[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?