Michael Bell wrote:
wrote:
Michael Bell wrote:
In article , Michael Bell wrote:

snipping matters answered in other posts :-
[snip]
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.

Of course it's all or nothing, but I think it has a lot to do with more
of the higher value work being done in London.

What do you mean by "all or nothing"? And if you think that provincials do
low value work, that shows your prejudices.

Sorry, I really messed that up - I meant to write "of course it's NOT
all or nothing". And because I made that mistake, I can see why you
could mistake my comments about provincials doing low value work for
prejudice.

As I meant to say, it's not all or nothing, and a lot of high value work
is performed in London - there's the financial sector, of course, and a
lot of companies choose to locate their headquarters there. But have you
noticed how little heavy industry remains?

[snip]
phonetic spelling, with Slough, Reading, Greenwich, Islington and of
course London itself - rhymes with "cotton"!

I doubt that rhyme would be acceptable even in doggeral!

Wash your ears out!

That wouldn't help now, as I'm too far away to hear it. But in all the
time I was there I never once heard it pronounced like that! Are you
sure you're not getting it confused with Luton?

[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.

First you claim their policy is EXACTLY London FIRST, then you claim
it's London Only! Make your mind up!

I can't see your point.

A London FIRST policy would not prevent others from getting what London
can't have - it would only prevent them from getting what London CAN
have. A dog in the manger policy would be London ONLY!

There is a great deal of favouratism for London and holding the
North back. London has unitary control of its local transport. Provincial
cities are not allowed to.

ITYF they are, even though the PTEs don't work exactly the same way as
TfL.

I think the difference is significant.

You are correct, but so is the similarity.

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

How exactly have they done that? Manchester airport has had another
runway added, despite being far less busy. And while the government are
currently keen on some misguided policies that would keep Heathrow
dominant, they don't involve holding back the development of Northern
airports.

You are simply wrong there.

Am I??? Then can you please explain how they would involve holding back
the development of northern airports?

[snip]
Whether this is the TRUTH is very difficult to test, but certainly it is
widely BELIEVED. No matter what you think the mechanism of this is (the
inner workings of London are hidden to folk so far away, they just have to
look at the inputs and outputs and treat London as a "black box"), you
must come to see London as a grudge-holder, a spiteful and vindicitive
entity, though people don't like to face up to it.

I don't think there's actually a grudge - it's just a resentment that
they're not getting properly funded when the other cities are.

So you agree it exists, if it's not a "grudge", then what is it?

I just told you!

I can't think of a single word for it, and obviously you can't either,
but I can tell you the difference. It is the desire to rectify what they
perceive as a current and ongoing injustice. A grudge is usually taken
to mean the refusal to forgive them for what are percieved as past
injustices, and your accusation of spite and vindictiveness confirms
that this is what you meant. London wants more and is annoyed that
they're not getting it, but there is no malice.

[snip]

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

And what would I be if I deplored it and said "but that costs many
gigaquid that could be spent in a far more useful way" what would I be?

At least you would have made a calculation. But so far, you haven't. What
would it be worth to the country to have another 10 million people doing
the higher-value work that you claim (at top) Londoners are doing? How
much would it cost to reach that state?

You misunderstand the way it works. Not all the work done in London is
high value, and there's an increasing amount of high value work being
done in other parts of the country. Improving transport links would help
to increase that amount, but it would be better to have a whole range of
improvements that benefit the whole country rather than just using one
megaproject with the ridiculous aim of making it all one city.

BTW have you seen Channel 4's "Supercities UK"? First broadcast in 2003
it involved one man's vision of the future of three of England's cities:
The M62 corridor, London to Birmingham, and the South Coast. A few
interesting ideas, and some very silly ones! If you've seen it, I'll let
you decide whether your postings' resemblance to it are a compliment. If
you haven't, I'll let you wonder.