) you were coming here for 3 1/2 years before you decided to create an account and start posting.

2) kept track of Verbal's Registered User/Full Member status throughout

?

You are one careful shopper, sir. I trust you feel your five pounds was well spent?

I'm not sure it's too important to dwell on how London got to its pre-eminent position, but we do need to consider what impact that has on the rest of the UK and indeed on its own inhabitants, particularly where they aren't the rich elites. There's no doubt that it's a great city and I enjoy my visits there, but the virtuous circle for London and the negative spiral for the rest of the UK does need looking at.

I'm not sure if the other major cities like Birmingham and Manchester (oh, and Liverpool, sorry Pap) have sufficient political and financial autonomy. It's all very well saying they should do this or that or they lack dynamism, but the fact is that their hands are tied by Westminster, particularly with a Tory government. I don't think the industrial past and the municipal pride shown by such cities indicates any inherent lack of dynamism on their part. In the case of HS2 I'm sure we do need such infrastructure, but perhaps it could be started by building the northern links first.

So:-

 

1) you were coming here for 3 1/2 years before you decided to create an account and start posting.

2) kept track of Verbal's Registered User/Full Member status throughout

 

?

 

You are one careful shopper, sir. I trust you feel your five pounds was well spent?

Where do you get 3 and a 1/2 years?

Where do you get 3 and a 1/2 years?

I wonder if my honourable friend on the other side of the house agrees that this might be game, set and match.

Nothing in the article or Stephanie Flanders' report suggests anything of the sort. This sounds like typical special pleading from serial scrounging provincials, trying to explain away London's massive subsidisation of provincial Britain as some kind of fake colonialism. As Flanders says, the problem isn't London, its central government. London has not disempowered provincial cities like Liverpool or Manchester - it's just got on with being what it has become since the end of WW2, a world city.

 

It's not just x times bigger than other British cities; it is an economic engine of vast proportions, and people who live and work in it have an energy that puts provincials to shame. As someone who lives both in London and the north of England, the contrast in attitudes is stunning. Even the act of getting off the train in London require spinning up to 'London speed', rather than the provincial dawdle. Economic creativity in the capital is vastly superior to anywhere else in Britain. Provincial decline, on the other hand, has followed manufacturing decline - and no one came up with a better idea. London, spectacularly (although not without problems), did.

I wonder if my honourable friend on the other side of the house agrees that this might be game, set and match.

I haven't the faintest idea to what you are on about, Pap you are a want to be socialist yet are plainly a mixed little tory boy, I figured you out the first time I read your self righteous ****e, you are an angry little man yet portray it in a laid back way, just copy and paste as per, name a place in liverpool my little hobbit and I shall meet you and buy you a pint, cant say fairer than that can you?

You and pap are showing your usual provincial sludginess with this kind of lazy response. With pap's lack of mental alertness in failing to read beyond a headline, you two should get on like a house on fire.

 

London's economic dominance over the rest of the UK is not down to population size. That would just make it bigger than other cities not immensely richer.

 

I tell you what: get on a train, if your provincial salary can take the strain, and come to London. Have a good look around. See what's happening, rather than peddle your provincial hard-done-by stereotypes. You'll be amazed. Just within a mile of where I live, we have two premier league clubs, arguably the best restaurant in London, an architects' practice that is world famous, a leading theatre, cinema and gallery venue, one of the most popular concert venues in London, the wonders of the River Thames, a famous international tennis venue, some of the finest riverside Georgian architecture in Britain...as well as multinationals like Coca Cola and Disney, creative-industry stalwarts like the BBC and HarperCollins, and much, much more. All within a mile. And I live in a quiet part of town.

 

So it's not just about population. But whether you come down here or not, please do feel free to stay in your comfort zone. It's a perfect place for some...

This is true. "London" has everything. It's a design centre, fashion centre, banking centre and houses the best shops (including flagship stores) in the country. I choose to live in North Hampshire and commute in daily to Oxford Street where I join the world of fashion retail. It's amazing what I see - trends are so far advanced of sleepy North Hants, not my tastes, but I'm not early 20s.

Having also worked in Angel for 2 years, again, amazing part of London - very different as each part is. Better pubs, different trends, but some big companies.

The rest of the world do not know, or care about the rest of the UK. I worked with a guy who came over from India. He lived in Bracknell as it was cheaper, yet when his wedding invites sent out they had his address as "Bracknell, London, England".

Manchester is on the up in terms of world knowledge of its existence, but London will always be the UK's capital for many things. I wouldn't live there, but I'd hate to work anywhere else now - the buzz you get daily from going in to work and leaving to go back to the country is a great feeling. You could argue France/Paris is similar - all the companies I've worked at have offices in Paris ...

But just to end, I will agree that most "Londoners" are totally unaware of what the rest of the country is like. They can't fathom I can only get 1 bus an hour and the last one is 6pm, just as an example.

I've read the story linked in the OP and can't see anything that explains how London is "sucking the life" out of the rest of the country. Is there another link to actually explain the thinking behind this viewpoint at all?

This appears just to be people showing off about how they live in busy old London. Yawn I bet they have amazing travel stories as well. You haven't lived until you have seen this little tea shop in India at sunset

London is an amazing City but one of the reasons the Cities on the South Coast are crap is London, why if you could afford locate in Southa, pton when you could do so in London, one thing London does have and lacks is a centre, a real centre, some say trafalgar square, some Leicester square others the square mile, London is really 40 large towns and a large pillar roughly in the centre.

As Cities go its brilliant but there are better for the working man, how can someoe on £50,000 a year afford to live anywhere nice? They cant so it may be exciting blah blah blah but commuting when you are 60 is ********, in fact its ******** full stop, my wife does it and she ****ing hates it.

This appears just to be people showing off about how they live in busy old London. Yawn I bet they have amazing travel stories as well. You haven't lived until you have seen this little tea shop in India at sunset

I have to agree impressionable little bunnies, they rent I suspect or live in East Ham or Hackney, blaggers.

why if you could afford locate in Southa, pton when you could do so in London,

Yeah exactly - why would I want my family to live near a great school,have easy access to the forest, the coast and loads of other beautiful green space when I could be near a great expensive restaurants, the theatre and art galleries that I would rarely attend and can do so easily on a day trip. Oh and afford a house. I must be mad!

Actually your question is quite stupid as if ranking locations by achievement. As I said lots of pretentious fckers posting

Yeah exactly - why would I want my family to live near a great school,have easy access to the forest, the coast and loads of other beautiful green space when I could be near a great expensive restaurants, the theatre and art galleries that I would rarely attend and can do so easily on a day trip. Oh and afford a house. I must be mad!

 

Actually your question is quite stupid as if ranking locations by achievement. As I said lots of pretentious fckers posting

I was referring to business not pleasure hence commuting not living, where have I written that being in London is so wondrous?

I wasn't meaning you really Barry. Verbal I think it was. Quoted you though so sure it looked like that. Apologies as see in other posts you are not saying same as others

I wasn't meaning you really Barry. Verbal I think it was. Quoted you though so sure it looked like that. Apologies as see in other posts you are not saying same as others

Apology accepted.

I've read the story linked in the OP and can't see anything that explains how London is "sucking the life" out of the rest of the country. Is there another link to actually explain the thinking behind this viewpoint at all?

The quote comes from Vince Cable. Take it up with him, or discuss the merits of the argument here.

The quote comes from Vince Cable. Take it up with him, or discuss the merits of the argument here.

Yeah exactly - why would I want my family to live near a great school,have easy access to the forest, the coast and loads of other beautiful green space when I could be near a great expensive restaurants, the theatre and art galleries that I would rarely attend and can do so easily on a day trip. Oh and afford a house. I must be mad!

 

Actually your question is quite stupid as if ranking locations by achievement. As I said lots of pretentious fckers posting

To answer the OP - yes.

I've seen a lot of the world and worked in a lot of different places, including about 10 years (on-and-off) in various parts of London. It's dirty, smelly, unfriendly, crowded and expensive. Yes the work and money is there, nice to visit for the attractions, but I'd never choose to live there. That's my opinion, many others take the opposite view, which I respect.

However, in practical terms London is 'throttling' the rest of the country because of the geographic imbalance in the national infrastructure in terms of communications, road and rail links and its gluttonous consumption of power, water and other resources. The process seems to have got worse over the last century as well. The cities of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, even Sheffield and others, used to be world-famous for their particular industries but are now mostly unknown to foreigners since the decline of the UK's international standing. Instead, much of the national investment in effort and resources have been ploughed into London to help it retain its 'world city' status. Only in the last 20 years or so has some effort been made to reverse this trend.

Someone mentioned how Germany is more diversified. This is largely down to the way in which the German nation developed from individual states, each with their own capital, financial and industrial centres. Consequently their national infrastructure (at least in the West) is much more diversified than in the UK. London is one of the world's great cities but makes an eccentric 'hub' for the rest of the nation.

Has anyone suggested on this thread that you can't have a good quality of life in Southampton (or other provincial city)?

Tbh I haven't read all the posts again but my impression first time was that people were stating obvious about how vibrant London is. Wow how surprisingly. People associating themselves with it as if it reflects on their hectic party lifestyle. Reality most don't want that hectic pace of life. I like London and go regularly but buggered if would want to live there.

Tbh I haven't read all the posts again but my impression first time was that people were stating obvious about how vibrant London is. Wow how surprisingly. People associating themselves with it as if it reflects on their hectic party lifestyle. Reality most don't want that hectic pace of life. I like London and go regularly but buggered if would want to live there.

Right, so your point is that you personally wouldn't want to live in London. Fair enough.

perceptive yes that is one of them. The other was plenty of pretentious love to brag about it over the provinces and those sorts are normally very dull as want to associate with something exciting, I didn't read the link in OP either I'm afraid. Apologies if contribution wasn't up to the high standard.

However, in practical terms London is 'throttling' the rest of the country because of the geographic imbalance in the national infrastructure in terms of communications, road and rail links and its gluttonous consumption of power, water and other resources. The process seems to have got worse over the last century as well. The cities of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, even Sheffield and others, used to be world-famous for their particular industries but are now mostly unknown to foreigners since the decline of the UK's international standing. Instead, much of the national investment in effort and resources have been ploughed into London to help it retain its 'world city' status. Only in the last 20 years or so has some effort been made to reverse this trend.

How does the current layout of communications, road and rail links throttle the rest of the UK?

How does London's use of power and water throttle the rest of the UK?

You think Manchester was better known to foreigners 100 years ago than it is today? You been to Old Trafford?

What national investment in effort and resources were ploughed into London to the detriment of the rest of the country?

perceptive yes that is one of them. The other was plenty of pretentious love to brag about it over the provinces and those sorts are normally very dull as want to associate with something exciting, I didn't read the link in OP either I'm afraid. Apologies if contribution wasn't up to the high standard.

You and pap are showing your usual provincial sludginess with this kind of lazy response. With pap's lack of mental alertness in failing to read beyond a headline, you two should get on like a house on fire.

 

London's economic dominance over the rest of the UK is not down to population size. That would just make it bigger than other cities not immensely richer.

 

I tell you what: get on a train, if your provincial salary can take the strain, and come to London. Have a good look around. See what's happening, rather than peddle your provincial hard-done-by stereotypes. You'll be amazed. Just within a mile of where I live, we have two premier league clubs, arguably the best restaurant in London, an architects' practice that is world famous, a leading theatre, cinema and gallery venue, one of the most popular concert venues in London, the wonders of the River Thames, a famous international tennis venue, some of the finest riverside Georgian architecture in Britain...as well as multinationals like Coca Cola and Disney, creative-industry stalwarts like the BBC and HarperCollins, and much, much more. All within a mile. And I live in a quiet part of town.

 

So it's not just about population. But whether you come down here or not, please do feel free to stay in your comfort zone. It's a perfect place for some...

West London is soulless and superficial. A horrible place.

How does the current layout of communications, road and rail links throttle the rest of the UK?

How does London's use of power and water throttle the rest of the UK?

You think Manchester was better known to foreigners 100 years ago than it is today? You been to Old Trafford?

What national investment in effort and resources were ploughed into London to the detriment of the rest of the country?

Working in energy and utilities and living in Manchester, my view is that London requires far more local power generation than it has now. It is one example where the north provides the needs of the south (albeit in an inefficient manner because of voltage losses in long distance electricity lines at least).

The trio of large power stations located close together in Yorkshire at Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge provide 8GW of power output at capacity and supply about 15% of all the UK's electricity on average at the moment. With the exception of Didcot and the existing Hinckley Point, most of the other really large power stations are in the midlands and north, so arguably London needs at least two new big power stations nearby in addition to the two 1GW plants that have been consented in Essex and Medway but are not being built currently for reasons caused by the government's haphazard approach to energy policy.

As I said earlier London is a great City but outside of that its basically 40 large towns, 35 of them are ****holes that are wastelands and the other 5 will cost you at least £1million to live in, good luck with that, and commuting? Did that and it gets ****e very very quickly, would rather be home quicker and have a far higher stansard of living.

Always said this, take out the banking in London and what do you have?

A probably the main international insurance market and a major tourist industry for starters

A probably the main international insurance market and a major tourist industry for starters

A service sector that could move and someone wanting to see the tower of London.........meanwhile in Germany.

How does the current layout of communications, road and rail links throttle the rest of the UK?

How does London's use of power and water throttle the rest of the UK?

You think Manchester was better known to foreigners 100 years ago than it is today? You been to Old Trafford?

What national investment in effort and resources were ploughed into London to the detriment of the rest of the country?

Most rail links radiate out from London. Ever tried getting from Norwich to Brum in a reasonable time? Or Cardiff to Doncaster? London cross-rail link anyone?

Most of the motorways radiate from London. Christ, that's even how they number them.

The national grid is unbalanced with the greatest demand in the South East and generation in the North. There are severe difficulties in distributing power around London.

A high proportion of London's thirst is quenched by water from the Cambridgeshire fens. There's the continuously escalating investment (£250m) in the Thames water ring - just to 'stand still'.

Practically half of East Anglia is given over to feed the masses in London every day.

Manchester (and other northern cities) used to be world renowned for their textile industries. Old Trafford? Doubt if many people in the far east could have named the stadium 30 or 40 years ago before the global appeal of the EPL - and it's hardly an investment in the UK is it?

Where to start with national investment? Well, there's the airports debate that prompted this thread. If a new airport is required, why does it have be built somewhere near to London, when congested travel links mean it would be more easily and quickly accessed if it was sited outside of London - perhaps somewhere in the M4 corridor for instance? Then there's the Thames barrier, even The Shard and other extravagant developments. You may argue some of these are private or local enterprises, but they nevertheless suck resources away from the rest of the country.

A service sector that could move and someone wanting to see the tower of London.........meanwhile in Germany.

Why would it want to - of you try to move the international insurance market out of London - you'll weaken it significantly in this country. The major insurers and brokers who are mainly foreign owned wouldn't want to move their global hubs to somewhere 2-300 miles from the square mile - they would move their hub to the next largest international insurance centre and GB would be the loser

Why would it want to - of you try to move the international insurance market out of London - you'll weaken it significantly in this country. The major insurers and brokers who are mainly foreign owned wouldn't want to move their global hubs to somewhere 2-300 miles from the square mile - they would move their hub to the next largest international insurance centre and GB would be the loser

How many do they employ? How much is paid in tax, how much sway do they have over HMRC? What pride does the person in the street get from this large company being here? In short why are there an awful lot of multi national companies based here and not all of them in Singapore, Tokyo or New York? Tax?

How many do they employ? How much is paid in tax, how much sway do they have over HMRC? What pride does the person in the street get from this large company being here? In short why are there an awful lot of multi national companies based here and not all of them in Singapore, Tokyo or New York? Tax?

From an insurance perspective because London is the world's major international insurance centre mainly as a result of Lloyds of London being based there - their tax domicile is

another matter - suffice to say that insurance industry is a major employer in London and countrywide and also brings in a significant amount of foreign money into the UK economy

From an insurance perspective because London is the world's major international insurance centre mainly as a result of Lloyds of London being based there - their tax domicile is

another matter - suffice to say that insurance industry is a major employer in London and countrywide and also brings in a significant amount of foreign money into the UK economy

Didn't really answer my question did it?

I would rather we had a solid manufacturing base employing lots of people on a good, fair wage with long term security than a few companies making billions skewing the actual reflection of London society.

London is wonky, skewed and flawed, sure for certain careers you have to go there but for many the price of a quality house and lifestyle are too far away to want you earn, I would earn 25% more down there basic but my house up here is 100% better than what you woudl get down there for the money, my wife is on London wages in Manchester so it matters not, she had to commute at least once a week somewhere though.

is london sucking the life out of the UK? no

is barry sucking the life out of the forum.........?

is london sucking the life out of the UK? no

is barry sucking the life out of the forum.........?

I have not laughed as much since I went to see the Grumbleweeds in Norwich in 1987, Batman you post some pearlers.

Most rail links radiate out from London. Ever tried getting from Norwich to Brum in a reasonable time? Or Cardiff to Doncaster? London cross-rail link anyone?

Most of the motorways radiate from London. Christ, that's even how they number them.

The national grid is unbalanced with the greatest demand in the South East and generation in the North. There are severe difficulties in distributing power around London.

A high proportion of London's thirst is quenched by water from the Cambridgeshire fens. There's the continuously escalating investment (£250m) in the Thames water ring - just to 'stand still'.

Practically half of East Anglia is given over to feed the masses in London every day.

Manchester (and other northern cities) used to be world renowned for their textile industries. Old Trafford? Doubt if many people in the far east could have named the stadium 30 or 40 years ago before the global appeal of the EPL - and it's hardly an investment in the UK is it?

Where to start with national investment? Well, there's the airports debate that prompted this thread. If a new airport is required, why does it have be built somewhere near to London, when congested travel links mean it would be more easily and quickly accessed if it was sited outside of London - perhaps somewhere in the M4 corridor for instance? Then there's the Thames barrier, even The Shard and other extravagant developments. You may argue some of these are private or local enterprises, but they nevertheless suck resources away from the rest of the country.

Utilities - So London and the South East uses a lot, while it is mainly produced elsewhere. That also applies to food, does that mean that London is throttling those markets? London is providing a market for goods and services produced by the rest of the country, that's surely a good thing?

"Manchester (and other northern cities) used to be world renowned for their textile industries. Old Trafford? Doubt if many people in the far east could have named the stadium 30 or 40 years ago before the global appeal of the EPL - and it's hardly an investment in the UK is it?" So in 2013 you would rather our cities were famous for textile production, than a successful export like Premier League football? Do you know how much of a successful export the EPL is?

Infrastructure debate - Why do you think they want to expand Heathrow Airport? You consider the Shard an Extravagant Development? Do you think that money would simply be spent in other parts of the UK if it hadn't been used to build the Shard? I think you need to check how much UK and EU government subsidy has been invested in industry and infrastructure around the UK over the last 30 years.

I have not laughed as much since I went to see the Grumbleweeds in Norwich in 1987, Batman you post some pearlers.

I know the layout of the nation's rail and road network, what you haven't explained is how they throttle the rest of the country.

 

Utilities - So London and the South East uses a lot, while it is mainly produced elsewhere. That also applies to food, does that mean that London is throttling those markets? London is providing a market for goods and services produced by the rest of the country, that's surely a good thing?

 

"Manchester (and other northern cities) used to be world renowned for their textile industries. Old Trafford? Doubt if many people in the far east could have named the stadium 30 or 40 years ago before the global appeal of the EPL - and it's hardly an investment in the UK is it?" So in 2013 you would rather our cities were famous for textile production, than a successful export like Premier League football? Do you know how much of a successful export the EPL is?

 

Infrastructure debate - Why do you think they want to expand Heathrow Airport? You consider the Shard an Extravagant Development? Do you think that money would simply be spent in other parts of the UK if it hadn't been used to build the Shard? I think you need to check how much UK and EU government subsidy has been invested in industry and infrastructure around the UK over the last 30 years.

Pretty obvious why the road and rail layout throttles the rest of the country, isn't it? The fact that links between regional centres are often difficult and inadequate restricts the movement of goods and services that ultimately stifles growth in the regions.

Utilities - The current London-centric economy means inefficiencies in transportation and consumption of goods, transmission of power and other utilities and leads to an unstable and inherently inefficient national infrastructure. The city's just too big.

Manchester & EPL - You know as well as I do that most of the EPL money goes either to a very few wealthy businessmen or into the pockets of foreign footballers who will probably take most of it abroad.

Infrastructure - The expansion of Heathrow/3rd London airport is simply the overloading of an already congested system. BAA and London are acting in their own self-interest, of course, as building a new airport outside of London would mean them losing money - even though it would almost certainly be more efficient and beneficial to the nation as a whole. The Shard is an extravagant statement. No the money probably wouldn't have been spent elsewhere in the UK - more likely in Frankfurt or Paris, which simply illustrates the low profile of other UK cities. I'd like also to cite the example of the money spent on London 2012 Olympic developments, most of which was spent in London. This project drained a lot of construction resources from the rest of the country, such that good companies were losing their best staff to the detriment of other national projects. You can argue that it kept a lot of people employed, but where's the long term benefit to the nation in shipping some bits out to Brazil and flogging a stadium at cut price to a bankrupt East End football club? Still we've got a nice park to walk in, I suppose. Pretty much a repeat of the Dome fiasco 12 years earlier.

In answer to your last question, I don't know how much has been spent. I could look it up, I suppose, but then it's not always a question of how much is spent, but how wisely. There have been some notable national investments around the country - the Didcot Diamond, for instance. But then I'm sure if they had the land and someone could've make a decent profit on it, then the government would've found a way to build it closer to London.

Pretty obvious why the road and rail layout throttles the rest of the country, isn't it? The fact that links between regional centres are often difficult and inadequate restricts the movement of goods and services that ultimately stifles growth in the regions.

 

Utilities - The current London-centric economy means inefficiencies in transportation and consumption of goods, transmission of power and other utilities and leads to an unstable and inherently inefficient national infrastructure. The city's just too big.

 

Manchester & EPL - You know as well as I do that most of the EPL money goes either to a very few wealthy businessmen or into the pockets of foreign footballers who will probably take most of it abroad.

 

Infrastructure - The expansion of Heathrow/3rd London airport is simply the overloading of an already congested system. BAA and London are acting in their own self-interest, of course, as building a new airport outside of London would mean them losing money - even though it would almost certainly be more efficient and beneficial to the nation as a whole. The Shard is an extravagant statement. No the money probably wouldn't have been spent elsewhere in the UK - more likely in Frankfurt or Paris, which simply illustrates the low profile of other UK cities. I'd like also to cite the example of the money spent on London 2012 Olympic developments, most of which was spent in London. This project drained a lot of construction resources from the rest of the country, such that good companies were losing their best staff to the detriment of other national projects. You can argue that it kept a lot of people employed, but where's the long term benefit to the nation in shipping some bits out to Brazil and flogging a stadium at cut price to a bankrupt East End football club? Still we've got a nice park to walk in, I suppose. Pretty much a repeat of the Dome fiasco 12 years earlier.

 

In answer to your last question, I don't know how much has been spent. I could look it up, I suppose, but then it's not always a question of how much is spent, but how wisely. There have been some notable national investments around the country - the Didcot Diamond, for instance. But then I'm sure if they had the land and someone could've make a decent profit on it, then the government would've found a way to build it closer to London.

What unstable national infrastructure do we have to deal with as a result of London's utilities use? London is a big city that uses goods, resources and services the same as most big cities, it provides a great market for the rest of the UK, again, how is this detrimentally affecting the development of other parts of the UK?

Sorry, are you contesting that the EPL doesn't make the UK a load of money, as well as raise the profile of provincial English cities? I've been in Manchester hotels midweek twice after big Man Utd home games, both times packed with foreign visitors. And you would rather Manchester was still famous for manufacturing textiles.

Right, so you would rather the money that was invested in the Shard was spent in Paris or Frankfurt than London? Did you not think the Olympics were a success for the Uk as a whole? What were your views on the Glasgow and Manchester Commonwealth games? When you say London is acting in their own self-interest over a third runway at Heathrow, who do you mean by "London"?

Have you been to Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Brighton, Glasgow in the last 10 years? Do they look like cities that are having the life sucked out of them?

No Batman you posting a picture of your superhero rival to justify a point is rather simple. Your banter like most on here is at best middle of the road Dire Straits and at worst Phil Collins when he went through that ropey patch.

Sorry, you still haven't explained how the current road and rail layout "throttles" the rest of the country. If London was wiped off the map tomorrow, do you think a high-speed train service between Norwich and Birmingham will suddenly be built? Or a direct motorway between Cardiff and Doncaster?

 

What unstable national infrastructure do we have to deal with as a result of London's utilities use? London is a big city that uses goods, resources and services the same as most big cities, it provides a great market for the rest of the UK, again, how is this detrimentally affecting the development of other parts of the UK?

 

Sorry, are you contesting that the EPL doesn't make the UK a load of money, as well as raise the profile of provincial English cities? I've been in Manchester hotels midweek twice after big Man Utd home games, both times packed with foreign visitors. And you would rather Manchester was still famous for manufacturing textiles.

 

Right, so you would rather the money that was invested in the Shard was spent in Paris or Frankfurt than London? Did you not think the Olympics were a success for the Uk as a whole? What were your views on the Glasgow and Manchester Commonwealth games? When you say London is acting in their own self-interest over a third runway at Heathrow, who do you mean by "London"?

 

Have you been to Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Brighton, Glasgow in the last 10 years? Do they look like cities that are having the life sucked out of them?

Either you're trolling and being obtuse or you genuinely don't understand the issues under discussion. Either way I'm never going to convince you about infrastructure problems because you fail to see the obvious and clearly don't know enough on the subject.

No, I'm not convinced that the EPL is attracting significant foreign investment. London's also packed with foreign visitors, a damn sight more of them.

I used the point about Manchester and textiles to support the point that they USED to be world renowned. I certainly never suggested they should still be doing that, as you well know. Nor did I say that I preferred that the investment be made in Frankfurt. Suggest you read a bit slower.

On the whole the Olympics were a great national spectacle. Somewhat ironic that most of the elements of the big shows were about this green and pleasant land or our industrial past. Don't seem to remember too much about London's financial district. Yes it was more of a success than other nations have recently produced, but still didn't do much for the rest of the country. Even poor little Weymouth lost a lot of money. As for the Commonwealth games, well they're a bit of a side show really aren't they? Like the runners up prize, after the IOC rejected Manchester's bid, saying they would only consider a future bid from London and no other UK city.

Actually yes, I've been to every one of those places you mention and a whole lot more. That's why I raised the issue about the redressing of the balance in the past two decades. Good to see a bit of regeneration of the inner cities. Hopefully that'll be followed up by investment into wealth creating industry. It' also good to see the likes of the BBC moving to Salford. Now that development's a positive sign for the future.

Don't get me wrong, I do see investment around the country and I see wise businesses recognising the benefits of moving out of the London area. I just don't see much of a shift in the perceptions of the general public, the media and politicians.

Either you're trolling and being obtuse or you genuinely don't understand the issues under discussion. Either way I'm never going to convince you about infrastructure problems because you fail to see the obvious and clearly don't know enough on the subject.

 

No, I'm not convinced that the EPL is attracting significant foreign investment. London's also packed with foreign visitors, a damn sight more of them.

 

I used the point about Manchester and textiles to support the point that they USED to be world renowned. I certainly never suggested they should still be doing that, as you well know. Nor did I say that I preferred that the investment be made in Frankfurt. Suggest you read a bit slower.

 

On the whole the Olympics were a great national spectacle. Somewhat ironic that most of the elements of the big shows were about this green and pleasant land or our industrial past. Don't seem to remember too much about London's financial district. Yes it was more of a success than other nations have recently produced, but still didn't do much for the rest of the country. Even poor little Weymouth lost a lot of money. As for the Commonwealth games, well they're a bit of a side show really aren't they? Like the runners up prize, after the IOC rejected Manchester's bid, saying they would only consider a future bid from London and no other UK city.

 

Actually yes, I've been to every one of those places you mention and a whole lot more. That's why I raised the issue about the redressing of the balance in the past two decades. Good to see a bit of regeneration of the inner cities. Hopefully that'll be followed up by investment into wealth creating industry. It' also good to see the likes of the BBC moving to Salford. Now that development's a positive sign for the future.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do see investment around the country and I see wise businesses recognising the benefits of moving out of the London area. I just don't see much of a shift in the perceptions of the general public, the media and politicians.

Classic SaintsWeb, accusing someone of being a troll because you can't explain yourself. Try reading this slowly - you have not provided one piece of evidence or proof that London "sucks the life from" or "throttles" the rest of the country. Not one bit. Just waffle about The Shard, Textiles and train services between Norwich and Birmingham.

I think he's explained himself plenty. Your continual insistence that he hasn't doesn't make it less so.

Try reading this slowly - you have not provided one piece of evidence or proof that London "sucks the life from" or "throttles" the rest of the country. Not one bit. Just waffle about The Shard, Textiles and train services between Norwich and Birmingham.

Exactly so. I'd be genuinely curious to see any evidence of this - rather than the actual and quite different claim being made here, that London gets, in some sense, a disproportionate amount of investment and infrastructure.

I think the peeved provincials are responding atavistically, implying a lament for some long-lost industrial power. However, the simple fact is that that industrial power hasn't moved to London - it's moved to China, India and the rest of the NICs. London has reinvented itself on banking, insurance, intellectual property and the creative industries. The provinces have drifted along on London's coattails.

As an example of the latter, I went to a screening of Gravity a couple of nights ago, and the stunning effects in the film, which required the development of new technology, were all done in Soho (Framestore). No other city in the world, including LA, is able to compete with Soho fx houses like Framestore, Double Negative and CFC on ingenuity, creativity and price - which is why so many US vfx-heavy films come to London. Gavity was also shot at Shepperton Studios, and leaving aside the tax breaks and other incentives, there is no way that this movie or any other would be shot outslde the Shepperton, Leavesdon, Pinewood, Elstree arc around London, because the creative talent doesn't exist in the UK provinces in anywhere hear enough of a critical mass. ALL of these studios, incidentally, are commercial enterprises and are not built on government hand-outs. If cities in the provinces wanted to compete, they would have to invest several hundred millions of public money on a "built it and they will come" hope and a prayer. It isn't going to happen, and shouldn't.

But the really odd thing about the peeved provincials and their response to Cable's remarks is that they seem to have missed the rather central point that he was talking about airports. If you ask any Londoner, especially in the West of the city, they will say they don't WANT any expansion to Heathrow. Even - and especially- Boris Johnson - is saying this. The problem the provinces have is that to build the kind of airport capacity required outside of London - AND get people to actually use it - would take vast amounts of non-returnable public money being pumped in.

So the peeved provincials are ignoring the fact that they are already heavily subsidised by London and Londoners; and yet their implied answer to the problem is the expenditure of even more huge amounts of public money on top of that.

Have you been to Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Brighton, Glasgow in the last 10 years? Do they look like cities that are having the life sucked out of them?

...

...

I doubt he has, he simply is ignorant of other places.

 

As an example of the latter, I went to a screening of Gravity a couple of nights ago, and the stunning effects in the film, which required the development of new technology, were all done in Soho (Framestore). No other city in the world, including LA, is able to compete with Soho fx houses like Framestore, Double Negative and CFC on ingenuity, creativity and price - which is why so many US vfx-heavy films come to London. Gavity was also shot at Shepperton Studios, and leaving aside the tax breaks and other incentives, there is no way that this movie or any other would be shot outslde the Shepperton, Leavesdon, Pinewood, Elstree arc around London, because the creative talent doesn't exist in the UK provinces in anywhere hear enough of a critical mass. ALL of these studios, incidentally, are commercial enterprises and are not built on government hand-outs. If cities in the provinces wanted to compete, they would have to invest several hundred millions of public money on a "built it and they will come" hope and a prayer. It isn't going to happen, and shouldn't.

So... Would you say that London is sucking the creative talent out of the rest of the country?