No money for projects outside of London

Firegod said:
And Newcastle in particular, struggling to get final 6 million funding sign off for Tyne Bridge restoration.
Click to expand...
Hammersmith Bridge.
Hammersmith & Fulham Council (H&F) has been told by the government to pay an unprecedented 33% of the estimated £250million repair bill which would normally have been paid in large part by Transport for London (TfL) and the Department for Transport (DfT).
Click to expand...
The millenium bridge costing £3.5m isn't much, and if it stops the bill getting bigger if it's delayed then that's a good thing. Similar thinking should be applied to the Tyne Bridge TBH, but it'd be interesting to know what the final £6.2m is for.

HS2 to london - sure, but they decided it was stopping at Old Oak, not going to Euston like it needs to, and that was after they'd done another consultation on whether they should scale back euston to save money (which ofcourse cost money to do) and they decided they should. AFAIK now that they're going back to Euston but still with the reduced size (which is dumb). HS2 is daft, it should have been completed in full. I'm expecting the trains to turn up with 3 wheels and half a seat *smh*
 
Well there was a deal with Astra Zeneca to invest 450m in Liverpool at their existing Speke plant. The deal was agreed with Jeremy Hunt however Labour were trying to reduce the costs to the public purse and now AZ have walked away.

They still make the flu vaccine and promise no job losses however obviously no gains.
 
henry hoov3r said:
Britain is a poor country attached to a rich city and it shows in the disparity in infrastructure across the country.
Click to expand...


I am afraid that is true.

It's widely recognised by economists that persistent lack of investment in the rest of the UK has not only led to a divide, it's now holding London back.

I think some politicians do realise this, but unfortunately the decades go by and they just fail to rectify the situation.
 
Saw this on T212. Grim.

MX1m4s2.jpeg
 
tamzzy said:
Saw this on T212. Grim.

MX1m4s2.jpeg
Click to expand...

The sensationalism in this isn't really right though because if London didn't exist it would be distributed throughout other cities across the country like pretty much every developed western society. Whether this would have theoretically been more beneficial is another argument. (As in would be richer and have better growth if a lot more of the service sector was split all over the country?)
 
adam cool dude said:
The sensationalism in this isn't really right though because if London didn't exist it would be distributed throughout other cities across the country like pretty much every developed western society. Whether this would have theoretically been more beneficial is another argument. (As in would be richer and have better growth if a lot more of the service sector was split all over the country?)
Click to expand...

Look at our national average. It suuuuucks.
 
Dis86 said:
Look at our national average. It suuuuucks.
Click to expand...

That is what I mean. Look how much the South East has benefitted from being in close proximity to London. If we had a little bit more geological separation in our services sector everyone would benefit having lots of little bubbles like Germany and Holland instead of one oversaturated big one.
 
adam cool dude said:
The sensationalism in this isn't really right though because if London didn't exist it would be distributed throughout other cities across the country like pretty much every developed western society
Click to expand...
tamzzy said:
Even Alabama is wealthier than most of the UK (exc London/SE) and we say they're inbred... :cry:
Click to expand...

The national average GDP per capita is about the same as Alabama even if you include London/SE

(If London did not exist and you're redistributing London throughout the UK, all you'd be doing by redistribution is to move the red line upward to the blue line)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom