Bit shocked

lisyloo

That's 24 times more investment per person btw.

And how much does London bring in through tourism?
I don't know the answer, but I think it's quite a lot.

cells

lisyloo wrote: »

And how much does London bring in through tourism?
I don't know the answer, but I think it's quite a lot.

That's no reason at all to have more infrastructure spending in London than elsewhere per capita

Better to have council tax pay for local infrastructure in which case presumably things like HS2 would add ~300pa to the London council tax forever while not adding it to the NE or Scotland or wales or any of the other palaces it Doesnt touch. Might also focus the mind on the high cost low value projects if its burden wasn't spread across 65m people but only the number it impacts

Generali

buglawton wrote: »

Really?
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england

That's 24 times more investment per person btw.

Infrastructure spending is a fraction of public spending.

cells

cells wrote: »

capital cities tend to export services to the rest of the country because a lot of the service industries are entrenched there for one reason or another but mostly historical. Media Arts Accounting Legal Finance Politics Tourism etc.

It is not something that is emulateable

It is even true within London, the city of London and the central zones full of offices export services to the rest of London. If Enfield in North London 10 miles away cant take on the city of London or Westminster what chance does Birmingham 100 miles away have?

Or put another way, why isn't Enfield pulling its finger out?

Should have added this is the reason London should 'subsidise' the rest of the UK.

The only realistic alternative is for the UK to have been 11 different regions all with their own capitals and entrenched service sector.

The region London could then be compared to its capital city the city of London. Per capita income would be higher and it would be subsidising the rest of the london region....

lisyloo

That's no reason at all to have more infrastructure spending in London than elsewhere per capita

What's the definition of per capita?
If it's the number of residents then I'd say there's definitely is a good reason i.e. the many millions that travel/work there every day.

Q. Why should residents pay for commuter infrastructure?

Might also focus the mind on the high cost low value projects if its burden wasn't spread across 65m people but only the number it impacts

I agree that it should be spread across the users but not across the residents (who may not be users).
I'm sure you're already aware but some parts of central London (like the city) are actually deserted of residents and some of residences as well.

cells

lisyloo wrote: »

What's the definition of per capita?
If it's the number of residents then I'd say there's definitely is a good reason i.e. the many millions that travel/work there every day.

Q. Why should residents pay for commuter infrastructure?

I agree that it should be spread across the users but not across the residents (who may not be users).
I'm sure you're already aware but some parts of central London (like the city) are actually deserted of residents and some of residences as well.

Well it should all be in the ticket price and the users should pay for it

Of course no train company would invest £50B into a train line as its a waste of money and they wouldn't have any customers willing to pay for the running and the £50B capital cost

But if the governments is so sure its needed and it can't work with the ticket price then try to charge those who benifit. Maybe put it onto the business rates of offices around the stations who's staff will be the commuters and maybe on homes within a certain distance who will benefit from higher price due to closer transport links

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

London didn't really host the Olympics alone though: there were events and venues across the UK. And many places have hosted the Commonwealth Games (Edinburgh, Cardiff, Glasgow, Manchester).

TBH it's not the London is doing stuff to hold the rest of the country back it's that the rest of the country seems to have this reluctance/failure to pull their collective fingers out.

London provides a massive subsidy to the rest of the UK each and every year despite having some of the poorest boroughs in the country. All those arts venues across the UK are effectively paid for using London taxes for example, London is one of the very few places to have a vibrant enough economy to allow it to have lots of privately run venues.

Perhaps places like Edinburgh and Cardiff should take a look at what they are failing to do, despite the massive subsidies the receive that drain London of resources. Maybe the problem is the subsidies: councils and decentralised Governments over-reach themselves so private companies can't compete.

Well London's rise was guaranteed by the deliberate throttling of its rivals.

Conrad

I can get into central London within 40 mins by train but I pretty much never go there unless forced. Once you've done some art, museums, culcharrr and restaurants, what's the beef? I find it an annonumous place full of people trying to look cool where everyone's rushing to get somewhere.

For me personally I get depressed if away from countryside.

gadgetmind

We can get to London in sub 2hrs by train and we're going there in December of Xmas bash plus to see a couple of special exhibitions. Two days will be pleasant enough but more than that ...

lisyloo

Once you've done some art, museums, culcharrr and restaurants, what's the beef?

Most people are there primarily for work reasons (millions of them).
I know there are jobs elsewhere but like everything else (theatre, cinemas, markets, restaurants, palaces,museums) there is not the same choice, number, variety or in some cases standard available.