Is this country too London centric.......?

[RogerC]

Looking at the response of the 'authorities' to the Thames regions flooding, and the coverage of the 'rapid response' by emergency services is it the case that those 'Authorities' care nought for anyone living outside that there 'London'?

[malc d]

I think the answer to your question " Is this country too London centric " - is definitely yes.

 

I wouldn't necessarily apply that to the emergency services - but we often hear of the north / south divide - I reckon it's more of a London / outside London divide.

 

Just look at the proposal for the third runway at Heathrow - one of the reasons it is needed is apparently that it will create a couple of thousand jobs !

Just what London needs - more jobs - it's currently so deprived.

 

;-)

[Symbol Owner]

RogerC - 2014-02-11 12:14 PM

 

Looking at the response of the 'authorities' to the Thames regions flooding, and the coverage of the 'rapid response' by emergency services is it the case that those 'Authorities' care nought for anyone living outside that there 'London'?

 

Interestingly enough Roger, just after I read your post ( and wasn't sure that I entirely agreed with it) I came across this -- a bit dense, but it makes your point in spades!

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/10/public-money-private-wealth-london-north-v-south

 

Cheers,

 

Colin.

[Will86]

At least some of the flooded house owners accept that living by a river is a hazard (on the radio this morning) This person was quite happy to live near the water and smile in the warm idyllic days - as he described them - and then simply move out when under water.

 

Heathrow is a red herring for Gatwick is the real future expansion . For years soil has been stock piled in various sites ready for the big move.

[RogerC]

Very good and interesting read Colin.............the feeling that anything that doesn't benefit London isn't worth a jot is certainly a rising topic.

[malc d]

When the HS2 project was being pushed not long ago one of the arguments put forward was that if a Chinese businessman flew into London he would be able to get to Birmingham quicker,

which would " help " Birmingham.

 

So that makes it essential that we make more room for planes to land at Heathrow, and have a high speed train to Birmingham.

 

A more obvious answer, I would suggest, is that the businessman should be able to fly direct to Birmingham.

 

:-|

[Zydeco Joe]

A 100% this country IS London centric.

The national football stadium should have been built in the midlands not in London , this is just one example of London centric.......... 8-)

[Will86]

Gatwick will very likely be connected to a high speed link in the future by connecting Gatwick - Heathrow - and the north all in line.

[CliveH]

Yes I think it is - but if you speak to a French person - they will say the same about Paris.

 

Interestingly - as I understand it - Germany is not quite the same as their regional autonomy is far greater.

 

But as for how most French feel about Paris and Parisians - I love the comment a client made to us about his asking locals in France if the minded us Brits coming and buying their houses - the result was a Gallic Shrug and the words:-

 

"It could be worse - you could be Parisians!"

 

B-)

 

 

 

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

But I just wonder if other nationalities feel the same about their capital cities though...?

:-S

 

Oops! sorry Clive, I crossed your post(..seems we had similar thoughts..)

[CliveH]

Great minds Pepe - - - Great minds...............

 

 

 

 

 

(lol)

[malc d]

pepe63 - 2014-02-11 4:12 PM

 

But I just wonder if other nationalities feel the same about their capital cities though...?

:-S

 

 

 

I reckon the answer could be to keep London as the capital but move the parliament up north.

 

There would be a high initial cost of course - like supplying maps to MPs so they would know where the north is, plus lots of counselling for civil servants who have never ventured outside the M25 before.- but it might even things up a bit.

 

 

;-)

[clifford60]

i tried writing a reply to this thread but, as a northerner, i found i was getting too irate and the blood pressure was rising too fast. there are too many examples of London centricity to highlight on this forum.

[Brian Kirby]

Answer, yes. Now, why is that, and what's to do?

[malc d]

clifford60 - 2014-02-11 5:59 PM

 

i tried writing a reply to this thread but, as a northerner, i found i was getting too irate and the blood pressure was rising too fast. there are too many examples of London centricity to highlight on this forum.

 

 

The Westminster establishment is completely oblivious to the north / south divide.

( Although it's not just north/ south - I doubt if the south west feels valued by London )

 

I'm sure they have even no idea why Scotland wants to be an independent country.

 

;-)

[malc d]

Brian Kirby - 2014-02-11 6:54 PM

 

Answer, yes. Now, why is that, and what's to do?

 

 

1) I think it's called ' looking after your own interests ' ( e.g. property values )

 

 

2) Scotland stays with England ,Wales and Northern Ireland - and we all get independence from London !

 

 

:-D

[RogerC]

malc d - 2014-02-11 7:02 PM

clifford60 - 2014-02-11 5:59 PMi tried writing a reply to this thread but, as a northerner, i found i was getting too irate and the blood pressure was rising too fast. there are too many examples of London centricity to highlight on this forum.

The Westminster establishment is completely oblivious to the north / south divide.( Although it's not just north/ south - I doubt if the south west feels valued by London )I'm sure they have even no idea why Scotland wants to be an independent country. ;-)

 

The South West has never been 'valued' by that there London lot.    Putting the loss of any 'real' industry apart from fishing aside Cornwall has (so my parents reliably tell me.they live in Looe) for decades had the highest water rates in the country.  The reason for this is because of the 'need/legal obligation' to keep the beaches etc up to 'Blue Flag' standard for them there 'emmets' to enjoy. 

 

I think the politicians creed must be......."All men are created equal......but 'we' are more 'equal' than anyone outside London".

 

[Frankkia]

You only have to look at the coverage the floods are getting on TV.

 

When there have been floods anywhere north of Watford Gap or when houses were falling into the sea because it was decided (in London) that it wasn't worth putting in sea defences the TV coverage was almost nil. Apart from as an "amusing" side note at the end of the news. Must have been a slow news day in London. )Slow news day = Boris kept his trap shut!)

 

Odd isn't it - Last time I was in the smoke I didn't hear one accent that could have been described as having been learned within the sound of Bow Bells.

[Brian Kirby]

malc d - 2014-02-11 7:07 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2014-02-11 6:54 PM

 

Answer, yes. Now, why is that, and what's to do?

 

 

1) I think it's called ' looking after your own interests ' ( e.g. property values )

 

 

2) Scotland stays with England ,Wales and Northern Ireland - and we all get independence from London !

 

 

:-D

Property values only reflect what people are prepared to pay. Unfortunately, very rich people wish to live in London, and those who sell to benefit from them merely pay similarly inflated prices for houses elsewhere, generally within the south-east commuter belt. I hear some of those who live in London originated from elsewhere within the UK, so it seems pointless "blaming" London for being a magnet. Like it or not, London is where the money is, and the money draws in those who find it attractive.

 

I appreciate you have your tongue firmly in your cheek, but if the rest of the country were to abandon London to become an independent city state, pursuing its own interests without wider consideration, I think the rest of the UK might have rather a shock when they found out how much they could actually earn left to their own devices! I'd like to see London less dominant, but that really needs the rest of the UK to up its game, not try to pull London's down.

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2014-02-11 7:13 PM.............The reason for this is because of the 'need/legal obligation' to keep the beaches etc up to 'Blue Flag' standard for them there 'emmets' to enjoy.............

Yes, because if they didn't, presumably visitor numbers would collapse, and the local economy with them.

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2014-02-11 11:59 PM

RogerC - 2014-02-11 7:13 PM.............The reason for this is because of the 'need/legal obligation' to keep the beaches etc up to 'Blue Flag' standard for them there 'emmets' to enjoy.............

Yes, because if they didn't, presumably visitor numbers would collapse, and the local economy with them.

 

I agree with the need to keep the standards up.  However it is estimated that it is one third of the countries 'beach' coastline that needs maintaining.  To load the costs for the upkeep of such a vast coastline on the 'relatively' few residents of Cornwall is IMO unfair.  Yes Cornwall benefits from tourism but the 'residents' are in the main on very low incomes and can ill afford such a financial burden.  If other financial needs relative to the 'National interest' can be subsidised why not the water rates in Cornwall?  The following suggests that HMG has at last recognised this inequality but IMO, like many other things it is involved in it has taken too long to address the inequality and unfairness of the situation:

 

Extract from 'This is Cornwall':

 

South West Water is the only water company in the UK to cut bills this year - but customers will still pay £111 more than the national average.

A Government-funded £50 per household rebate will kick in from April, slashing the average bill paid by 780,000 households in the region by £40 to £499.

But as a mark of the unfairness of privatisation that meant 3% of the population have been paying for the upkeep of one-third of the UK's coastline, the average national charge for water and sewerage is just £388 in 2013-14.

The cut to West country water bills is the first in more than a decade and only the second since water industry privatisation in 1989.

The bill remains the highest of all water companies in the UK, a reflection of the botched privatisation of the industry in the 1980s, and would have gone up by £10 without the state assistance.

In 2011, Chancellor George Osborne announced the Treasury would hand the region £35 million a year as recompense for a tiny population on the peninsula picking up the £2 billion tab to end raw sewage being dumped into the sea, leading to the sky-high annual charge.

End quote.

The foregoing sort of makes yet another mockery of Camerons'....'We're all in it together' mantra.

Successive governments have singularly failed the West country in so many ways it beggars belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[malc d]

Brian Kirby - 2014-02-11 11:55 PM

 

 

... , I think the rest of the UK might have rather a shock when they found out how much they could actually earn left to their own devices!

 

 

 

I'm sure we could come up with some money making schemes if we had a ' landlocked ' state within our borders.

 

... congestion charge for driving outside the M25 ?

 

... levy for overflying our airspace ?

 

to name just two.

 

:-D

[Brian Kirby]

RogerC - 2014-02-12 12:42 AM

Brian Kirby - 2014-02-11 11:59 PM

RogerC - 2014-02-11 7:13 PM.............The reason for this is because of the 'need/legal obligation' to keep the beaches etc up to 'Blue Flag' standard for them there 'emmets' to enjoy.............

Yes, because if they didn't, presumably visitor numbers would collapse, and the local economy with them.

 

I agree with the need to keep the standards up.  However it is estimated that it is one third of the countries 'beach' coastline that needs maintaining.  To load the costs for the upkeep of such a vast coastline on the 'relatively' few residents of Cornwall is IMO unfair.  ..................

I assume most will be on meters. The problem, surely, is that the unit charge for domestic water is too high in relation to the commercial charge. Although the residents presumably benefit from tourism to some extent, it must surely be the commercial users who benefit the most? Perhaps they should pay a bit more, to take some of the strain off domestic consumers? Not too keen on subsidies, on the whole!

[Brian Kirby]

malc d - 2014-02-12 8:36 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2014-02-11 11:55 PM

 

 

... , I think the rest of the UK might have rather a shock when they found out how much they could actually earn left to their own devices!

 

 

 

I'm sure we could come up with some money making schemes if we had a ' landlocked ' state within our borders.

 

... congestion charge for driving outside the M25 ?

 

... levy for overflying our airspace ?

 

to name just two.

 

:-D

Maybe in your dreams! :-D

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2014-02-12 5:00 PM

RogerC - 2014-02-12 12:42 AM

Brian Kirby - 2014-02-11 11:59 PM

RogerC - 2014-02-11 7:13 PM.............The reason for this is because of the 'need/legal obligation' to keep the beaches etc up to 'Blue Flag' standard for them there 'emmets' to enjoy.............

Yes, because if they didn't, presumably visitor numbers would collapse, and the local economy with them.

 

 

 

I agree with the need to keep the standards up.  However it is estimated that it is one third of the countries 'beach' coastline that needs maintaining.  To load the costs for the upkeep of such a vast coastline on the 'relatively' few residents of Cornwall is IMO unfair.  ..................

I assume most will be on meters. The problem, surely, is that the unit charge for domestic water is too high in relation to the commercial charge. Although the residents presumably benefit from tourism to some extent, it must surely be the commercial users who benefit the most? Perhaps they should pay a bit more, to take some of the strain off domestic consumers? Not too keen on subsidies, on the whole!

 

Meters or not Brian...which given the content of the report is irrelevant anyway, and I don't see the relevance of the commercial rate seeing as the report clearly considers 'households'.  The report said the 'average' annual charge paid by 'households' and this is the important element:

 

"slashing the average bill paid by 780,000 households in the region by £40 to £499.

But as a mark of the unfairness of privatisation that meant 3% of the population have been paying for the upkeep of one-third of the UK's coastline, the average national charge for water and sewerage is just £388 in 2013-14."

Subsidies are a way of life whether you, or I like them is irrelevant.  By that measure why should my taxes be used for such as HS2?  It won't benefit me or my family but using Government money it is still a subsidy.  The following is a prime example of 'subsidies' paid out:

Between 2007-2011 £3 Billion of taxpayers money was handed to the top five rail companies.  This 'allowed' them to make an 'operating profit' (that's funny) of £540 million of which £466 million was handed to shareholders.  So in reality the Government 'gave' £466 million of 'our' money to shareholders...........nice earner if you can afford a bucket load of shares.  It is wrong, maybe even immoral but it happens.

Just to illustrate the enormity of the 'subsidy' the rail companies actually made a loss of £2,999,500,000!!!

 

So if it is OK to subsidise the rail companies why not the water companies.

 

 

 

Cost effectiveness – train operating companies are entirely reliant upon public subsidies to run services. The top five recipients alone received almost £3bn in taxpayer support between 2007 and 2011. This allowed them to make operating profits of £504m – over 90 per cent (£466m) of which was paid to shareholders. - See more at: http://actionforrail.org/the-great-train-robbery/#sthash.jA7pRiON.dpuf

Cost effectiveness – train operating companies are entirely reliant upon public subsidies to run services. The top five recipients alone received almost £3bn in taxpayer support between 2007 and 2011. This allowed them to make operating profits of £504m – over 90 per cent (£466m) of which was paid to shareholders. - See more at: http://actionforrail.org/the-great-train-robbery/#sthash.jA7pRiON.dpuf

Cost effectiveness – train operating companies are entirely reliant upon public subsidies to run services. The top five recipients alone received almost £3bn in taxpayer support between 2007 and 2011. This allowed them to make operating profits of £504m – over 90 per cent (£466m) of which was paid to shareholders. - See more at: http://actionforrail.org/the-great-train-robbery/#sthash.jA7pRiON.dpuf

Cost effectiveness – train operating companies are entirely reliant upon public subsidies to run services. The top five recipients alone received almost £3bn in taxpayer support between 2007 and 2011. This allowed them to make operating profits of £504m – over 90 per cent (£466m) of which was paid to shareholders. - See more at: http://actionforrail.org/the-great-train-robbery/#sthash.jA7pRiON.dpuf