Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:31 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

Really people who live in the North Of England want to travel to London to fly anywhere!

Manchester, Birmingham, Teeside, East Midlands, Doncaster, Leeds/Bradford, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Preswick, Aberdeen and Inverness all have enough capacity to cope with the traffic, most could double their throughput without much effort. But we are not talking about holiday makers.

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:49 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

You obviously decided to ignore the phrase LONDON AND THE SE. FACT

Some Olympic events were held outside London and the south east. Fact.

[Durham Giant]

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:28 am  

Mintball wrote:

Some Olympic events were held outside London and the south east. Fact.

Other than football etc which used existing stadia which ones utilised newly built facilities etc outside of London and the SE which can now be part of the sporting infrastructure for other regions.

What went to Cornwall or the NE or Yorks and Lancs the west midlands etc.

PS i regard the Lee valley as London and the SE

My point is that London is the capital city therefore everything needs to be in London a self fulfilling prophecy.

It is the centre of finance therefore buisnessman want to be there


It is the centre of Culture therefore the Arty people want to be there.

It is the national centre for sports therefore the sporting establishment want to be there.

All these important people want to be there so it needs good transport links.

Therefore we should build all the big airports there.

Because it has the best international transport links we should route all provincial traffic through there. ( dont get me started on HS2).

Because it is the "centre" of the country therefore we should build more there.

The more you build there the bigger it becomes and the more everything new needs to be there.

It is realy nice that occasionally the museums throw a few bits out to the regions like the IWM in Manchester or the Armouries in Leeds but they are so small that they are just the few scraps that are thrown out.

Nothing will change without a fundamental change in the relationship between the centre and the provinces.

In my view it is no different to the centre shafting the regions as it always has done. From William the conqueror laying waste to the north, Henry 8th persecuting the Northern Lords, Peterloo, Thatcher and heavy industry, and now the coalition.

Other countries seem to be able to address some of these issues.

The capital City of Germany is not the same as the administrative centre or the financial centre, The capital city of Australia is not the biggest city, Italy's capital is not the centre of finance or fashion etc.

[DaveO]

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:36 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

How do you propose reducing rent, given that:

a) rent is set in response to market conditions and the basic laws of supply and demand;
b) London is a desirable place to live (God knows why);
b) many landlords have mortgages and simply cannot afford to reduce the amount of rent they charge.

a) and b) are the same thing and I answered that in my previous post.

As to the last point if landlords are so geared up that they risk losing their properties if they had to face reduction in rents then that is tough luck. If a large social housing program was embarked upon and that increased the housing supply thus reducing rents, would you be suggesting we compensate landlords?

We are seemingly stuck in a vicious circle that shows private provision of housing doesn't work. It is one of low availability, landlords who do take on high mortgages and thus charge high rents (or just charge high rents because they can!) and the result is a ridiculous housing benefit bill.

You can't simply have a London that is just for the rich unless you want to start paying cleaners, refuse collection workers and so on £50K plus salaries so something has got to change and shipping people out which may end up costing them their job as pointed out in another post is not the answer. There is only one way to fix it and that is reduce rents.

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:45 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

Other than football etc which used existing stadia which ones utilised newly built facilities etc outside of London and the SE which can now be part of the sporting infrastructure for other regions...

That is not what you first raised.

You claimed that events were not held outside of London and the south east. This was factually incorrect.

Durham Giant wrote:

What went to Cornwall or the NE or Yorks and Lancs the west midlands etc...

Err, football? Plus the sailing was in Weymouth & Portland, which is in Dorset. Dorset is not in the south east.

And let us remind ourselves that these, in keeping with the tradition of the Games, were the London Games.

Durham Giant wrote:

The capital City of Germany is not the same as the administrative centre or the financial centre, The capital city of Australia is not the biggest city, Italy's capital is not the centre of finance or fashion etc.

However, the capital of France is the centre for all these things. And so it goes on. It was vbfg, some years ago, who pointed out that there are (IIRC) two kinds of country/capital. One where, like the UK and France, politics, culture, economics etc are all based in one capital. The other variety, as you suggest, is where things are spread out more. There are, incidentally, reasons of recent history as to why these splits have occurred in Germany. It's possibly similar elsewhere.

[DaveO]

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:02 am  

Mintball wrote:

However, the capital of France is the centre for all these things. And so it goes on. It was vbfg, some years ago, who pointed out that there are (IIRC) two kinds of country/capital. One where, like the UK and France, politics, culture, economics etc are all based in one capital. The other variety, as you suggest, is where things are spread out more. There are, incidentally, reasons of recent history as to why these splits have occurred in Germany. It's possibly similar elsewhere.

In Australia creating Canberra as the capital was a deliberate attempt to avoid the London and Paris situations where one region of the country dominates. They didn't want any one of the "real" states to dominate because it would become the administrative as well as (say) financial capital due to the prominence that would give to one of the major cities such as Sydney or Melbourne.

Does it work? Well quite a few people think Sydney is the capital anyway but I think generally it does. It's not perfect, we didn't have the Canberra Olympics did we but I think it is better than in the UK where London and the SE seem to work like a sponge for wealth and distort the countries economy.

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:36 am  

DaveO wrote:

...You can't simply have a London that is just for the rich unless you want to start paying cleaners, refuse collection workers and so on £50K plus salaries so something has got to change and shipping people out which may end up costing them their job as pointed out in another post is not the answer. There is only one way to fix it and that is reduce rents.

Spot on.
The low-paid jobs keep the Capital (and the capital) running, ship them out and London stops.

[Durham Giant]

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:00 am  

Mintball"]That is not what you first raised.

You claimed that events were not held outside of London and the south east. This was factually incorrect.

No you substituted EVENTS for what i actually wrote which was Or shared the Olympic venues more equitably around the country rather than London and the SE by venues i meant physical buildings etc infrastructure

Err, football? Plus the sailing was in Weymouth & Portland, which is in Dorset. Dorset is not in the south east.

I was aware of of where Dorset is. Other than them borrowing the sea which i believe did not require any specific costs i am doubtful whether there was any significant development which will have any significant long term infrastructural change on the area. I have not specifically researched this so am open to changing my mind.

And let us remind ourselves that these, in keeping with the tradition of the Games, were the London Games.

Funny how now they were the London games now they are over. I am sure that the Government and the BOA kept telling us they wre the british games being held in London and were to benefit the nation as a whole. I knew they were the London games as did others hence why many people were hostile to what was happening ( although most people have now ignored that because they were such a success and would open critics to being anti nationalistic).

However, the capital of France is the centre for all these things. And so it goes on. It was vbfg, some years ago, who pointed out that there are (IIRC) two kinds of country/capital. One where, like the UK and France, politics, culture, economics etc are all based in one capital. The other variety, as you suggest, is where things are spread out more. There are, incidentally, reasons of recent history as to why these splits have occurred in Germany. It's possibly similar elsewhere

.[/quote]

I understand the issue caused by partition BUT even in the old West Germany they recognised the need to make Frankfurt the financial centre rather than Bonn.

Ultimately the issue is that there needs to be a sea change in British policy etc to see more significant development outside of London and this can take many forms culture, art, finance, infrastructure, sport etc.

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:56 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

... Funny how now they were the London games now they are over. I am sure that the Government and the BOA kept telling us they wre the british games being held in London and were to benefit the nation as a whole. I knew they were the London games as did others hence why many people were hostile to what was happening ( although most people have now ignored that because they were such a success and would open critics to being anti nationalistic).

They were always the London Games. The bid was 'the London bid' etc.

And the entire country could benefit in all sorts of ways. Whether it did is entirely another question, but it doesn't simply mean infrastructure.

Durham Giant wrote:

Ultimately the issue is that there needs to be a sea change in British policy etc to see more significant development outside of London and this can take many forms culture, art, finance, infrastructure, sport etc.

That's your opinion – and one you've voiced a number of times.

It's a pity, though,. that you don't recognise top arts companies that are based outside the capital. There are quite a few.

[Durham Giant]

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:20 pm  

Mintball wrote:

They were always the London Games. The bid was 'the London bid' etc.

And the entire country could benefit in all sorts of ways. Whether it did is entirely another question, but it doesn't simply mean infrastructure.

That's your opinion – and one you've voiced a number of times.

It's a pity, though,. that you don't recognise top arts companies that are based outside the capital. There are quite a few.

I recognise that , but there is an issue around Arts funding relying much more on national funding and charities which is still skewed towards London.

Due to LA cuts (which there is very clear evidence to show is unfairly weighted against the midlands and the North) there is huge pressure on the support that LAs can now contribute to arts funding with the net result the flow of talent and resources will be heading back to London. It is clear that various changes ie in education mean that many soutrhern LAs in the shires are now being treated much more favourably than in the North.

But being based in London i am guessing that whilst you know all the above is true you probably wont be campaigning on the streets for a fairer deal for the North !!!