--- Nick said...


Yawn. Have you actually got anything to say on the subject we're
discussing rather than making petty comments on the sidelines?

I don't think anyone's got anything interesting to say in the
discussion. If you can call it a discussion. It's just variations of
"It is in London!", "No, it's not!", "Yes, it is!", "No, it isn't!" etc.
If you're yawning, it's this debate that's doping it to you. I'll stay
in the sidelines where I can keep awake.


I take it you'd like all people banned from posting to this newsgroup
unless they live in London and promise not to say anything bad about
it? Get over it.

Oh, look. You're building the "censorship" straw man. How predictable.
You're just half a step away from calling people Nazis!

Let's see your score so far: --

* You post to a London newsgroup to say that London "is a polluted, grim
urban toilet that festers with high levels of anti-social behaviour."

* You keep adding to the argument, refusing to quietly agree to
disagree, even (or especially) when it's clear that most of the group
does disagree with you.

* You resort to trickery like inventing imaginary rights and building
straw men to aid you in the argument.

Hmmm.... If it posts like a troll, and it argues like a troll, then it's
probably a troll. Enjoy my kill file. **PLONK**!

In article .com,
wrote:
Michael Bell:
But I am also aware of the political dimension of projects like Crossrail
and Thameslink, which won't benefit Londoners very much, far less than
the projects I discuss above. Crossrail and Thameslink can never be
viable in terms of paying back their capital, and they can only be
justified in cost-benefit terms if they attract vast number of NEW
travellers into London. A decision to build them at government expense is
a decision to abandon the rest of the country and concentrate all
development in the South - East. As a Northerner, I am against that. And
maybe you should be too. Remember what happened to capitals which get too
far out of step with their countries, like Paris in 1871. The Paris
municipality ("commune" in French = "municipality" in English: our
failure to translate this word has led us to serious misunderstanding of
this event) was crushed by the provinces.

Think hard!

But London has received _enormous_ underinvestment for decades - that's
why the transport system is so overcrowded. London puts far more into
the British economy than it gets out.

Now that's the way it should be - I'm not complaining, I realise that
London is the engine of this country's economy and consequently should
be expected to pay more than its fair share for investment elsewhere
that couldn't be paid for otherwise.

But major infrastructure projects like Thameslink and Crossrail are
needed in London, and I'm not sure I like the implication that they
should be abandoned because the rest of the country doesn't like to see
money spent on the capital. London _needs_ it - and if London were to
lose its position as a worldcity, it isn't just those inside the M25
that are going to be affected when the economy suffers.

Jonn Elledge


I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ.

Michael Bell

--

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Stephen Osborn wrote:

De facto a continuous built up area is a single _something_, the only
question is what. The phrase Metropolitan Area is used because these
somethings are relatively new and contain a number of things already
called cities.

The word you're looking for is conurbation. Or if it contains a number
of things already called cities, it's a megalopolis.

When I did my Human Geography back in the late 70's, a megalopolis was used
to describe where two 'metropolises' merge together rather than just an
aggregation of cities

ISTR the classical examples quoted were Minneapolis-St Paul as an
aggregation and the Boston-Washington corridor (or 'BosWash' - bleaugh!) as
a megalopolis

"Solar Penguin" wrote in message
...

--- Nick said...


Yawn. Have you actually got anything to say on the subject we're
discussing rather than making petty comments on the sidelines?

I don't think anyone's got anything interesting to say in the
discussion. If you can call it a discussion. It's just variations of
"It is in London!", "No, it's not!", "Yes, it is!", "No, it isn't!" etc.
If you're yawning, it's this debate that's doping it to you. I'll stay
in the sidelines where I can keep awake.

If you want to stay on the sidelines then stop sticking your oars into the
thread when you have nothing useful to say on the subject.

I take it you'd like all people banned from posting to this newsgroup
unless they live in London and promise not to say anything bad about
it? Get over it.

Oh, look. You're building the "censorship" straw man. How predictable.
You're just half a step away from calling people Nazis!

That's the second time you've accused me of being "steps away" from calling
peolpe Nazis on absolutely no basis whatsoever. I'm sure others will draw
their own conclusions.

Let's see your score so far: --

What do you think you are, some kind of self-appointed umpire?

* You post to a London newsgroup to say that London "is a polluted, grim
urban toilet that festers with high levels of anti-social behaviour."

Never let the actual wording get in the way of a misleading post eh? I
didn't say all of London was a dump, but much of it is (I take it you think
London is some kind of paradise, despite the fact that it has pockets of
some of the most extreme deprivation in the country?).

* You keep adding to the argument, refusing to quietly agree to
disagree, even (or especially) when it's clear that most of the group
does disagree with you.

You are not in a position to assert or judge whether the group agrees with
me or not. Most of the people reading this group don't even post, so you
are in no position to know. Neither am I.

* You resort to trickery like inventing imaginary rights and building
straw men to aid you in the argument.

Trickerly, lol, I love it.

Hmmm.... If it posts like a troll, and it argues like a troll, then it's
probably a troll. Enjoy my kill file. **PLONK**!

Well, I won't be killfilling you; I'm interested in other people's points of
view, even though I disagree with them. Shame you can't cope with reading
any opinions other than your own.

Nick

In article , Michael Bell
wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Michael Bell:
But I am also aware of the political dimension of projects like Crossrail
and Thameslink, which won't benefit Londoners very much, far less than
the projects I discuss above. Crossrail and Thameslink can never be
viable in terms of paying back their capital, and they can only be
justified in cost-benefit terms if they attract vast number of NEW
travellers into London. A decision to build them at government expense is
a decision to abandon the rest of the country and concentrate all
development in the South - East. As a Northerner, I am against that. And
maybe you should be too. Remember what happened to capitals which get too
far out of step with their countries, like Paris in 1871. The Paris
municipality ("commune" in French = "municipality" in English: our
failure to translate this word has led us to serious misunderstanding of
this event) was crushed by the provinces.

Think hard!

But London has received _enormous_ underinvestment for decades - that's
why the transport system is so overcrowded. London puts far more into
the British economy than it gets out.

Now that's the way it should be - I'm not complaining, I realise that
London is the engine of this country's economy and consequently should
be expected to pay more than its fair share for investment elsewhere
that couldn't be paid for otherwise.

But major infrastructure projects like Thameslink and Crossrail are
needed in London, and I'm not sure I like the implication that they
should be abandoned because the rest of the country doesn't like to see
money spent on the capital. London _needs_ it - and if London were to
lose its position as a worldcity, it isn't just those inside the M25
that are going to be affected when the economy suffers.

Jonn Elledge


I'm afraid we'll have to agree to differ.

Michael Bell

Yes, OK, you deserve better, but I felt weary last night.

I find it hard to believe some statements, such as that London is
carrying the rest of the country economically. I look at the work and
activity in some places - is it really all nothing? Or does the statement
"that London is carrying the rest of the country" simply reflect the fact
that work may be done anywhere, but profits are reported by Head Office in
London? There is so much spin, most of it not simply party-political, that it
is hard to know the truth.

There is a great deal of London being bound up in itself. For example
you can read in the newspapers a plea to "save" a museum or suchlike (from
total destruction?) by being moved out of London and this is addressed to a
provincial readership who "of course" see it that way! I read once a
statement that "the further you get away from London, the more irrational the
spelling of place names become", Ah, yes the home counties, that hotbed of
phonetic spelling, with Slough, Reading, Greenwich, Islington and of course
London itself - rhymes with "cotton"! And the statement that the DTI
overcomes the "local" (ie, non-London) opposition to "National Companies" who
cannot get work outside London. The dreadful thing about this kind of thing
is that it is not deliberate and thought through, it is unthinking because it
is unchallenged because the papers and broadcasters and everybody they meet
are London.

One particularly vicious groups is "London First" whose policy is
exactly that, London FIRST! If London can't have it, then nobody should have
it, ie, its policy is to be a dog in the manger. I think that is simply
unacceptable in a democracy.

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. In an act of great smallness Mrs Thatcher abolished
the GLC just to unseat Ken Livingstone and to hide this underhand motive, all
the other metropolitan counties of England too. After she was unseated, the
GLC was effectively re-instated. There was a lot of newspaper support for
that. But the other metropolitan counties were not re-instated. The garden in
and around London dug better. Governments have held back the developement of
Northern airports especially Manchester because they want to keep Heathrow as
a very dominant airport, partly for its own sake and partly to have a big
bargaining chip to use to preserve the position of the "national carriers" BA
and Virgin. I could go on, but I won't bore you.

You may like to think that London cares deeply its provinces. On the
Tyne it is widely claimed that the Jarrow march has held back the North-East
because it puts the North-East in a bad light as seen from London. And this
is believed by the London loyalists. Whether this is the TRUTH is very
difficult to test, but certainly it is widely BELIEVED. No matter what you
think the mechanism of this is (the inner workings of London are hidden
to folk so far away, they just have to look at the inputs and outputs and
treat London as a "black box"), you must come to see London as a
grudge-holder, a spiteful and vindicitive entity, though people don't like to
face up to it.

The FACTS may be hard to find, but let me do a little experiment to
test YOUR ATTITUDES.

Why is London so domininant? It is not a natural geographical
advantage, eg being on an important estuary, otherwise why is Goole not more
important? 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, about the same distance from Leeds as Brighton is
from London, but after the war, the services were abandoned as "not
worthwhile". No such questions about the London-Brighton service. Of Course
not! How could you think such a thing?) And rail routes focus on London and
outworn rolling stock was cascaded to "cross-country" routes - well, MPs
travelled on them! Transport is certainly one factor, and the subject of
this newsgroup, there may be other factors, such as political control, and
the London media were pretty stongly against a North-East assembly. And
whatever man has made, can be made again.

John Prescott, before the labour victory of 1997, proposed a new
North-South Shinkansen going London - Birmingham- Potteries - Manchester -
Leeds - Newcastle - Edinburgh - Glasgow. Let us say this route is built and
whatever other steps are necessary to enable this new megalopolis to function
on the same level as London are taken - what would your reaction be?

Would you applaud, and say it is great that this country now has two
cities functioning at this level? If "yes", then you're a patriot!

Or would deplore it and say "But that detracts from London" If "yes",
then you're a London Firster. A dog in the manger.


Michael Bell
--

[sorry, this may quote twice - I still don't understand google groups]

I find it hard to believe some statements, such as that London
is
carrying the rest of the country economically. I look at the work and
activity in some places - is it really all nothing? Or does the
statement
"that London is carrying the rest of the country" simply reflect the
fact
that work may be done anywhere, but profits are reported by Head
Office in
London? There is so much spin, most of it not simply party-political,
that it
is hard to know the truth.

I may have phrased that badly. What I meant was, London is the only
region in Britain that puts more into the treasury in taxes than it
takes out in investment. This is simply a function of population
density, as well as the extra economic activity (international finance,
mainly) that goes on and is taxed in London. I don't mean that London
is incredibly hard done by, just that it does more than pay its way.

[snip]


One particularly vicious groups is "London First" whose policy
is
exactly that, London FIRST! If London can't have it, then nobody
should have
it, ie, its policy is to be a dog in the manger. I think that is
simply
unacceptable in a democracy.

No, I agree totally, but that's not what I was saying. I think London
needs massive transport investment, and that if it doesn't get it it's
not totally out of the real of possibility that it could start to lose
its world city status - in which case, the whole country would suffer.
It shouldn't automatically have priority, but nor should it be denied
investment.


[snip more - good points about the shoddy treatment of the metropolitan
authorities]

Governments have held back the developement of
Northern airports especially Manchester because they want to keep
Heathrow as
a very dominant airport, partly for its own sake and partly to have a
big
bargaining chip to use to preserve the position of the "national
carriers" BA
and Virgin.

I don't know that much about the subject, but I don't think Manchester
could grow to the size of Heathrow - there just isn't the demand.
People from all over the world come to London in a way they don't come
to Manchester. I'm not saying that to run down Manchester, I'm just
stating a fact: London is a major centre of international tourism and
finance; Manchester isn't. It's history as much as policy.


[snip]

The FACTS may be hard to find, but let me do a little
experiment to
test YOUR ATTITUDES.

Why is London so domininant? It is not a natural geographical
advantage, eg being on an important estuary, otherwise why is Goole
not more
important? 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.

I'd say it's more because it happened to be the capital of Britain at
the time it put together one of the largest empire's the world's ever
seen actually. People came to London because it was an economic and
political centre, not because it happened to be where the trains ran.


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, about the same distance from Leeds as
Brighton is
from London, but after the war, the services were abandoned as "not
worthwhile". No such questions about the London-Brighton service. Of
Course
not! How could you think such a thing?)

I don't happen to approve of closing the services you mention, but I'd
guess they were less heavily used than the South Coast lines. You try
closing that line to Brighton and see what happens.


[snip]

and
the London media were pretty stongly against a North-East assembly.
And
whatever man has made, can be made again.

Granted, but so were the people of the North East! I want to see full
devolution for political reasons (I think we need full scale
constitutional reform in this country); but when the people who the
assembly would serve don't want it, what can you do?


John Prescott, before the labour victory of 1997, proposed a
new
North-South Shinkansen going London - Birmingham- Potteries -
Manchester -
Leeds - Newcastle - Edinburgh - Glasgow. Let us say this route is
built and
whatever other steps are necessary to enable this new megalopolis to
function
on the same level as London are taken - what would your reaction be?

What megalopolis?

Would you applaud, and say it is great that this country now
has two
cities functioning at this level? If "yes", then you're a patriot!


Or would deplore it and say "But that detracts from London" If
"yes",
then you're a London Firster. A dog in the manger.

Neither, actually. I think it'd be great if this country had two cities
on the scale and importance of London - I like the US model, with New
York, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston and Houston all being
major international cities - but we don't. You can't just decide one
day that Manchester or Newcastle should be a world city - at least, not
using the level of investment you're talking about. (They're managing
it in Dubai, but then that's a one man state).

London is a world city because it's more than twice the size of any
other city in Britain; it's a major financial and tourism centre; it's
historically been one of the most important cities in the world over
the last three hundred years; and it's the capital. Only the last of
those points is something you can counteract with investment elsewhere
in the UK.

Bottom line: whether Londoners have an arrogant, London First attitude
is debatable; but it is a straightforward fact that London stands among
New York, Paris and Tokyo and Newcastle doesn't. The attitude of
Londoners has nothing to do with it.

Jonn

wrote:


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 think it accurate enough to say that 15 million people either live
within the M25, or are in a family where the major source of income is
from London.


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.

And how Bonn became the domiant city in Germany, and Washington DC in
the USA, and Canberra in Australia. Canberra is a good example of a
"Government city" and it's important, but nothing like Sydney.

snip

Relocating economic activity from London to elsewhere would cost a
fortune.

I'm not asking for that. I am simply asking for conditions to be
created which allow the North to flourish. For the North not be held
back.
The Manchester airport affair is simply the best documented example
of
it.

Manchester is getting runway 2, even though London is far more
desperate for runway space. London is still waiting for CrossRail!

There must be plenty of others.

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.

as far as Government spending goes, the north receives more
infrastructure investment than the South East. That's why the south
East has the worst congestion and the longest commute times.


I'm glad you agree that "It would be fine". But actually, all I am
suggesting
is that Birmingham - Manchester - Leeds be made EFFECTIVELY "one
city"
by
high-speed links. It is quite crazy that the links between them are
judged
and prioritised "cross-country".

That won't make them one city, and they still won't be as convenient
to
do business in as London, high speed links or not.

But it's a nice idea. Who would pay? Though birmingham is a bit far
from the others, a high speed S-Bahn linking Liverpool with Leeds, with
a hub at Manchester might be a nice idea.

In article .com,
wrote:
wrote:
[snip]
I'm glad you agree that "It would be fine". But actually, all I am
suggesting
is that Birmingham - Manchester - Leeds be made EFFECTIVELY "one
city"
by
high-speed links. It is quite crazy that the links between them are
judged
and prioritised "cross-country".

That won't make them one city, and they still won't be as convenient
to
do business in as London, high speed links or not.

But it's a nice idea. Who would pay? Though birmingham is a bit far
from the others, a high speed S-Bahn linking Liverpool with Leeds, with
a hub at Manchester might be a nice idea.


It is CHEAPER to build NEW railways than to upgrade old ones. That is largely
because of the interruption to work caused by the need to keep trains
running. There is a down side of course: new railways are fine and dandy, but
in time they become old railways and even though the gap between the tracks
is wider to allow work on one track while still allowing traffic on the
other, there still has to be some connection with the old railway system to
allow for maintenance. The idea is that they are all strung together on the
same track which can be done, without largely separate routes, eg London-
Birmingham, London - Manchester, London - Anywhere, then you can shorten the
mileage of track to be built considerably, and with so much traffic
concentrated on one route, you justify spending a lot of money getting it
good, and providing good connections BETWEEN them, which the current layout
lamentably fails to do.

Michael Bell

--

wrote in message
ups.com...
(Before the war, the LNER built up commuter services from the West
Riding to the
sea-side at Scarborough, about the same distance from Leeds as Brighton
is
from London, but after the war, the services were abandoned as "not
worthwhile". No such questions about the London-Brighton service. Of
Course
not! How could you think such a thing?)

I don't happen to approve of closing the services you mention, but I'd
guess they were less heavily used than the South Coast lines. You try
closing that line to Brighton and see what happens.

Precisely. It is worth noting that two of the rail operators on the
London-Brighton route (Thameslink and Gatwick Express) actually have to pay
a premium for the right to run their services. If the other major operator,
Southern, *only* ran trains between London and Brighton I have no doubt that
they would be paying as well. A major reason for the success of this route
must be the lack of good road links along the same route in south London.

David A Stocks

Clive Coleman wrote:

writes
Or would deplore it and say "But that detracts from London" If "yes",
then you're a London Firster. A dog in the manger.

And what would I be if I deplored it and said "but that costs many
gigaquid that could be spent in a far more useful way" what would I be?
What's wrong with developing Glasgow?

Nothing, and I'm strongly in favour of linking Glasgow Central with
Queen Street to enable through services - either with a tunnel or by
converting some of the lines to light rail (or better still, both).