[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.