London wants more money and more power.

Blackleaf · London wants more money and more power.

London - the biggest, and richest, city in Europe. The financial capital of the world, with a rapidly-growing population - growing around 50,000 a year - and a population of around 14 million if you include the whole of Greater London. It's also undergoing a boom of skyscraper-building - so many skyscrapers are now being built that by 2008 the city, already the skyscraper capital of Europe, will have around as many skyscrapers as San Francisco.

How strange, then, that London First has asked the Treasury to give London even more money -

Money for London

Feeding the milch cow
Feb 16th 2006
From The Economist print edition

Emboldened by its own success, London wants more money and power

FROM Dick Whittington on, whenever a British lad sets out to make his fortune, he heads to London. Britain's capital dominates national life in every way. It is more productive than the rest of the country, accounting for 18% of Britain's GDP with only 12% of its population. It has the best museums, the biggest theatres, the most foreigners and the most exciting jobs. Globalisation has only increased its economic dominance. The city is a world financial centre, and its population is growing by around 50,000 a year.

So it looked rather odd when, last week, London First, a business lobby group, released a report arguing that the capital needed more cash from central government. Despite the city's impressive growth, it wants the Treasury to put an extra £6.7 billion into transport and education in London by 2011.

This plea will startle other Britons, who, if they think of it, expect London's wealth to be redistributed to the rest of the country (one reason why London's public services are so poor). Certainly the official line used to be that London's development should be restrained so that the shires would not be left behind. The businessmen argue, correctly, that London competes for investment not with other British cities, but with the likes of New York, Paris and Shanghai. What's good for London is good for the rest of Britain, and without better transport links and a brighter workforce, the city risks losing the fickle foreigners who have fuelled its success.

In any case, not every London street is paved with gold. Parts of the capital are very deprived: three of Britain's five poorest districts are in London. At 7.3%, its unemployment rate is the highest in the country.

The city's wealth, too, is skewed towards the extremes, as the chart shows, with more than half of residents in either the top or bottom national income quintiles (and both victims of London's appallingly high prices). That is in large part due to London's heavy dose of immigrants. A third of its workforce was born overseas, and migrant workers tend to be either very well educated or almost totally unskilled. More education and better transport, says London First, would both reduce deprivation and improve the capital's economy by allowing more people to get jobs.

Along with more money, Londoners want more control over how their city is run. Ken Livingstone, London's mayor, has far less power than, say, the mayor of New York but far more than his colleagues in other British cities. He has control of London's transport network, as well as limited powers over planning and the police. He can even levy a small tax on his citizens.

Mr Livingstone has made the most of his powers, especially in transport. His congestion-charging scheme has reduced traffic snarl-ups, and he has revitalised the bus network. Beginning in 2007, he will gain control over some of the commuter rail lines that serve the city.

Many Londoners see extending his powers as the key to further improvements. London First supports his bid for personal control over skills training, which is currently the preserve of regional agencies. Mr Livingstone has also suggested granting himself more powers over planning, to prevent his decisions being scuppered by unco-operative local authorities. A governmental review of his purview is due to report soon.

Yet despite this talk of more independence, London's fate still depends on central government, which holds the purse strings. Tony Travers, of the London School of Economics, points out that Mr Livingstone's own piggy-bank is now empty. London First claims that even if the mayor did get extra revenue-raising powers, new taxes would merely drive firms overseas. “If we want more cash for economic development,” says Mr Travers, “it will be a case of battering against the Treasury's door until they hand over the money.” There is an argument for letting London keep more of its own wealth to spend within its city limits. But convincing the rest of the country could be tricky.

economist.com

London is also undergoing a boom in building skyscrapers -

Skyscrapers that have just been built and are currently being built.

How a part of London's skyline should look in 2008.

This astonishing rendering/montage shows the enormous growth that's predicted and proposed for Canary Wharf over the coming years. The nucleus is already there but the density is such that you can't even see half of Heron Quays and West India Quay is completely invisible.

This rendering shows Riverside South on the left, some unbuilt proposals for Heron Quays including Will Alsop's technicolour proposal to its immediate right and directly infront of them the London arena. Part of the Millenium Quarter is also visible with the new proposal for 1 Millharbour though many rises have vanished too again because of the density. Behind HSB and Citigroup is two towers for North Quay and finally a completely Barclays tower.

Visible or invisible because of density are 14 skyscrapers over 500ft tall, plus a further 7 over 100m tall. To put it another way Canary Wharf in 2008 when all this is scheduled for completition will be comparable to today's San Francisco.
-----------------------------------------

2012 - Year of the London Olympics.
-----------------------------------------

x_scotsdream_x

London wants more money? money grabbin robbin *&!"£$ haha!! sorry but come on!! whens england no wantin more ae oor scots pounds! am keepin a tight grip ae my pennies for they sneaky english will be tryin ti get it sumhow! bloodsuckin so n so's rofl!! sorry Embarassed

Aventinian

Um, yes, quite...

Anyway, I believe London are perfectly entitled to their share. The South of England gets one of the lowest per capita spending rates on vital services, while that region is the centre of our nation's economy and thus tax revenues.

x_scotsdream_x

yes ok london is entitled to their SHARE! thats the point theyr entitled 2 a share not money to host Olympics and whatnot why should they get money to do that!? yet Scotland ask for more money to build new houses for the homeless and are turned down? makes sense eh!

Aventinian

Do you think the government got the olympics for fun? These things tend to make money...

Scotland gets more than its share of the UK treasury expenditure. Whether you think that's justified or not is another matter altogether...

SLG

x_scotsdream_x

ken what for some reason a cannae even have an opinion without aventinian having to slate everythin a say! seriously come on!!! this is a scottish website wth scottish views aboot issues in scotland no english rights activists! seriously!!! nippin ma heed, obviously gets kicks ooti slanderin 19 yr old lassies just cos they say summin he disni like!

Abieuan

Dinna worry, Aventinian ploughs a lone furrow on this board.

Morph

scotsdream i dont think its personal both just have different oppionions

x_scotsdream_x

hahaha aye Abieuan !! aye mibbe i am takin it a bit 2 much 2 heart so il just shut up about him noo lol

redlak

Yes the Olympics will make money but be assured the guid fowk o' Scotland will not directly benefit it will be the money sucking metropolis of London.

While on the subject of equal shares why is it most military bases are in the south when the vast majority of recruits tend to come from the celtic nations or the north of England. The funding of these bases and the ongoing benefit these give to many local towns in the south is an issue, why are no major garrisons located in Scotland.

x_scotsdream_x

Aye thats an issue av no really thought about before to b honest redlak! maybe it is "coinsidence" or ! it is because scotland provides britains oil and the english are sick of scotland takin credit for it! plus what wi the new wind farms comin and aw that it could well because ae that! or maybe im talkin a load ae jibberish! lol

SLG

And they wonder why recruitment in Scotland is down. Never mind the amalgamation of the regiments etc, but would it not be logical to have the Scots regiments based near the areas where they recruit from?

Aventinian

SLG

x_scotsdream_x

Apologies aventinian, slander = a word used in dumfries a lot and it can mean anything from patronising someone to full on slagging someone off so apologies for that. However you do try and patronise me a bit, kindi makes me feel <-----> that big lol however ur right this is a site for debate so im guni go and read a bit mare scots history and politics and then come back and hit ye wi a few facts in steed ae whingin lol Razz

redlak

Aventinian,

You raise the question of Scotland receiving a larger share of the pot than is necessary in your view.

However if we are to examine all spending why is the lions share of the defence budget spent in England.

Another reason for Scotlands greater share allocation from the Barnett Formula was the consideration of the distance services had to be provided in rural areas of Scotland as it cost more to provide lifeline services and still does.

There is probably an arguement for some of the more rural districts of England such as Cornwall and Northumberland to have similar levels of funding for these services. I would rather the Government of the day raise standards for all instead of cutting where it has improved the quality of life.

Aventinian

SLG

Aventinian

SLG

x_scotsdream_x

well correct me if im talkin jibberish but! the money could be going towards tourism etc. It was on the radio this morning that England want to privatise british water and are pleading with scotland to do the same and support them, surely this is drastic considering the water shortage in england is not that serious! Understandably people should be considerate with how much water they need by only using it for necessities instead of washing their cars everyday etc! and Scotland would not see another country go short of water but this is the first time in years england has had this shortage and it is unlikely that it will happen again anytime soon and considering britain is an island they shouldnt really be fretting about water shortage? again correct me if am way off here lol! Rolling Eyes

azzuri

I'm not surprised that the South East of England has a water shortage.

It has one of the highest population densities in the world. This is no coincidence - the rest of the country is fine. That is really my only point, I don't have anything of use to add. Smile

SLG

I don't think this is a one off. It's a situation that is steadily getting worse. In parts of S England there is a permanent hosepipe ban even during winter. Hertfordshire (I think) has just had the dryest winter on record. I expect the situation to only get worse.

The main problem seems to be lack of efficiency. Something like a 1/3 of the water is lost throughout the supply process. If they sort that out it would solve a lot of the shortage. Funny how privatisation in England has not solved that. I suppose that would be due to limits on the charges they can make creating a false market.

Aventinian

SLG

And it's a wonderful thing that they do that. Without it the old town would stink.

x_scotsdream_x

Aye geed point SLG, never really thought aboot it like that 2 b honest!

Maybe the whole installaton of meters in england wont be such a bad thing in this case and depending on how much water there is people should be given more and more water within time? or maybe they should make it that every home is given a certain amount of water for free and if they want anymore than that they must pay? I dont think scotland would mind donating a certain amount of water, but hopefully no contracts stating that scotland must give water to england when needed will be forced upon her, if that makes sense?[/quote]

azzuri

Aventinian

While it may well be recycled, I believe there is some very fancy jiggery-pokery going on around there with the water system. Pumped from underground or something like that. All in all, it seems to give them far more than England has.

azzuri

have you ever used the Spanish Rail system? - flawless. nice clean carraiges air-conditioned during the summer, great customer service, great prices and on time, every time.

All in all, the superior Spanish services are due to the fact that they are publicly owned - look at New Zealand and the privatisation crisis they had and are having there as an example of the opposite.

Coming to the UK soon Shocked

Aventinian

I can't say I've experience the Spanish rail system myself, but I recall a relative of a friend using it to get to North Africa when he was wanted in Portugal - as I recall he had no complaints.

Putting aside the fact that my friends have some rather questionable families, I do agree with you that the present rail set up in Britain is unsatisfactory. 50% public, 50% private, 100% s***e. Privatisation of the rail system is one area where I can say that privatisation has essentially been a bad idea, at least in its present and traditional form.

Railways are like soup kitchens though, they're really not able to make a profit. Particularly in an island of this size, they should be seen as a charitable service.

Incidently, I've often toyed with the idea of a complete elimination of non-profit public transport. I imagine in this case, the only thing that would actually run are intercity buses, park and ride to city centres and the occasional commuter service. I've yet to decide whether, with the shift in perceptions (a plus) and the environmental consequences (an obvious negative) which would result, that this would be a bad thing.

azzuri

The present setup is, as you say, a load of s***e!

You either have a fully privatised or full public service - this nonsense we have just now where the government funds private companies creates false prices and markets.

It also means that companies don't need to watch their expenditure because they know that the government will always be there with grants to bail them out when they need them.

Thereis no competition because you often only have one company running a particular service therefore they can charge whatever they want. Rail travel in this country has shown to be the most expensive in Europe when relating it to the average income.

Either way, I think we will end up with a public system eventually. The present system cannot go on forever - hopefully someone with any sense will have the guts to scrap it soon. If it does become fully privatised then it will fail, as rural services willstop running as they are unprofitable, less services will run overall and the prices will skyrocket. In short it will fail because people won't travel by rail anymore. Then will come a fully public railway.

Some industries are just not to be privatised if we need the average man in the street to be able to afford them - the railways is an example of that.