|
London supremacy
In article . com,
wrote: I think I ought to answer this one, though I don't want this thread to go and on like the 0207 phone No thread Apart from cancer, the real world does not "run away". There are always feedbacks which control. A large city has economies of scale, but also diseconomies of scale, eg, it cannot pay for the transport needed to be *unitedly* so big - it would confer no benefits to live near others but never to travel to meet them. The extra costs are offset by transport subsidies and "London weighting". Think of the squeals if these were withdrawn and the real costs had to be paid! Agreed - but the result wouldn't exactly be advantageous for the north, as although it might find itself with more people wanting to live there, it would also find itself in a country where the economy had just crashed! A) There is lots of economic theory saying that a viable business SHOULD be able to raise capital. But "the business of London can't"!? Why not? Because people need to be able to get to work. If public transport was priced at cost, a significant slice of the population would suddenly be unable to afford to commute - or would at least see their purchasing power slashed. Do you really not think that the economy would take a hit if all the businesses based in London suddenly couldn't find employees? Or if suddenly several million people couldn't afford to buy anything? So the whole nation has become locked into a situation it can't get out of?! Cold turkey treatment called for? b You really do believe that London supports the whole economy. What is this "crash" you fear? I don't believe London supports the whole economy, but I believe that it is a hell of a big chunk of it. I refer you to this helpful and informative webpage: http://www.ryanair.com/dest/london_business.html "London enjoys a powerful economy larger than many small countries and comparable to that of Sweden, Belgium and Russia. It contributes nearly 20 percent of the United Kingdom's total GDP and has a work force in the region of 3.5 million [I concede this point]... At the heart of London's economy are the financial and business services, which together employ about a third of the total Greater London workforce and about three-quarters of people working in the City of London. With over 500 foreign banks, together with numerous insurance companies and other business services, London is truly a leading international financial centre." Now, with all that in mind, do you really think that the British economy would not be dented if London transport couldn't carry those people to work? You're making an assumption that those companies would relocate to Birmingham or Manchester, but there's no particular reason they should choose those places over Paris or Frankfurt. Apart that is from a stock-exchange "crash", I think the real economy has become too dependent on "the markets". And it is looked after by governments in a way that other industries are not, eg look at the way a pensions insurance system is being set up, not only to safeguard pensionsers, praiseworthy though that is, and that is how it is "sold", but also to protect the pensions and financial services industry. I've lost this one - are you for or against government intervention? The simple fact seems to be that to provide pensions, the public are going to have to save more money than the stock market can find good homes for. A problem from any point of view. But they're going to try hard to make the city do it. The Government is very careful to protect the stock market. It is part of the "shorttermism" for which British goverments are so rightly criticised. The stock market can bring about a collapse in a few weeks, industrial decline takes decades to have an effect, but at the end, stock markets can only trade if there are profitable companies. The government was not so careful to protect the Manchester cotton industry or Newcastle shipbuilding. It let them go. In the very end it might have to let the stock markets go - the exchange itself is going to be bought by a German or a French company. And even apart from that, will outsourcing first make a shell of "The City" and in the end take the whole lot away? I don't know if such discussion has reached public discussion, but over a glass, planners will admit to being worried by the possibility. I think the government would fight tooth and nail to stop that happening. I'm more than happy for Manchester to have a second runway, and don't know enough about the story to comment. My point was merely that I don't see Manchester developing to the size of Heathrow because I don't think there are as many people who want to go there - even if you leave aside the higher population density in the south east, comparatively few international travellers flying to the UK want to land in the North. It's going to take more than an extra runway to change that. I was at the Lowry gallery in Manchester last week, and plane after plane came over, one every two or three minutes, just like over Elephant and Castle where I used to wait for trains. I'm going to leave this one now as I admit it's quite possible that there's enough domestic demand to warrant that extra runway (though I still maintain fewer people internationally want to travel to Manchester than London). But the new airport at Heathrow is also about expected future demand. Which links nicely to... Why did you accept a position that you later had to abandon? I think it is because London creates a bubble of information around itself. It is normal for London sources to speak belittlingly of provincial matters, when confronted with the facts such stances have to be given up. It is normal for London to talk itself up. Ken Livingstone's office produced figures of projected London population growth. The Guardian newspaper commented that these figures were unlikely to be reached and they were really a lever to screw more money out of the government. Despite this comment, these projections have been accepted as somehow "official" and by frequent quotation, they have become accepted. The Government and city don't seem very willing to spend big money on Crossrail. They know the shaky basis of the forecasts. [snip] But there are also examples of London being held back - the lack of Crossrail after more than 20 years is a major example. I don't think the pattern you identify is a prejudice against the north, I think it's a systematic underinvestment that has dogged this country since at least the 1970s. We're agreed on that. And you agree, as at least some of the publicity for Crossrail concedes, that it is not to serve existing traffic better, but to pull in NEW traffic. I've not seen that in anything I've read - it's more that the demand is expected to grow, and as it is the transport system can't cope with it, so new infrastructure needs to be built to cope with it. It's plainly the IMPLICATION of so much publicity. See also the above comment of population projections for London. In "Britain's Railways" Directory for 2004 in the section on Crossrail it says "Crossrail will support London's role in the UK economy ....[ie, increase London's share of the National Cake ] The key benefits are :- * The transport capacity to cope with London's forecast population and economic growth * Increased rail capacity into London [ Note. NOT WITHIN London ] More passenger journeys will be possible........... What's your alternative? One of the reasons companies and people come to London is because it's already a major centre. Those same people are not going to suddenly want to move to Birmingham because there's a high speed train to Leeds. We need investment nationally - without excluding any area of the country. London represents almost 15% of the population; so to my mind it should receive about 15% of the investment. Is that so contraversial? Of course London should get investment in rough proportion to its population. (Investment comes in big lumps and can never be spread perfectly evenly.) I accept that London. Michael Bell -- |
London supremacy
Michael Bell:
We're agreed on that. And you agree, as at least some of the publicity for Crossrail concedes, that it is not to serve existing traffic better, but to pull in NEW traffic. Me: I've not seen that in anything I've read - it's more that the demand is expected to grow, and as it is the transport system can't cope with it, so new infrastructure needs to be built to cope with it. Michael Bell again: It's plainly the IMPLICATION of so much publicity. But implications aren't statements. See also the above comment of population projections for London. In "Britain's Railways" Directory for 2004 in the section on Crossrail it says "Crossrail will support London's role in the UK economy .....[ie, increase London's share of the National Cake ] That's not exactly an unbiased reading of that, isn't it? "Support" to me means "allow to continue in its current position", not "build it up further". That's a very specific interpretation - it doesn't say that at all to me. The key benefits are :- * The transport capacity to cope with London's forecast population and economic growth The population growth is pretty much going to happen, and can't be stopped by abandoning Crossrail. Economic growth doesn't refer to London's share of the national pie, but the same economic growth that most places should be going through whenever possible. * Increased rail capacity into London [ Note. NOT WITHIN London ] Yes, from the suburbs! Without wanting to get back into the London/not London debate again, most of the stops served by Crossrail are suburban ones. Only a few in Essex and Berkshire lie outside greater London. I think you're bringing your existing ideas to bear on what you're reading there. Jonn |
London supremacy
"Michael Bell" wrote in message
... [snip] Looking at that now, 15 million is probably a bit of an exagerration; but it's certainly well over 10 million, I think more than 12 million. That's still more than Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Birmingham combined. I'm not sure you're right there. As so often, it depends on where you draw the boundaries. But the difference can't be large. Capital cities are big because governments want them to be, think how Ankara grew from a small town to a metropolis when it was made the Turkish capital, how Moscow grew when it became capital after St Petersburg. [snipped] In the case of Scotland, Edinburgh is only the 'capital' due to an accident of history....... The Scottish Executive seems determined to inflate Scotland's 2nd city at all costs though..... Glasgow (Scotland's largest city) appears to be a *major* irritant to the Edinburgh establishment's plans for world domination (or at least, to their version of Scotland).. Glasgow was the second city of the British Empire, a big, interesting place. Edinburgh is a joke 'capital' with ideas well above its (small) station. Capital does *not* always mean first city..... |
London supremacy
In article , A H
wrote: "Michael Bell" wrote in message ... [snip] Looking at that now, 15 million is probably a bit of an exagerration; but it's certainly well over 10 million, I think more than 12 million. That's still more than Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Birmingham combined. I'm not sure you're right there. As so often, it depends on where you draw the boundaries. But the difference can't be large. Capital cities are big because governments want them to be, think how Ankara grew from a small town to a metropolis when it was made the Turkish capital, how Moscow grew when it became capital after St Petersburg. [snipped] FEDERAL states (Germany, USA, Switzerland) do not grow big capitals, thouh sometimes the capital was big before the federation was formed, eg Austria. In the case of Scotland, Edinburgh is only the 'capital' due to an accident of history....... The Scottish Executive seems determined to inflate Scotland's 2nd city at all costs though..... Glasgow (Scotland's largest city) appears to be a *major* irritant to the Edinburgh establishment's plans for world domination (or at least, to their version of Scotland).. Glasgow was the second city of the British Empire, a big, interesting place. Edinburgh is a joke 'capital' with ideas well above its (small) station. The rivalry between Glasgow and Edinburgh is of long standing, bordering on the destructive, just like between Liverpool and Manchester before John Prescott got them to "sign peace", and Liverpool to acknowledge Manchester's supremacy. As an Englishman I have no wish to get involved in the Glasgow - Edinburgh squabbly. Michael Bell -- |
London supremacy
Michael Bell wrote:
The rivalry between Glasgow and Edinburgh is of long standing, bordering on the destructive, just like between Liverpool and Manchester before John Prescott got them to "sign peace", and Liverpool to acknowledge Manchester's supremacy. That, of course, only applies to the politicians. Those of living in the real world still *know* that Liverpool is, was and always will be the superior city |
London supremacy
|
London supremacy
In article , Stimpy
wrote: Michael Bell wrote: The rivalry between Glasgow and Edinburgh is of long standing, bordering on the destructive, just like between Liverpool and Manchester before John Prescott got them to "sign peace", and Liverpool to acknowledge Manchester's supremacy. That, of course, only applies to the politicians. Those of living in the real world still *know* that Liverpool is, was and always will be the superior city I know the colour of your shirt! Michael Bell -- |
London supremacy
In article , Paul Cummins
wrote: In article , (Michael Bell) wrote: just like between Liverpool and Manchester before John Prescott got them to "sign peace", and Liverpool to acknowledge Manchester's supremacy. Manchester supremacy? Is that why Manchester is now the crime capital of the North West? Now, now, children! Michael Bell -- |
London supremacy
Michael Bell wrote:
That, of course, only applies to the politicians. Those of living in the real world still *know* that Liverpool is, was and always will be the superior city I know the colour of your shirt! Blue of course! ;-) |
London supremacy (was London or Not ....
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:41:58 +0000, Michael Bell
wrote: There is a great deal of favouratism for London and holding the North back. London has unitary control of its local transport. Provincial cities are not allowed to. Wow! I'm sure that'll come as a surprise to, say, the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive. In many respects, like a mini London Transport, only without an Underground network, obviously. -- Nick Cooper [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!] The London Underground at War: http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm 625-Online - classic British television: http://www.625.org.uk 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic: http://www.thingstocome.org.uk |
London supremacy
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:18:03 +1030, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote: Michael Bell wrote: London's advantage is man-made. One thing that man has made is that it is so big and so many transport links focus on it. It is big because largely subsidised transport links have allowed its growth (Before the war, the LNER built up commuter services from the West Riding to the sea-side at Scarborough, Are you sure they were commuter services? Nope, largely to serve the holiday trade in the summer months, as many visitors from "the right side of the Penines" went to the east coast resort, while those on "the wrong side" went to Blackpool. The same applies to Bridlington, which very nearly lost its rail link in (IIRC) the 1970s. -- Nick Cooper [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!] The London Underground at War: http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm 625-Online - classic British television: http://www.625.org.uk 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic: http://www.thingstocome.org.uk |
London supremacy
|
London supremacy
In article , Arthur Figgis
wrote: On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:21:17 +1030, (Aidan Stanger) wrote: Michael Bell wrote: Humberside has failed, but it was conceived at a time when the population of this country was foreseen as 90 million by 2000. Now our problem is falling population - and London wants to grab as much of it as possible. (Birth rate dropped to 1.7children/woman in the early 70s, Yet they still built the Humber bridge! Election bribe. People still aren't entirely sure they wanted it, though! "Humbers*de" failed as a concept not because of birth rates, but because the overwhelming majority of residents had zero loyalty to or identification with it. Yorkshiremen and Yellowbellies were happy where they had been for the previous millennium or so, and didn't feel the need for any southern politicians to b*gger about with their identities. :-) As an administrative area it was a totally artificial lumping together of two unrelated areas which each had strong loyalties elsewhere. Even with the bridge there is little communication between the sides of the estuary. Similarly, there might be a business or political case for running eastern Kent from Pas de Calais, or for administering the City of London from Frankfurt, but it's probably not what the people there want either! It certainly is true that the Yorkshire/Lincolnshire created difficulties for Humberside, but if we had to house another 40 million by 2000 (5 years ago!) those difficulties would have been overcome! Michael Bell -- |
London supremacy
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:32:18 +0000, Michael Bell
wrote: It certainly is true that the Yorkshire/Lincolnshire created difficulties for Humberside, Like, no-one wanted the thing? but if we had to house another 40 million by 2000 (5 years ago!) those difficulties would have been overcome! What difference did it make to housing? The existence of the local authority doesn't affect the amount of land available. Even after the demise of the unloved council it was still mostly the same councillors running things. I suppose the Powers That Were could have swamped the locals' hostility to Humberside with indifference, by shipping in vast numbers of people from well outside the Yorks/Lincs area who would probably be less bothered about it, but I'm not sure what that would really achieve! -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
London supremacy
In article , Arthur Figgis
wrote: On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:32:18 +0000, Michael Bell wrote: It certainly is true that the Yorkshire/Lincolnshire created difficulties for Humberside, Like, no-one wanted the thing? but if we had to house another 40 million by 2000 (5 years ago!) those difficulties would have been overcome! What difference did it make to housing? The existence of the local authority doesn't affect the amount of land available. Even after the demise of the unloved council it was still mostly the same councillors running things. I suppose the Powers That Were could have swamped the locals' hostility to Humberside with indifference, by shipping in vast numbers of people from well outside the Yorks/Lincs area who would probably be less bothered about it, but I'm not sure what that would really achieve! Certainly very few wanted it. But if living space for 40 Million people has to be created, it would be a huge expansion of existing towns and the government would have to make decisions where they should live. Humberside really is a very empty area. But the need never arose! Michael Bell -- |
London supremacy
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:28:58 +0000, Michael Bell
wrote: Certainly very few wanted it. But if living space for 40 Million people has to be created, it would be a huge expansion of existing towns and the government would have to make decisions where they should live. Humberside really is a very empty area. But the need never arose! Humberside /was/ ~. It was done away with in the 1990s. The area still is pretty empty, of course. I don't see how more people could live in the area when it was known as Humberside than could live in the same places when they were, and now they are again, recognised as parts of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. If for some reason the government had wanted to put millions of people into the area it wouldn't have needed to change the local government to do it, instead it would have needed to get lots of houses built for those people to live in. Maybe they could have devised a plan to build a whole new town somewhere, but it wouldn't have made someone in Bridlington feel closer to Immingham than to Yorkshire, even if the same council emptied the dustbins at the other side of the Humber Bridge. "...can you imagine Len Hutton walking out to bat for Humberside?", John Major, 1992 -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk