[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