London Craps All Over Birmingham Again

[pricemazda]

Hate to break it to you, but 60% of the UK's trade is with Europe.

[Marre]

Originally Posted by nick_taylor

What government policies have enabled the South-East and London? Most London projects only go ahead because it funds the majority itself, the DLR is an excellent case in example of how despite it being the only profitable rail service in the UK, it still doesn't get much central government funding!

Surely if it's a profitable service it therefore doesn't need central government funding?

And what about the central government driven PPP - last time I looked, neither Transport for London, the Mayor, the GLA or Londoners were in favour of it - but it was still pushed through.

Central Government making decisions against the will of the populace......welcome to our world!

Oh and you should at least be thankful you can even get PPP.

Then you have Crossrail - a project that has been on the tables for 70 years, its been approved at least two times and on both occasions it never got the funding despite the fact it would boost the national economy.

Again that's not a unique problem, the North East has been struggling for a long time just to get the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh (a major national turnk road) fully dualled.

Now you might not like the word 'subsidy', but London contributes around £13bn each year to the regions than it gets back.....London alone could afford to build a brand new Crossrail line and host an Olympics every year with that money.

Like I said there is a reason for that and it's fully justified.

I also don't believe that the north is entitled to anything - poor leadership, and antiquated unionised populations led to the decline of many industries that could have been saved....the north wouldn't be in the state it is if there had been change decades ago. For instance the British car industry would still be viable today had unions not strangled management and governments into a corner over pay and conditions. Instead of investing in new technology and more efficient production lines, money was wasted on helping prop up jobs that weren't needed. The result was that eventually they fell into a cycle of decline. Quite simply, the northern cities helped people in the short-term, but neglected their long-term ambitions.

So basically you think no money should leave London based central government to filter out to the rest of the UK?

I won't argue about mismanagement but that's no excuse for keeping the UK centralised on just the South East.

Considering that the vast majority of funding was from private sources, I don't really see a problem with Wembley. There will be no heavy burden on the public but there will be on the likes of Multiplex and the German banks that financed it. Also it would be more likely that had Wembley been built in Birmingham, it would have cost the public far more....for a start where do you build it? Out by the NEC....right, there's noway Birmingham International Station could handle 90,000 people, so most people would drive meaning the area would be an even big traffic jam than it is at the moment! Wembley in comparison has 3 stations serving it with multiple high-frequency lines, its connections to the international market are also far higher with 5 international airports. I've been to several matches at the old Wembley and it is indeed a hairy exit, but all the stations have been completely re-built to cater to the higher demand.

There is a huge problem with the funding for Wembley. Much of the money for it has came from the football foundation.....an organisation who give grants to grassroots football clubs to develop facilities/coaching/etc.

Wembley has been such a massive drain on scant resources that many potentially benefitial projects at grass roots level have been knocked back. Including the proposed national football academy which was to be built near Burton to rival France's Claremont-Ferrand football centre.

Still, we get a nice shiny new stadium at least.......just a shame we can't produce the footballers needed to grace it!

As for transport, Birmingham International is accessible by mainline railway and motorways. Good thing about that area is that the transport infrastructure can be upgraded with little fuss.

Wembley doesn't even have proper motorway access and it's local roads will completley grid lock under the strain.

Also one third of the UK population reside in the London metro, take out Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and you have close to half the population of England living in or around London. Factor in that London and the south-east has the highest population growth rate and its foreseeable that well over half the population of England will be living in and around London in the not too distant future.

You've just highlighted a major problem there.

Thameslink 2000....was meant to be completed for the year 2000....its 2006, funding won't be announced until summer 2007 (so it could end up not getting it) and then if it does get funding, it won't be complete until 2013 at the earliest.

Crossrail has been in the works for 70 years, its been proposed 4 times over that period and there isn't a guarantee that it will get funding. Crossrail is expected to have a beginning operation of something 500,000 users a day - thats more users than the entire rail network outside London and its commuter railway network. If the regional cities were far denser then you could bet that they would get the same projects.

And you've just highlighted a solution aswell, good call.

Yet the main reason London needs these improvements is simple: its a far denser urban environment that is focused more around public transport. The northern cities simply don't have the catchment areas to sustain a Crossrail like project because the population is distributed poorly. This is down to the failure of northern city councillors over the last few decades and only now is it being fixed in the likes of Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester (Birmingham is doing less of it)....but there will need to be decades of higher density developments to ensure that the northern cities can attain such projects.

What could powerless Northern cities do to reverse the concentration of resources in the South East?

You can't fight against central government will and it is a relative fact that central government has been keen to concentrate on the south east and just chuck relative scraps the way of the rest of the UK.

Actually we tend to get what we pay for. France and Germany have better transport networks simply because they pay more for it and use it. In Britain, most people have the belief that the car is the only way forward because for decades a suburban environment has been put before them and accepted by planners. London is already the most densely populated city in Britain, but even that pales in comparison to the likes of Paris and other European cities.

They've applied a simple workable solution.

Constant steady investment, no political interference and leaving the decisions to the people who know what they're doing.

Compare Birmingham and Marseilles and you see why the transport network is better: increase density to create a more viable public transport network...its as simple as that.

Could Birmingham be any more denser?

Indeed, I've gone over the Arup plan many a-time in the SSC UK & Ireland New Street thread...problem is though it wouldn't get built because NIMBY's and those high up in Birmingham would probably see it as too much of a change. I even once put forward my own plan of a re-designed Birmingham New Street which would essentially be a complete re-build, with the original station recreated (ie vaulted roof), with more platforms built to the south and north giving the impression of a fan.

The only reason why Arup's plan would be knocked back is a lack of funding and long term thinking I suspect.

The UK is the most centralised? Ever looked across the English Channel to a country called France? And what is wrong with having one core centre....last time I looked, Germany has no equal to London because the functions are diffused around the country. Either way I don't see how you can complain....Whitehall jobs have been going north for years and most of the north is already employed in public services unlike the south.

Is it a coincidence that Europes strongest economy (Germany) is also one of the most de-centralised?

I think not, each major city in Germany plays it's part just like cities in the UK could do aswell.

I'd be more inclined to believe that you read the Daily Mail simply because you can't take it that some of the problems have been of your own making....a true northern response. Perhaps if the south stopped that £13bn, we'd built our Crossrail, we'd host the Olympics and you can go on about your merry little lives.

Please feel free to stop 'subsidising' us so long as London gives the rest of the UK the power it needs. If we were able to be left alone by London I'm pretty sure the rest of the UK would benefit a whole lot more.

But an example of London Government not wanting this was the recent North East Regional Assembley. All that was on offer was an expensive glorified talking shop with no real powers (seems central government wanted to keep those).

Looking at that map of the six former UK states that would be the best way to go. Six regional governments making the important issues and a minimal central government for joined up national issues.

I'm not anti-London, I'm just very in favour of the rest of the UK being on a level playing field. We don't need 'subsidies' and 'favours', we just need the ability to make our own decisions. We don't need to take jobs form London......we could very well create new jobs therefore further strengthening the UK economy and putting less pressure on the South East which at the end of the day is benefitial to everyone surely?

A recent suggestion was for the 'Northern Way' cities (Liverpool, Stoke, Manchester, Preston, Leeds, Bradford, York, Kingston-upon-Hull, Sheffield, Lincoln, Sunderland, Carlisle & Newcastle-upon-Tyne) to be able to operate as one economic zone (like the Ranstand in the Netherlands).

Originally Posted by pricemazda

Hate to break it to you, but 60% of the UK's trade is with Europe.

How does that split for imports and exports?

Can I ask how do you mean by European Unification exactly?

A supporter of the EU or a United European nation?

[Waterways]

Originally Posted by pricemazda

Hate to break it to you, but 60% of the UK's trade is with Europe.

"Hard" trade that uses actual goods through ports? No. Banking, insurance & services don't use ports.

[nito]

Originally Posted by Waterways

London over the past 100 years have made sure the wealth is in the south east. This is not subsidy at all. It is what is owed.

Nonsense. Most of the place is a slum, apart from a few areas and the central tourist part. They can't even get rid of the slums.

Total tripe. The city was raped, as was others. More so Liverpool as it was different and full commercial city while the others were manufacturing cities.

Mann Island replaces it. Have a look on the Liverpool thread.

Nope.

You get what we have today, with all the wealth and power being purposely taken to the centre.

A great thing.

Whitehall job going north? Few my man.

Total tripe read other posts.

In her reign she centralised most in London Dictators do.

In no time since 1973 has trade with Europe exceed trade with the rest of the world. The rest of the world is on the other coast.

You clearly haven't a clue and can't read maps. Felixstowe is in the sticks. Away from industrial heartland.

London could not take large ships. Liverpool can. Liverpool had a new container terminal that was underused because the British companies were going Felixstowe. Liverpool is expanding and because of Foreign operators wanting to use the port.

Paper by Geoffrey Howe "Managing the Decline of Liverpool as a Major Metropolitan Area". Hatton an the rest said like hell you will. The city that fought back.

Only because they centralised matters. Half the people in London would leave tomorrow if they could.

It does. Madrid was put in the direct centre of Spain.

Give power back to the cities and regions, get the government out of the place, and you can keep your money.

You can't figure that out.

It went to Whitehall who overrode the chief planner.

Read Kate Barker - bang up to date.

The bulk of the population is grouped between Liverpool/Manchester - Leeds/Sheffield - Birmingham.

Liverpool is central to the UK. Move government and half the population of London will go home and vacate the cess pit.

"Liverpool would of course be the favoured location for such a move", says Lord Hoffman.

And how exactly has London ensured that it has remained dominant? Market forces have tended to go against you on this. There is a reason why the Romans concentrated in the south and avoided the north....

Yet hang on, how is what "you" are owed, when you also in the same post proclaim London and the south to be a cess pit?

Slums...........

The Fourth Grace was still a Liverpool fiasco, nothing connected to Whitehall whatsoever, how it could be interpreted otherwise is peculiar. Liverpool planners and councillors are from Liverpool, not London.

London dictators...........

Brown has made it clear that Whitehall staff are to be slashed. For example back in 2004, 40,000 Whitehall jobs were lost from London. I don't see that as favourable for London....

I don't think you understand, its not to do with what area is closer to the world, its what is more viable for the large container ships that make a port of call at Rotterdam and then go to Felixstowe (or vice versa). They aren't going to take a scenic tour of Britain to just pop into Liverpool to make you feel good, before going back around to Rotterdam. If anything, it is Liverpools' problem for its poor geographical position in relation to the major continental European ports. Felixstowe arose to serve as the next port of call en-route to or from the major European ports.

Actually Felixstowe has an excellent location - not only does it access the English Channel route of the major continental Europe-bound container ships, but it is located to the north of London and south of Birmingham and specifically along the M6/A14 axis which is essentially at the core of the English population, hence why the area generally has the largest number of depots and large warehouses in the UK. Liverpool doesn't offer that catchment area, never mind the cost of container craft going on a detour around Britain, only for the majority of goods to go south again.

London could take large ships, but simply put it wasn't economical enough to have ships sail into the Thames Estuary when they could stop off in deeper waters around the South East which provided easier access.

Madrid is a city that has existed since the 9th century...nobody placed it there, it grew like most other unplanned old cities and developed its networks as it continued to grow. The fact is, there are a whole swathe of countries out there which have centralised economies, France and Japana are easily comparable...yet I don't see the point of giving Liverpool say the national government when it can't even sort itself out with the Fourth Grace.

The bulk of the population is NOT concentrated between Liverpool/Manchester - Leeds/Sheffield - Birmingham. The combined population of those areas is closer to 11mn....to get a larger population figure than London and its metro of 18mn+, you'd need to combine the North West, East Midlands, West Midlands and Yorkshire & Humber to get a population of 21.2mn spread over an area over 4x in size. That isn't concentration: that sparse area.

Factor in that the highest growth rates are in London (London the city itself is growing by the population of Leeds every 10 years) and the south and that it has the highest concentration of population anywhere in the UK.

Liverpool is no way near to being close to the centre of this country, Birmingham would have more legitimacy to that role, but even then it would be pointless because the cost would be simply too much. Germany is still paying the cost of relocating the capital after reunification; infact Berlin is near declaring bankruptcy because of the situation....do you want Liverpool to bottom out once again?

But surely how is the north going to survive without £16bn extra each and every year (and increasing)? Having government located in the north won't do anything to stop that - infact the last thing the north needs is MORE public jobs! What it does need is for the north to back up its ideas, take a more international view on things instead of thinking back to coal mines and car manufacturing, invest in itself, pest government to get things in order, vote, etc.... Quite simply accusing London for your mistakes is not the way forward. I'd bet you'd cringe at the thought that they'd have to close down Merseyrail, close all the Liverpool NHS hospitals, etc... if that £16bn stopped flowing north. And you couldn't get annoyed, because it is what you would want!

Brunswick Quay's failure is nothing to do with London. First of all it was located in the wrong place - far off from the main cluster: the Beetham cluster would have been a far more appropiate site. Brunswick Quay was afterall not meant to be a sort of multi-towered Canary Wharf, but a lone solitary one which messed the skyline up a bit. Secondly it was rejected by Liverpool itself, before it went to appeal. The same has happened to London, but we don't blame Liverpool or other cities for what happens in the planning department. To top it off Ruth Kelly is not a southener - she was from Northern Ireland, and has a Manchester constituency.

Next time you want to preach, you could at least do so without a 'Lostboy' jaundiced view on the world.

Originally Posted by Marre

Surely if it's a profitable service it therefore doesn't need central government funding?

Central Government making decisions against the will of the populace......welcome to our world!

Oh and you should at least be thankful you can even get PPP.

Again that's not a unique problem, the North East has been struggling for a long time just to get the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh (a major national turnk road) fully dualled.

Like I said there is a reason for that and it's fully justified.

So basically you think no money should leave London based central government to filter out to the rest of the UK?

I won't argue about mismanagement but that's no excuse for keeping the UK centralised on just the South East.

There is a huge problem with the funding for Wembley. Much of the money for it has came from the football foundation.....an organisation who give grants to grassroots football clubs to develop facilities/coaching/etc.

Wembley has been such a massive drain on scant resources that many potentially benefitial projects at grass roots level have been knocked back. Including the proposed national football academy which was to be built near Burton to rival France's Claremont-Ferrand football centre.

Still, we get a nice shiny new stadium at least.......just a shame we can't produce the footballers needed to grace it!

As for transport, Birmingham International is accessible by mainline railway and motorways. Good thing about that area is that the transport infrastructure can be upgraded with little fuss.

Wembley doesn't even have proper motorway access and it's local roads will completley grid lock under the strain.

You've just highlighted a major problem there.

And you've just highlighted a solution aswell, good call.

What could powerless Northern cities do to reverse the concentration of resources in the South East?

You can't fight against central government will and it is a relative fact that central government has been keen to concentrate on the south east and just chuck relative scraps the way of the rest of the UK.

They've applied a simple workable solution.

Constant steady investment, no political interference and leaving the decisions to the people who know what they're doing.

Could Birmingham be any more denser?

The only reason why Arup's plan would be knocked back is a lack of funding and long term thinking I suspect.

Is it a coincidence that Europes strongest economy (Germany) is also one of the most de-centralised?

I think not, each major city in Germany plays it's part just like cities in the UK could do aswell.

Please feel free to stop 'subsidising' us so long as London gives the rest of the UK the power it needs. If we were able to be left alone by London I'm pretty sure the rest of the UK would benefit a whole lot more.

But an example of London Government not wanting this was the recent North East Regional Assembley. All that was on offer was an expensive glorified talking shop with no real powers (seems central government wanted to keep those).

Looking at that map of the six former UK states that would be the best way to go. Six regional governments making the important issues and a minimal central government for joined up national issues.

I'm not anti-London, I'm just very in favour of the rest of the UK being on a level playing field. We don't need 'subsidies' and 'favours', we just need the ability to make our own decisions. We don't need to take jobs form London......we could very well create new jobs therefore further strengthening the UK economy and putting less pressure on the South East which at the end of the day is benefitial to everyone surely?

A recent suggestion was for the 'Northern Way' cities (Liverpool, Stoke, Manchester, Preston, Leeds, Bradford, York, Kingston-upon-Hull, Sheffield, Lincoln, Sunderland, Carlisle & Newcastle-upon-Tyne) to be able to operate as one economic zone (like the Ranstand in the Netherlands).

How does that split for imports and exports?

Can I ask how do you mean by European Unification exactly?

A supporter of the EU or a United European nation?

There is a difference between being profitable and being able to fund all future developments. The DLR for example doesn't make a profit to solely fund the £150mn Woolwich Arsenal Extension....but because it is profitable it is more able to fund these projects than those which are unprofitable...hence why it expands so quickly because it meets some of the requirements to expand.

Why should we be thankful for PPP? Its wasted some £400mn (that could have been several DLR extension, a new tram network through Central London or dozens of stations given complete face-relifts) on legal fees and the work has been downright scandalous. We have this for 30 years as well and the knock-on effects harm the national economy: NOBODY WINS.

Yet it is illustrative of the fact that London isn't somehow to blame, but central government is. If any region has the most to shout about, its London which looses more money than any other region because it flows into other regions!

Its almost like the guy selling the Big Issue is being abusive to those who buy it.....this gives out the wrong impression and probably has cost the north dearly in foreign and domestic inward investment.

I don't believe that the regions should be allowed to collapse....but I don't believe that the trend for politicians and the general northern populace to blame London and the south for its problems should continue. I also dislike the fact that despite London having the poorest wards in the UK, it actually looses money to other regions and yet London is attacked for this?

Fact is, if central government really was for centralisation, it wouldn't have bothered with devolution, regionalisation, the EU AND London wouldn't loose £13bn each year and would have no problems with projects.

The majority of the funding came from German banks. The FA wasted more money on Sven than Wembley which at least will bring money in (Sven did not).

Birmingham International Station doesn't compare to the four stations that serve Wembley with high frequency services....below are the usage of the four stations in question. Remember that the 4 Wembley station figures exclude matchday events due to the obvious reason of Wembley being out of action and a reduced capacity and event Wembley Arena due to refurbishment.

Wembley Park Station 7.079mn
Wembley Central Station - 2.769mn
Birmingham International Airport - 1.958mn
North Wembley Station - 1.37mn
Wembley Stadium Station - 0.111mn

In other words, Wembley is at the convergence of the Jubilee, Metropolitan and Bakerloo Lines, WCML and Chiltern Mainline....factor in connections to Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton and public transport infrastructure is clearly in favour of the current Wembley.

I've never been by car to Wembley as the trains are far more numerous and efficient.

Yet it isn't a problem, its a reaction to how the market orientates not some sort of conspiracy....if the northern cities banded together, rather than fight against each other and blame London for its results they wouldn't be in the position they are today.

If central government was so keen about the south-east and London, why is it that London and the south has to find a greater amount of private finance to get projects going? Why is it that London and the south is over-ruled on projects like PPP? Why is it that London alone looses £13bn each year to other regions? Why is it that projects are delayed/cancelled.....those aren't signs of a central government concerned with London and the south. Infact the north should be encouraging more London deveopments because that would ultimately lead to the north getting more money!

Birmingham currently has a density of 3,739/km² across an area of 267.77km² with a population of 1mn.

London in comparison has a density of 4,761/km² across an area of 1,579km² with a population of 7.5mn.

The fact is, there needs to be far greater concentration of population to ensure that projects get off the ground. Yet even then as seen with London, this isn't a guarantee.

And that is central government's fault....not Londons' as some would assume that it is.

At current rates, its probable that Britain will have a larger economy than Germany within a few years. Over the last few years, Britain has outperformed Germany despite lack of transport infrastructure as a whole. At per capita rates, Britain is racing ahead of Germany.

There is a big difference; Germany was a country formed from city-states which created the decentralised Germany of today. Britain has never and will never be like this and to assume that we can change without costing the economy dearly, displacing millions and creating social upheaval is idiotic. Britain is more like France and Japan in these respects. Berlin is nearing the point of bankruptcy because it became the capital again....I don't see any benefit to the UK whatsoever when it is increasing regional and city-based power that is needed, not a relocation job.

Why is it London needs to give power to the regions? Last time I looked, the GLA didn't decide the budgets of the regions because that all came down to central government. If people can't see the difference between London and central government, then the regions will never improve.

By most accounts that is exactly where the north has gone wrong; because instead of appealing to central government they have directed their anger at London which only until a few years ago regained its mayor and even then as seen with the PPP, could be over-ruled.

[Marre]

I don't think you understand, its not to do with what area is closer to the world, its what is more viable for the large container ships that make a port of call at Rotterdam and then go to Felixstowe (or vice versa). They aren't going to take a scenic tour of Britain to just pop into Liverpool to make you feel good, before going back around to Rotterdam. If anything, it is Liverpools' problem for its poor geographical position in relation to the major continental European ports. Felixstowe arose to serve as the next port of call en-route to or from the major European ports.

Actually Felixstowe has an excellent location - not only does it access the English Channel route of the major continental Europe-bound container ships, but it is located to the north of London and south of Birmingham and specifically along the M6/A14 axis which is essentially at the core of the English population, hence why the area generally has the largest number of depots and large warehouses in the UK. Liverpool doesn't offer that catchment area, never mind the cost of container craft going on a detour around Britain, only for the majority of goods to go south again.

London could take large ships, but simply put it wasn't economical enough to have ships sail into the Thames Estuary when they could stop off in deeper waters around the South East which provided easier access.

In all honestly Felixstowe is well placed for many of Britains shipping operations. It's in an area where there is not a massive population but is well placed to serve different areas of the UK br road and rail. Plus it's just easier to get to for many ships.

Why should we be thankful for PPP? Its wasted some £400mn (that could have been several DLR extension, a new tram network through Central London or dozens of stations given complete face-relifts) on legal fees and the work has been downright scandalous. We have this for 30 years as well and the knock-on effects harm the national economy: NOBODY WINS.

Not saying it's a good thing, but at least London is able to get such big projects. Having said that the figures just don't work that well on PPP but we've been trying for over a decade now just to get passenger services running on a 35km stretch of track between several large population centres without success.

Yet it is illustrative of the fact that London isn't somehow to blame, but central government is. If any region has the most to shout about, its London which looses more money than any other region because it flows into other regions!

To be fair though many of London's workers are from the regions anyway so the money flowing back seems like a pretty fair deal to me.

Fact is, if central government really was for centralisation, it wouldn't have bothered with devolution, regionalisation, the EU AND London wouldn't loose £13bn each year and would have no problems with projects.

Oh please, the regional assembley on offer to the North East had no real powers. It was going to be nothing more then an expensive talking shop which is why it wasn't voted for. It was just a cheap gesture by the Government to try and keep the 'provinces' onside.

The majority of the funding came from German banks. The FA wasted more money on Sven than Wembley which at least will bring money in (Sven did not).

I can assure you that football foundation money has been redirected form grass roots projects to the Wembley stadium fiasco. All because certain people still hold the idea that we need a national stadium and that it should be in one of the worst places in England.

Birmingham International Station doesn't compare to the four stations that serve Wembley with high frequency services....below are the usage of the four stations in question. Remember that the 4 Wembley station figures exclude matchday events due to the obvious reason of Wembley being out of action and a reduced capacity and event Wembley Arena due to refurbishment.

Wembley Park Station 7.079mn
Wembley Central Station - 2.769mn
Birmingham International Airport - 1.958mn
North Wembley Station - 1.37mn
Wembley Stadium Station - 0.111mn

In other words, Wembley is at the convergence of the Jubilee, Metropolitan and Bakerloo Lines, WCML and Chiltern Mainline....factor in connections to Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton and public transport infrastructure is clearly in favour of the current Wembley.

I've never been by car to Wembley as the trains are far more numerous and efficient.

You've missed my point - that being the Birmingham International transport infrastructure could be expanded by quite a lot (a lot more then what Wembley can achieve). And like it or not, not everybody going to Wembley will be going there by train.

It's all down to historical attitudes that insist on being stuck in the past rather then moving on. The French did it with the Stade de France, why couldn't we do likewise - are we really that stuck in the past?

All the advantages of sticking at Wembley are far outweight by the disadvantages.

Birmingham currently has a density of 3,739/km² across an area of 267.77km² with a population of 1mn.

London in comparison has a density of 4,761/km² across an area of 1,579km² with a population of 7.5mn.

The fact is, there needs to be far greater concentration of population to ensure that projects get off the ground. Yet even then as seen with London, this isn't a guarantee.

And that is central government's fault....not Londons' as some would assume that it is.

Agreed!

Which means the 'regions' have to be able to reverse the flow of population back form London and the South East. Given how expensive London is becoming that could well be very achievable in the future. Looking at population figures ideally we would need those figures to double.

At current rates, its probable that Britain will have a larger economy than Germany within a few years. Over the last few years, Britain has outperformed Germany despite lack of transport infrastructure as a whole. At per capita rates, Britain is racing ahead of Germany.

How much of Britains economy is based on borrowed money?

With a lack of skilled workers and a whole load of borrowing I suspect Britians economy is on shaky ground.

I don't see any benefit to the UK whatsoever when it is increasing regional and city-based power that is needed, not a relocation job.

My argument in another post......give regions/cities power and let them create new jobs. We don't need to have jobs relocated by government.

[nito]

Originally Posted by Marre

In all honestly Felixstowe is well placed for many of Britains shipping operations. It's in an area where there is not a massive population but is well placed to serve different areas of the UK br road and rail. Plus it's just easier to get to for many ships.

Not saying it's a good thing, but at least London is able to get such big projects. Having said that the figures just don't work that well on PPP but we've been trying for over a decade now just to get passenger services running on a 35km stretch of track between several large population centres without success.

To be fair though many of London's workers are from the regions anyway so the money flowing back seems like a pretty fair deal to me.

Oh please, the regional assembley on offer to the North East had no real powers. It was going to be nothing more then an expensive talking shop which is why it wasn't voted for. It was just a cheap gesture by the Government to try and keep the 'provinces' onside.

I can assure you that football foundation money has been redirected form grass roots projects to the Wembley stadium fiasco. All because certain people still hold the idea that we need a national stadium and that it should be in one of the worst places in England

You've missed my point - that being the Birmingham International transport infrastructure could be expanded by quite a lot (a lot more then what Wembley can achieve). And like it or not, not everybody going to Wembley will be going there by train.

It's all down to historical attitudes that insist on being stuck in the past rather then moving on. The French did it with the Stade de France, why couldn't we do likewise - are we really that stuck in the past?

All the advantages of sticking at Wembley are far outweight by the disadvantages.

Agreed!

Which means the 'regions' have to be able to reverse the flow of population back form London and the South East. Given how expensive London is becoming that could well be very achievable in the future. Looking at population figures ideally we would need those figures to double.

How much of Britains economy is based on borrowed money?

With a lack of skilled workers and a whole load of borrowing I suspect Britians economy is on shaky ground.

My argument in another post......give regions/cities power and let them create new jobs. We don't need to have jobs relocated by government.

PPP wasn't a project, it was a government exercise in the messing of London affairs. The result is that London has less control over the public transport network, could be held to ransom over delays, new infrastructure that might not be appropriate or inefficient actions. £400mn could have been used as the first stage of a brand new national maglev/HSR route.

As a fact, historically the number of people moving south has tended to not be extreme, and this is still apparent today. The reason for the growth of London and the south is mainly down to immigration.

It might have not been the be and all of what was hoped for, but it was a first stage, much like London had to go through. Devolution in the periphery ought to be a clear indicator to this.

And why not a national stadium? Touring around the country might be great, but you won't get anywhere near the capacity of Wembley, the closest stadium is Old Trafford and the transport connections would somehow be better there?

Yet one of the requirements for the new national stadium was to have more people arrive and depart via public transport....how would you be able to achieve that with a new national stadium outside Birmingham International? Everyone would drive there defeating the requirement! Wembley has 4 stations plotted around the site with far higher capacities offering far more services...and that isn't enough?

The Stade de France is the French national stadium...?!?!?

But historically there hasn't been anything like the in-roads of population from the north to the south. Growth came in the form of waves of immigrants over several centuries, French Huguenots, Irish Catholics, European Jews, Afro-Caribbean, Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshi and today new EU member state citizens and others from all over the world....yet very few northerners have tended to move southward.

Yet despite the high prices, people are still moving - the property market is out-doing the regions, while the population continues to grow at record rates. The only way I see the regions changing is if they stop bickering and start acting together with London to act as nodes that get spin off from London. The only city to have done this in my opinion is Leeds (thanks to legal services), which also so happens to be the most dynamic and progressive city that doesn't bicker about London to the extent of other northerners. Leeds should be used as a model for other northern cities.

Yet it is borrowing that is within the economy. It is also a sign of a prosperous economy that has long-term ambitions that everything will be okay. Granted external factors could destabilise this, but consumer and business confidence is what truly drives the economy. This is also the reason for why Germany and France recently went through a bad patch, simply because nobody had confidence that the future would pick up meaning the economy sulked down and Britain surpassed them.

Britain is far more ideally positioned than any other country in Europe bar the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands; considering that they are 'small' countries, that makes Britain more pronounced. The reason is simple: Britain diversified away from manufacturing and other inefficient practices to reflect upon business and financial services. Factor in high-tech research that might not get funding in Europe (financial or ethical reasons) and our knowledge economy (ie our universities) which is by far the most developed in Europe and easily comparable to that of the US. The final nail is protectionist policies which have damaged other European nations productivity to the point that their economies are crippled; as seen by the fact that despite France having a larger and faster growing population is still lagging behind economically. Even the northern cities are seeing a renaissance which is rarely exhibited in other comparable cities in other European nations; the mass of skyscrapers clearly illustrates my point.

Self-governance also requires a higher level of maturity from the north in regards to the south; otherwise even with such powers the north will still linger.

[Marre]

And why not a national stadium? Touring around the country might be great, but you won't get anywhere near the capacity of Wembley, the closest stadium is Old Trafford and the transport connections would somehow be better there?

Yet one of the requirements for the new national stadium was to have more people arrive and depart via public transport....how would you be able to achieve that with a new national stadium outside Birmingham International? Everyone would drive there defeating the requirement! Wembley has 4 stations plotted around the site with far higher capacities offering far more services...and that isn't enough?

Old Trafford now has a capacity of about 75,000 and has plans to expand further. But stadium capacity isn't everything, when the England games are played in different areas it gives so many other people a chance to see them play.

If the national stadium has been built in a more suitable area such as Birmingham International then the cost of the stadium would probably only have been about a quarter of Wembley's price tag. Meaning that there would be plenty of money available to improve the local transport infrastructure.

But who cares about paying well over the odds as long as it's in London right?

The Stade de France is the French national stadium...?!?!?

You've missed my point, I was referring to the fact that the French weren't so stuck like we seemingly are. Rather then spend money on rebuilding Parc de Princes they bit the bullet and realised it was time to move on.

[nito]

Originally Posted by Marre

Old Trafford now has a capacity of about 75,000 and has plans to expand further. But stadium capacity isn't everything, when the England games are played in different areas it gives so many other people a chance to see them play.

If the national stadium has been built in a more suitable area such as Birmingham International then the cost of the stadium would probably only have been about a quarter of Wembley's price tag. Meaning that there would be plenty of money available to improve the local transport infrastructure.

But who cares about paying well over the odds as long as it's in London right?

You've missed my point, I was referring to the fact that the French weren't so stuck like we seemingly are. Rather then spend money on rebuilding Parc de Princes they bit the bullet and realised it was time to move on.

The problem with Old Trafford isn't just its capacity (Wembley could for example still be a 5* stadium even if it added in 30,000 more seats which is possible), but its location, because the heavy rail station at Old Trafford is only open match days - hardly a multi-modal hub of several stations and railway lines like at Wembley.

The sad truth is that English stadium capacities are not that high and you'd only be able to host games at a few to ensure that you gather enough revenue. Wembley with 90,000 would bring in 2x more than say Villa Park. That is more money that could be used for developing grass-roots football. The new Wembley and all the associated transport improvements also mean that the vast Wembley area will be able to be redeveloped - this too also helps Wembley itself, because it owns most of this land.

And how exactly could you improve Birmingham International? It is really only west to east. If you were coming from the north, you'd have to go through Birmingham New Street - essentially while it might be closer towards the centre in regards to population, its catchment area would be far lower because it would be harder to get too (fewer train services, fewer railway lines and not enough road capacity).

Like I said, the public don't loose any money, its private organisations that messed with the situation and will ultimately pay for it.

A reminder of how far away the Stade de France is from Parc de Princes is:

Arrondissement XVI


Arrondissement Saint-Denis



They moved from one areas of the Parisian urban area, to another - around 1-2miles possibly. The reason was simple: land area was far more limited meaning that a larger and more advanced stadium could not be built; unlike Wembley. Hence using Paris as an example for pushing for a more central national stadium was flawed.

[Waterways]

Originally Posted by nick_taylor

And how exactly has London ensured that it has remained dominant?

The government, media and financial aspect are all there - and more.

Market forces have tended to go against you on this.

When the dice loaded against you they do.

There is a reason why the Romans concentrated in the south and avoided the north....

My God!! He is using what happen 2000 years as analogy!!! Wow!

Yet hang on, how is what "you" are owed, when you also in the same post proclaim London and the south to be a cess pit?

Slums...........

The worse UK train journey I have ever rode was from Charring Cross to Charlton - as you ride through the shanty towns of south London.

The Fourth Grace was still a Liverpool fiasco, nothing connected to Whitehall whatsoever,

A Whitehall minister turned it down.

I don't think you understand, its not to do with what area is closer to the world, its what is more viable for the large container ships that make a port of call at Rotterdam and then go to Felixstowe (or vice versa). They aren't going to take a scenic tour of Britain to just pop into Liverpool to make you feel good, before going back around to Rotterdam. If anything, it is Liverpools' problem for its poor
geographical position in relation to the major continental European ports. Felixstowe arose to serve as the next port of call en-route to or from the major European ports.

You are so naïve it is beyond belief Liverpool is, and was the world's largest port at one time. It is centre to the UKs industrial heartland. Felixstowe is in in the sticks.

Actually Felixstowe has an excellent location

It does not.

London could take large ships,

It could not. 45,000 tons was the largest ever to scrape up the Thames to London - small. The Thames is a stream.

Madrid is a city that has existed since the 9th century...nobody placed it there,

It was put there because it was dead central.

The bulk of the population is NOT concentrated between Liverpool/Manchester - Leeds/Sheffield - Birmingham.

It is.

The combined population of those areas is closer to 11mn.

The north west of England alone is 12 million.

Liverpool is no way near to being close to the centre of this country,

Geographically it is centre of the UK.

Birmingham would have more legitimacy to that role,

That is the centre of England, not the UK.

but even then it would be pointless because the cost would be simply too much. Germany is still paying the cost of relocating the capital after reunification; infact Berlin is near declaring bankruptcy because of the situation.

You are in cloud cuckoo land.

...do you want Liverpool to bottom out once again?

No, we want London away from us.

But surely how is the north going to survive without £16bn extra each and every year (and increasing)?

Nonsense. Liverpool in the 1980-s under the evil Thatcher contributed more to Whitehall than what it received.

Brunswick Quay's failure is nothing to do with London.

A Whitehall minister turned it down.

First of all it was located in the wrong place

You are in cloud cuckoo land.

To top it off Ruth Kelly is not a southener - she was from Northern Ireland.

The decision was made by a London mechanism.

You are so uninformed and naïve it is beyond belief.

[Marre]

Originally Posted by nick_taylor

The problem with Old Trafford isn't just its capacity (Wembley could for example still be a 5* stadium even if it added in 30,000 more seats which is possible), but its location, because the heavy rail station at Old Trafford is only open match days - hardly a multi-modal hub of several stations and railway lines like at Wembley.

The sad truth is that English stadium capacities are not that high and you'd only be able to host games at a few to ensure that you gather enough revenue. Wembley with 90,000 would bring in 2x more than say Villa Park. That is more money that could be used for developing grass-roots football. The new Wembley and all the associated transport improvements also mean that the vast Wembley area will be able to be redeveloped - this too also helps Wembley itself, because it owns most of this land.

And how exactly could you improve Birmingham International? It is really only west to east. If you were coming from the north, you'd have to go through Birmingham New Street - essentially while it might be closer towards the centre in regards to population, its catchment area would be far lower because it would be harder to get too (fewer train services, fewer railway lines and not enough road capacity).

Like I said, the public don't loose any money, its private organisations that messed with the situation and will ultimately pay for it.

A reminder of how far away the Stade de France is from Parc de Princes is:

Arrondissement XVI


Arrondissement Saint-Denis



They moved from one areas of the Parisian urban area, to another - around 1-2miles possibly. The reason was simple: land area was far more limited meaning that a larger and more advanced stadium could not be built; unlike Wembley. Hence using Paris as an example for pushing for a more central national stadium was flawed.

You mention grassroots investment but but because of the Wembley Stadium fiasco grassroots football has suffered immensley. Privgate money maybe involved but a significant amount of money intended for football foundation projects has been diverted to this project. Sorry to keep mentioning this but it's a sore subject with me.

As for Birmingham Inetrnational, yes it's a east-west axis but plans have been mooted to re-open the Coleshill-Birmingham International line. Coleshill being where the Nuneaton and Burton mainlines split. I'd dare say that would have been put on the fast track for re-opening.

And again massive capacities are not that important an issue, what is important is sell-out crowds at quality enclosed stadiums with a great atmosphere. Couldn't care elss if that was infront of 75000 at Old Trafford or 9000 at Yeovil's Huish Park. It's all about involvement, other countries don't get themselves too worried over constant massive attendances.

But we're getting too bogged down in that one particular area here.

Saint-Denis.......yeah it's not that far away but it was still a big step by the FFF.

I will say going back a few posts that we are no where near as centralised as France at least. For one example our non-capital inter-city railway services are much more frequent.

[Marre]

Originally Posted by nick_taylor

The problem with Old Trafford isn't just its capacity (Wembley could for example still be a 5* stadium even if it added in 30,000 more seats which is possible), but its location, because the heavy rail station at Old Trafford is only open match days - hardly a multi-modal hub of several stations and railway lines like at Wembley.

The sad truth is that English stadium capacities are not that high and you'd only be able to host games at a few to ensure that you gather enough revenue. Wembley with 90,000 would bring in 2x more than say Villa Park. That is more money that could be used for developing grass-roots football. The new Wembley and all the associated transport improvements also mean that the vast Wembley area will be able to be redeveloped - this too also helps Wembley itself, because it owns most of this land.

And how exactly could you improve Birmingham International? It is really only west to east. If you were coming from the north, you'd have to go through Birmingham New Street - essentially while it might be closer towards the centre in regards to population, its catchment area would be far lower because it would be harder to get too (fewer train services, fewer railway lines and not enough road capacity).

Like I said, the public don't loose any money, its private organisations that messed with the situation and will ultimately pay for it.

A reminder of how far away the Stade de France is from Parc de Princes is:

Arrondissement XVI


Arrondissement Saint-Denis



They moved from one areas of the Parisian urban area, to another - around 1-2miles possibly. The reason was simple: land area was far more limited meaning that a larger and more advanced stadium could not be built; unlike Wembley. Hence using Paris as an example for pushing for a more central national stadium was flawed.

You mention grassroots investment but because of the Wembley Stadium fiasco grassroots football has suffered immensley. Private money maybe involved but a significant amount of money intended for football foundation projects has been diverted to this project. Sorry to keep mentioning this but it's a sore subject with me.

As for Birmingham Inetrnational, yes it's a east-west axis but plans have been mooted to re-open the Coleshill-Birmingham International line. Coleshill being where the Nuneaton and Burton mainlines split. I'd dare say that would have been put on the fast track for re-opening.

But we're getting too bogged down in that one particular area here.

And again massive capacities are not that important an issue, what is important is sell-out crowds at quality enclosed stadiums with a great atmosphere. Couldn't care less if that was infront of 75000 at Old Trafford or 9000 at Yeovil's Huish Park. It's all about involvement, other countries don't get themselves too worried over constant massive attendances.

Saint-Denis.......yeah it's not that far away but it was still a big step by the FFF.

I will say going back a few posts that we are no where near as centralised as France at least. For one example our non-capital inter-city railway services are much more frequent.

[nito]

Originally Posted by Waterways

The government, media and financial aspect are all there - and more.

When the dice loaded against you they do.

My God!! He is using what happen 2000 years as analogy!!! Wow!

The worse UK train journey I have ever rode was from Charring Cross to Charlton - as you ride through the shanty towns of south London.

A Whitehall minister turned it down.

You are so naïve it is beyond belief Liverpool is, and was the world's largest port at one time. It is centre to the UKs industrial heartland. Felixstowe is in in the sticks.

It does not.

It could not. 45,000 tons was the largest ever to scrape up the Thames to London - small. The Thames is a stream.

It was put there because it was dead central.

It is.

The north west of England alone is 12 million.

Geographically it is centre of the UK.

That is the centre of England, not the UK.

You are in cloud cuckoo land.

No, we want London away from us.

Nonsense. Liverpool in the 1980-s under the evil Thatcher contributed more to Whitehall than what it received.

A Whitehall minister turned it down.

You are in cloud cuckoo land.

The decision was made by a London mechanism.

You are so uninformed and naïve it is beyond belief.

And? London isn't the only city in the world to have all those functions, Paris for France and Tokyo for Japan come to mind.

Some could say that it still holds ground though....you blame us for all your mistakes, you blame us for actions that you take yourself (Brunswick Quay) and you blame for subsidising the north. Make your mind up though.

Yes...."shanty towns of south London"........

Yet a Whitehall official did not reject it at first - that was down to Liverpool councillors and Liverpool planners. It lost on appeal, but had those in control of Liverpool turned it down first and foremost....the fact that you can't accept that just goes to illustrate my point that some northerners lack the ability to accept that they are wrong and that every problem they face is due to southerners.

Christ, just because Liverpool was ONCE the worlds busiest port, doesn't mean that it should have that role today. Liverpool is also not the industrial heart of Britain - Birmingham could claim that role quite easily.

If Felixstowe wasn't in the best location, then ships wouldn't go there. Ask any large container ship company heading towards Rotterdam and whether they'd opt to loop around to Liverpool or nip up to Felixstowe - common sense please; you make Liverpudlians appear as spiteful, ignorant and stupid individuals who deserve what they get.

Yes....the Thames is a stream.....

So you're telling me that the Spanish of the 9th century knew exactly what the Spain of the 21st century was going to resemble, hence why Madrid is what it is today.... I personally would find that down-right disrespectful if I was from Madrid; because its position in Spain and the world is far more than just geography.

The North-West has 12mn people? Let me guess, you're pulling these figures from out of your arse because Londoners spiked the Liverpool water supply...

The true population of the North-West is (as according to the 2001 census): 6,729,800.

Yes...the geographic centre......

No it isn't because there are nearly just as many people around London in a far smaller area; ie a higher concentration....broaden the area and London and its environs has far more people.

So you think Berlin isn't in financial trouble?

The sad thing is, individuals such as yourself will be avoided by true policy makers. Your views are based on conspiracy theory rather than fact and figures. You portray a picture of a city and environment that believes they are getting it 'rough' when you get far more than anyone else.

With the recent upsurge in wanting to cut Scotland from England due to the ridiculous amount of subsidisation taking place; I'd expect the exact same thing to happen with the regions meaning Liverpool would probably go bankrupt. And with vocal individuals such as yourselves I'd want that to happen to be a wakeup call that you're no more than a parasitic organism leaching off the south and London.




Marre - The main reason Wembley got the private financing was because of the knock-on effects of:
a) Larger catchment area to get a higher possibility of sell out crowds
b) High value land that could be used for high-density profit generating property development

By all accounts, a Wembley at Birmingham, probably wouldn't have met these criteria meaning it would had to have had even MORE public financing to support it. Fact is, what are you going to build around Birmingham International? Apartments - no way, so it would be warehousing, retail outlets or office parks - no way near as lucrative as having an entire new residential quarter, with a new commercial centre around a new square equivalent in size to Leicester Square.

That still won't be anything close to the connectivity of 4 stations and numerous rail lines.

National games at 9,000 capacity stadiums won't bring in the money to feed in grass-roots, 90,000 capacity stadiums will.

Not really, there wasn't enough space to expand so they had to relocate, Wembley didn't face that problem because it had swathes of development land.

[Waterways]

Originally Posted by nick_taylor

And? London isn't the only city

Your knowledge is poor compounded by poor logic and reasoning. Not worth taking issue with you. Just read my initial post on this. UNDERSTAND them. Come back and ask questions on points you don't understand - which is most by the looks of it.

[Marre]

Originally Posted by nick_taylor

By all accounts, a Wembley at Birmingham, probably wouldn't have met these criteria meaning it would had to have had even MORE public financing to support it. Fact is, what are you going to build around Birmingham International? Apartments - no way, so it would be warehousing, retail outlets or office parks - no way near as lucrative as having an entire new residential quarter, with a new commercial centre around a new square equivalent in size to Leicester Square.

But Wembley Stadium is surrounded by warehousing and industrial units.

I'd want that to happen to be a wakeup call that you're no more than a parasitic organism leaching off the south and London.

You go on about anti-London feelings by Northerners but comments like that are just as bad.

[nito]

Originally Posted by Marre

But Wembley Stadium is surrounded by warehousing and industrial units.

You go on about anti-London feelings by Northerners but comments like that are just as bad.

The entire area is being transformed into a new quarter for London by Quintain Estates.

This is what the area will look like in the future - note that because of the upgrades in the local public transport network, the vast surface car parks of the old Wembley will be swept aside.




How is just as bad when it is technically a fact - the north is subsidised by London alone to the tune of £16bn each and every year. The term 'parasite' and 'leech' are deserving of individuals who meet the following criteria:
- Quick to blame everyone else for their situation despite the blame being closer to home
- Take someone else's money because they tend to lazier and less productive
- Create fictitious figures (12mn living in the North West for example, when in reality there is only 6.7mn)
- Mouth off about supposed 'slums' and conspiracy theories of acts of economic rape which have 'supposedly' taken place

It wouldn't even matter if the north was an independent country, because northerners would still have a problem with the south being far more productive and hard working.

Take Scotland - the irony is that the move to separate from England is growing because they believe that they are being dealt a raw deal. Yet the sour reality is that Scotland has always been and continues to be supported by England economically (hence why Scotland can afford to have free university tuition and free care for the elderly while England gets neither) and has the unfair advantage of having a say in English and Scottish affairs, while English MP's have only a say in English affairs (ie the West Lothian question).

If Scotland left the UK it would collapse within a few weeks because North Sea oil is not a guarantee of future prosperity (if it was, it would be here today). The same would happen if England were to break up into regions, ie they would spend the money they collect in taxes. For London and the south this would be excellent because not only would it be able to fund Crossrail-type projects each and every year, but it would be able to host the Olympics and other events without a penny from any other region. The northern regions however would probably lag behind due to the loss of £16bn inflows (add the South-East and it would probably we well over £30bn) each year and could even collapse.

Sometimes, I wish that for a 10 year trial this actually happened, because it would prove a point.

[Marre]

Originally Posted by nick_taylor

The entire area is being transformed into a new quarter for London by Quintain Estates.

This is what the area will look like in the future - note that because of the upgrades in the local public transport network, the vast surface car parks of the old Wembley will be swept aside.

Hmm, very nice - be interesting to see the impact on local traffic levels though. Really think you're over-estimating how many people will use public transport to get to Wembley Stadium. Would appear that most of the trains that serve that area are regional services. Therefore I can't see everybody using them if they are coming from afar.

Quite interesting it took us only about four hours to drive from the North East to Wembley down the M1 recently. Anyway I hope I'm wrong, be nice to have a successful public transport scheme on this sort of scale........remains to be seen though (best intentions, etc).

How is just as bad when it is technically a fact - the north is subsidised by London alone to the tune of £16bn each and every year.

Ah this one again, like it or not London has been able to flourish in recent decades partly because of Government policy. And whether you accept it or not successive Governments have seen fit to sit back and allow the rest of the UK to slide backwards. Not what a Govenrment is supposed to do (naughty naughty).

The term 'parasite' and 'leech' are deserving of individuals who meet the following criteria:
- Quick to blame everyone else for their situation despite the blame being closer to home
- Take someone else's money because they tend to lazier and less productive
- Create fictitious figures (12mn living in the North West for example, when in reality there is only 6.7mn)
- Mouth off about supposed 'slums' and conspiracy theories of acts of economic rape which have 'supposedly' taken place

Thanks for that, very nice of you to say so.

Just a couple of questions though, what if the blame really does lie with someone else?

And how can you say these people are lazier and less productive?

If anything it has been shown that workers in the North are some of the most productive in Europe (Nissan factory for example).

It wouldn't even matter if the north was an independent country, because northerners would still have a problem with the south being far more productive and hard working.

And Southerners would still be stuck up arrogant toffs looking down at everyone else trying to think up new ways to deprive them. Oh look at that, I've done what you've just done and made a totally unfair sweeping generalisation.

Take Scotland

No thanks.

- the irony is that the move to separate from England is growing because they believe that they are being dealt a raw deal. Yet the sour reality is that Scotland has always been and continues to be supported by England economically (hence why Scotland can afford to have free university tuition and free care for the elderly while England gets neither) and has the unfair advantage of having a say in English and Scottish affairs, while English MP's have only a say in English affairs (ie the West Lothian question).

Could it not just be they want what they feel has been taken from them?

If Scotland left the UK it would collapse within a few weeks because North Sea oil is not a guarantee of future prosperity (if it was, it would be here today). The same would happen if England were to break up into regions, ie they would spend the money they collect in taxes.

I'm sure Scotland like other areas could (if given enough powers) could generate it's own future prosperity.

For London and the south this would be excellent because not only would it be able to fund Crossrail-type projects each and every year, but it would be able to host the Olympics and other events without a penny from any other region. The northern regions however would probably lag behind due to the loss of £16bn inflows (add the South-East and it would probably we well over £30bn) each year and could even collapse.

Same as above, incase you hadn't noticed the Northern regions have already been lagging behind for a while. No reason why the the North couldn't form it's own united economic area and prosper.

Sometimes, I wish that for a 10 year trial this actually happened, because it would prove a point.

Ditto, because then London-based Central Government would lose it's strangehold on the rest of the country. Thus allowing them to make their own decisions and not be bound by the say so of people who shouldn't have any say over our affairs.

Whilst London and the South East has a large population it does not hold the majority of the UK populace. That lies outside the South East area, your belief that the rest of the UK would collapse without London is misguided.

London is not the be all and end all of the UK, at least it certainly shouldn't be. The Netherlands has a population of about 16 million and no one overly dominant city. And yet no collapsing economy, they do fairly well for themselves.

An example for the rest of the UK to look to, the UK 'ranstad' is something which could serve us all well.

[nito]

Originally Posted by Marre

Hmm, very nice - be interesting to see the impact on local traffic levels though. Really think you're over-estimating how many people will use public transport to get to Wembley Stadium. Would appear that most of the trains that serve that area are regional services. Therefore I can't see everybody using them if they are coming from afar.

Quite interesting it took us only about four hours to drive from the North East to Wembley down the M1 recently. Anyway I hope I'm wrong, be nice to have a successful public transport scheme on this sort of scale........remains to be seen though (best intentions, etc).

Ah this one again, like it or not London has been able to flourish in recent decades partly because of Government policy. And whether you accept it or not successive Governments have seen fit to sit back and allow the rest of the UK to slide backwards. Not what a Govenrment is supposed to do (naughty naughty).

Thanks for that, very nice of you to say so.

Just a couple of questions though, what if the blame really does lie with someone else?

And how can you say these people are lazier and less productive?

If anything it has been shown that workers in the North are some of the most productive in Europe (Nissan factory for example)

And Southerners would still be stuck up arrogant toffs looking down at everyone else trying to think up new ways to deprive them. Oh look at that, I've done what you've just done and made a totally unfair sweeping generalisation.

No thanks.

Could it not just be they want what they feel has been taken from them?

I'm sure Scotland like other areas could (if given enough powers) could generate it's own future prosperity.

Same as above, incase you hadn't noticed the Northern regions have already been lagging behind for a while. No reason why the the North couldn't form it's own united economic area and prosper.

Ditto, because then London-based Central Government would lose it's strangehold on the rest of the country. Thus allowing them to make their own decisions and not be bound by the say so of people who shouldn't have any say over our affairs.

Whilst London and the South East has a large population it does not hold the majority of the UK populace. That lies outside the South East area, your belief that the rest of the UK would collapse without London is misguided.

London is not the be all and end all of the UK, at least it certainly shouldn't be. The Netherlands has a population of about 16 million and no one overly dominant city. And yet no collapsing economy, they do fairly well for themselves.

An example for the rest of the UK to look to, the UK 'ranstad' is something which could serve us all well.

This is London, the majority of people take public transport because it is more convenient...why drive anywhere (unless it is outside London and somewhere remote) when there are buses every few seconds and trains every minute.

Also for match-days the trains are diverted to cater for this. Fans from the north could park up near Milton Keynes and catch a train in without having to worry about being late due to congestion. That is what makes Wembley so much better - it has the infrastructure already.

How has it flourished under central government? Do you consider loosing £16bn each and every single year as an example of 'flourishing'; to me that's central government raping everybody. Quite simply for the immense concentration of people in and around London it shouldn't have to go to central government to get the funding for the likes of Crossrail and Thameslink when these projects could easily have been handled by London itself if it had say over where taxes raised in London went to.

Then where does the blame lie? I don't see northerners complaining about globalisation, but you hear them about moan about London - the thread title perfectly illustrates this despite the fact that if anywhere is getting crapped upon, its London.

There are exceptions such as in Sunderland, but the general observation is that if they were productive, they wouldn't be in their current situation. Quite simply the unions killed off long-term growth in the north.

How are we toffs that think of other ways to deprive people? Last time I looked, we were the ones being deprived to the tune of £16bn each year! Include the rest of the south and that figure probably rises to £30bn: with that money we could build a high-speed rail network larger than Japan or France!

What has been 'taken' from Scotland? Scotland was saved from bankruptcy by England due to Scotland's mess in Panama with the Darién project. It has gathered international exposure over the last 299 years that it wouldn't have gained had it been left to rot as a backwater. Except for one or two decades, Scotland has required funds from England (and respectably the south) to support itself. This trend exists to this day where Scots can get free university education and the English can not - I see that as an unfair disadvantage to the English, because not only do we loose money, we loose the chance to boost productivity because of the extra cost of having to pay for university fees.

And then you have the West Lothian question which simply gives a Scottish MP more say than an English MP, where is the right for one person to have a say over the running of England, when it is not vice versa.

Scotland hasn't lost anything - its gained and will loose and deservedly so when the two countries split.

Scotland has its own powers! What do you think the devolution process and Scottish Parliament was for, England on the other hand has no such parliament. So if they can't fix things despite having more autonomy and control over their affairs, where are they going to improve and create future prosperity when they are essentially being kept afloat by the south?

Actually it wouldn't have anything to do with power control, but a re-balance of where money is spent. The losers would be the regions and periphery. The winners would be London and its environs.

Of the 50mn people living in England, close to 8mn now live in London. Another 10mn live within its metro - thats 18mn people, include surrounding periphery areas that surround London and that increases towards half the population. London and its environs might not be the largest, but it has by far the largest concentration; Birmingham of all cities has the greatest 'catchment'.

So where exactly is £16-30bn going to come from in the north? That is close to every northern man, woman and child paying an extra £1,200 to support their cities, health, police, transport, etc... each and every year. You simply wouldn't be able to do it; it would cripple the north.

I don't think you understand the geographies involved with comparing situations in England and the Netherlands - they have a history of being not-overly dominant because of their situation in Europe and the low land levels. There is no way that we could flick a switch to mastermind the mass-movement of people around the country to 'equalise' our cities. The cost to build-millions of homes around smaller urban areas, the wastelands that would be left from the forced movements......the economic and social cost would be extraordinarily prohibitive.

Christ, people can't even get a conservatory built and you want to re-format the entire landscape! Simply put, the Netherlands is as it is because of centuries of development, just like Britain is.

Like I've mentioned before, the quickest, simplest and most effective way to sort out the north would be to stop the quick remarks about London and the south, work closer together (like Leeds has managed) and look towards business & financial services, high-tech manufacturing and the knowledge economy. Looking to the public service jobs (which already dominates northern cities) is not the way forward, neither is a Ranstad like redevelopment of Britain.

If northerners spent as much time working to make their cities more attractive FDI centres and as productive as London as they do slagging off London and the south, they wouldn't be in the holes that they've dug themselves.

[Marre]

This is London, the majority of people take public transport because it is more convenient...why drive anywhere (unless it is outside London and somewhere remote) when there are buses every few seconds and trains every minute.

Fair point, for all the bad press it gets the London Underground is a very good thing to have.

Also for match-days the trains are diverted to cater for this. Fans from the north could park up near Milton Keynes and catch a train in without having to worry about being late due to congestion. That is what makes Wembley so much better - it has the infrastructure already.

Good point again, like I said I hope you're right - we shall see.

How has it flourished under central government? Do you consider loosing £16bn each and every single year as an example of 'flourishing'; to me that's central government raping everybody. Quite simply for the immense concentration of people in and around London it shouldn't have to go to central government to get the funding for the likes of Crossrail and Thameslink when these projects could easily have been handled by London itself if it had say over where taxes raised in London went to.

Come on Nick, London has done pretty well and if the rest of the country is funded purely by London tax money as you seem to suggest what happens to where does our tax money go?

Got to admit mind Northern railway services are often heavily subsidised because the loadings on their own are not enough to justify their running. But on the other hand Northern regional train services are very infrequent and use pretty poor rolling stock.

Then where does the blame lie? I don't see northerners complaining about globalisation, but you hear them about moan about London - the thread title perfectly illustrates this despite the fact that if anywhere is getting crapped upon, its London.

So every northerner moans about London?

You've presumably met every northerner?

Clearly you haven't reacted well to 'waterway's comments which is fair enough, but please don't presume we're all just complaining about London. Just like I don't presume every southerner looks down on the rest of the country.

There are exceptions such as in Sunderland, but the general observation is that if they were productive, they wouldn't be in their current situation. Quite simply the unions killed off long-term growth in the north.

Exceptions?

I can assure you it's quite the norm, production levels across the North are usually quite good.

How are we toffs that think of other ways to deprive people? Last time I looked, we were the ones being deprived to the tune of £16bn each year! Include the rest of the south and that figure probably rises to £30bn: with that money we could build a high-speed rail network larger than Japan or France!

Oh dear you've not understood my words have you.......I was being sarcastic.

And isn't 30bn the estimated price tag for a North-South high speed railway line?

That would be a good way to start redressing the economic unbalance - that and crossrail to ensure there's no congestion at the London end.

What has been 'taken' from Scotland? Scotland was saved from bankruptcy by England due to Scotland's mess in Panama with the Darién project. It has gathered international exposure over the last 299 years that it wouldn't have gained had it been left to rot as a backwater. Except for one or two decades, Scotland has required funds from England (and respectably the south) to support itself. This trend exists to this day where Scots can get free university education and the English can not - I see that as an unfair disadvantage to the English, because not only do we loose money, we loose the chance to boost productivity because of the extra cost of having to pay for university fees.

And then you have the West Lothian question which simply gives a Scottish MP more say than an English MP, where is the right for one person to have a say over the running of England, when it is not vice versa.

Scotland hasn't lost anything - its gained and will loose and deservedly so when the two countries split.

You'd be best off asking that to a Scottish person, I was merely posing a question about the Scotland situation.

Actually it wouldn't have anything to do with power control, but a re-balance of where money is spent. The losers would be the regions and periphery. The winners would be London and its environs.

Actually it would have a lot to do with 'power control', re-distribution of power would greatly benefit the regions a lot more. I.e. the ability to generate our own wealth and prosperity. Granted it would take a long time to really feel the benefits but it is a pretty long term thing.

Of the 50mn people living in England, close to 8mn now live in London. Another 10mn live within its metro - thats 18mn people, include surrounding periphery areas that surround London and that increases towards half the population. London and its environs might not be the largest, but it has by far the largest concentration; Birmingham of all cities has the greatest 'catchment'.

So where exactly is £16-30bn going to come from in the north? That is close to every northern man, woman and child paying an extra £1,200 to support their cities, health, police, transport, etc... each and every year. You simply wouldn't be able to do it; it would cripple the north.

About 60mn live in the UK, take out the South East (no offence) and that leaves a lot of the populace left.

I don't think you understand the geographies involved with comparing situations in England and the Netherlands - they have a history of being not-overly dominant because of their situation in Europe and the low land levels. There is no way that we could flick a switch to mastermind the mass-movement of people around the country to 'equalise' our cities. The cost to build-millions of homes around smaller urban areas, the wastelands that would be left from the forced movements......the economic and social cost would be extraordinarily prohibitive.

Christ, people can't even get a conservatory built and you want to re-format the entire landscape! Simply put, the Netherlands is as it is because of centuries of development, just like Britain is.

But I never suggested 'flicking a switch' and I never said copy the Netherlands like for like. I suggested that something along the lines of a ranstad type area would be a good move. The Northen Way would seem to be suggesting something similar. No offence like but could you at least fully understand what I am saying (I know it's not that easy but please try) before responding.

Can't help but think you're having a go at me for what others have said.

Like I've mentioned before, the quickest, simplest and most effective way to sort out the north would be to stop the quick remarks about London and the south, work closer together (like Leeds has managed) and look towards business & financial services, high-tech manufacturing and the knowledge economy. Looking to the public service jobs (which already dominates northern cities) is not the way forward, neither is a Ranstad like redevelopment of Britain.

If northerners spent as much time working to make their cities more attractive FDI centres and as productive as London as they do slagging off London and the south, they wouldn't be in the holes that they've dug themselves.

Many regions are already doing what you have suggested and have been doing so for quite a while now. Like I said before Northern cities don't have meetings slagging off London and the South East just like I'm sure Southerners don't all think of ways to have a go at the North.

And a ranstad wouldn't be so much a redevelopment of the regions but more a strengthening of links between cities.

[nito]

Originally Posted by Marre

Fair point, for all the bad press it gets the London Underground is a very good thing to have.

Good point again, like I said I hope you're right - we shall see.

Come on Nick, London has done pretty well and if the rest of the country is funded purely by London tax money as you seem to suggest what happens to where does our tax money go?

Got to admit mind Northern railway services are often heavily subsidised because the loadings on their own are not enough to justify their running. But on the other hand Northern regional train services are very infrequent and use pretty poor rolling stock.



So every northerner moans about London?

You've presumably met every northerner?

Clearly you haven't reacted well to 'waterway's comments which is fair enough, but please don't presume we're all just complaining about London. Just like I don't presume every southerner looks down on the rest of the country.



Exceptions?

I can assure you it's quite the norm, production levels across the North are usually quite good.



Oh dear you've not understood my words have you.......I was being sarcastic.

And isn't 30bn the estimated price tag for a North-South high speed railway line?

That would be a good way to start redressing the economic unbalance - that and crossrail to ensure there's no congestion at the London end.



You'd be best off asking that to a Scottish person, I was merely posing a question about the Scotland situation.



Actually it would have a lot to do with 'power control', re-distribution of power would greatly benefit the regions a lot more. I.e. the ability to generate our own wealth and prosperity. Granted it would take a long time to really feel the benefits but it is a pretty long term thing.



About 60mn live in the UK, take out the South East (no offence) and that leaves a lot of the populace left.



But I never suggested 'flicking a switch' and I never said copy the Netherlands like for like. I suggested that something along the lines of a ranstad type area would be a good move. The Northen Way would seem to be suggesting something similar. No offence like but could you at least fully understand what I am saying (I know it's not that easy but please try) before responding.

Can't help but think you're having a go at me for what others have said.



Many regions are already doing what you have suggested and have been doing so for quite a while now. Like I said before Northern cities don't have meetings slagging off London and the South East just like I'm sure Southerners don't all think of ways to have a go at the North.

And a ranstad wouldn't be so much a redevelopment of the regions but more a strengthening of links between cities.

Indeed London is thankful for having the London Underground, ut it only got it for two reason:
- High density and immense catchments
- Private investment (the London Underground was built by private companies and wealthy individuals)

4 stations and sitting on several high-frequency lines....I'd think that it would be safe to believe so!

How has London been doing pretty well? Unable to build the likes of Crossrail because of funds being diverted elsewhere, it has had to explore Congestion Charging and other measures to try and control pollution, noise, and traffic congestion. The poorest wards in the country, aren't in the north, they are slap bang in London and it so happens that Crossrail would actually go through these areas. The north isn't solely reliant upon the south, but without the south, most services would collapse...Keep in mind that the NHS budget for 2006-07 is £96bn.....the south is loosing something like £30bn each each; it doesn't take a genius to work out that if the south stopped the flow of money, there would have to be large cut backs in public services of which the north is already too heavily dependent upon. And that is the problem: the north has far too many public sector jobs and not enough private sector jobs. Without private jobs, there aren't going to be many internal or external investors which means innovation is held back forcing a stagnation of the economy. It could be argued that axing these jobs would be of a benefit to the north so that it forces a mass-reorganisation to push forward.

The reason here is simple: the population is too dispersed. Rail networks require high concentrations to ensure that load capacity is more effectively used. Oddly however, for the last decade, the average age of regional commuter trains has been lower than that of London and London commuter services despite the London commuter network moving 3x as many people.

It is a general perception from my experience - not everyone fits this category, as I have mentioned it is a malaise less present in Leeds, but elsewhere it is far too common. You only have to look at the UK & Ireland sub-forums and note the posts moaning about London and the south.

Sarcasm doesn't work on forums.

£30bn is for a north-south maglev line. The irony is though, the south could actually redirect its northern subsidy for two years and actually get it built which would help the north....yet because of the dependency on the public sector in the north that would mean job losses.

Scots get off far too lightly in this country and are worse than northerners.

If it was power control, London would be gaining money, not loosing it! Politicians and more public sector jobs doesn't aid growth, the private sector is there for that and that is what needs to be encouraged.

Take away the south-east and London and its environs, and you'd have just under 2/3'sof the UK population. That is significant considering the land area difference between the two areas.

I think you'll find that the mud-slinging isn't started by southerners, its started by northerners, with southerners responding with the cold truth. This thread is case in example.

[mczamalek]

Heywood Jabuzov....Marge Inoverrer