fear of the future

[Zanza]

Its not like countries can't have more than one centre, even mid sized ones, Germany does this rather well, as does Japan.

Germany has been politically decentralized since the dark ages and never had a strong central power or a dominating city like Paris or London. It's still a federal state and thus Berlin isn't as important. Especially economically.

[Neil]

Kraft/Cadbury wouldn't come under that but it is frustrating that the government got an undertaking that a British factory would be protected and then, once the merger's complete, announce that actually it'll be closed after all because an alternative's too close to completion.  It's also annoying that Parliament's been treated with a sort of contempt in all this because Kraft won't go to any select committee.

Why keep the inefficient factory in the UK, when they have several ones in Poland that can manufacture Cadbury brand instead?

Especially, as Poland is within the EU - so if you are unhappy with this, it means you don't agree with the very premise at the EU's foundation.

Either that, or he might not think that Poland has a place in the EU.  And he could be right.

[Neil]

Its not like countries can't have more than one centre, even mid sized ones, Germany does this rather well, as does Japan.

Germany has been politically decentralized since the dark ages and never had a strong central power or a dominating city like Paris or London. It's still a federal state and thus Berlin isn't as important. Especially economically.

And Japan?  Tokyo is the centre of the goddamned universe over there.  A third of the population of the country lives there, and it totally dominates the economy and culture of the country.  Sure, the Kansai megacity has a role too, but it's like comparing Calgary or Vancouver to Toronto in Canada:  They specialize, they drive a lot of regional business, they have some firms of their own, but the real show is in the big city.  I mean, Kansai is only slightly less than London or Paris in terms of economic productivity, but that's just because it's twice as big.  Still, the ratios hold up.  London's economy is about five times that of Birmingham, while Tokyo's is four times that of the Kansai.

Surely the US would be a better comparison, or China?

[Josquius]

Its not like countries can't have more than one centre, even mid sized ones, Germany does this rather well, as does Japan.

Germany has been politically decentralized since the dark ages and never had a strong central power or a dominating city like Paris or London. It's still a federal state and thus Berlin isn't as important. Especially economically.

And Japan?  Tokyo is the centre of the goddamned universe over there.  A third of the population of the country lives there, and it totally dominates the economy and culture of the country.  Sure, the Kansai megacity has a role too, but it's like comparing Calgary or Vancouver to Toronto in Canada:  They specialize, they drive a lot of regional business, they have some firms of their own, but the real show is in the big city.  I mean, Kansai is only slightly less than London or Paris in terms of economic productivity, but that's just because it's twice as big.  Still, the ratios hold up.  London's economy is about five times that of Birmingham, while Tokyo's is four times that of the Kansai.

Surely the US would be a better comparison, or China?

Being relative doesn't really work there since Tokyo is the richest city on the planet and one of the biggest. The Kansai area is quite respectable however with only a third as much wealth. London is more comparable to Kansai than Tokyo in terms of economic numbers. The Kansai area is the 7th richest city on the planet, something most countries would be happy to have as their main city and Japan has it as their second one.
Birmingham and Manchester meanwhile are down in the 70s (had to go check that up, wasn't sure if they even cracked the top 100).
Tie in Manchester to the other nearby cities and...maybe we could get a Japan like situation. With London sure, unquestionably the biggest and richest, but Manchester without a doubt a significant player in its own right too.
Actually Japan makes for quite a good comparison really. Though economically there's an imbalance to Tokyo (more firms have their HQ there), culturally Osaka more than holds its own with it being the main source of 'cool'. Much like Manchester and London.
Japan's dual-centrism is the entire reason they're going ahead with their nutty maglev plan.

[garbon]

Rail is the future IMO, with increasing fuel costs we're going to see a redistribution of the population to more 19th century lines, clinging to the railways to an extent.

This is completely ridiculous.

[Eddie Teach]

Transportation costs are significantly lower than rents and as long as this remains true the population will stay too spread out for rails to be that effective.

[Sheilbh]

There are little things I hate more than "economic nationalism". It's premise is retarded in the first place (the belief that a local CEO or shareholder will be somehow more "patriotic" is born out of some 19th-century style capitalist paternalism that is no longer the case) and the costs of insisting on this (closing yourself to international capital markets in the form of investment, or to being part of a multinational - thus decreasing your efficiency and not being able to benefit from economies of scale) are high.

I think there will be an effect in where a company will focus and maintain investment based on where their headquarters are.  If you're based in an area you'll see that as part of your long-term future as well as other growth areas.  If the UK's basically a land of subsidiaries it is far more at risk from short-term downturns or changes in productivity.  I think that's part of the implication of the threats of our banks that they'll leave London.

The nationality of the CEO is more of a cultural difference.

Again I think you're seeing my view as far more extreme than it.  I want more econommic nationalism than we've seen since the 80s,which is like calling for more stern regulation of the financial sector, it's been out of the norm for 30 years in the UK, but internationally isn't that extreme.  As I say I think the UK's gone too far and the attitude has been very London-centric.  I want to be as economically nationalist as places like Germany and Canada. 

Not to mention it flies in the face of everything the EU is about.

That's the way I'm heading

[Sheilbh]

This is completely ridiculous.

Why?

[Neil]

This is completely ridiculous.

Why?

The idea that rising fuel costs are going to make people live very far away from their jobs seems a little counter-intuitive.

[Admiral Yi]

If you take Squeeze's statement to include subways and light rail it's hardly controversial.  Most cities that have these also have suburban and exurban development clustered around the stops.

[Sheilbh]

The idea that rising fuel costs are going to make people live very far away from their jobs seems a little counter-intuitive.

Rising fuel costs are a reason why rail's important to doing that (that and the hell of driving in London) the commuter belt is largely determined by nearby train stations with direct routes into London.  Cost of living in London/south-east and the desire to do so and quality of life are bigger issues. 

But I don't see that it's absurd.  Where I used to work about half the office commuted from outside London for an hour or more.  If we get HS2 (another high seed train route) that makes Birmingham as short a commute to London as Brighton then that opens up a whole new area of the country for commuters. 

[garbon]

If you take Squeeze's statement to include subways and light rail it's hardly controversial.  Most cities that have these also have suburban and exurban development clustered around the stops.

If you allow for that, you should probably include buses as well as in many places that is also a relevant commuter line.  Then you're really just saying that as fuel costs rise, people will be more dependent on mass transit. Oh my!

[Martinus]

If you take Squeeze's statement to include subways and light rail it's hardly controversial.  Most cities that have these also have suburban and exurban development clustered around the stops.

It would still be untrue. Historically, urban rail follows people, not the other way around.

[Sheilbh]

It would still be untrue. Historically, urban rail follows people, not the other way around.

I don't know if that's entirely true with London though.  Didcot wasn't naturally a population centre prior to getting a fast-line to Paddington

[Warspite]

The idea that rising fuel costs are going to make people live very far away from their jobs seems a little counter-intuitive.

Rising fuel costs are a reason why rail's important to doing that (that and the hell of driving in London) the commuter belt is largely determined by nearby train stations with direct routes into London.  Cost of living in London/south-east and the desire to do so and quality of life are bigger issues. 

But I don't see that it's absurd.  Where I used to work about half the office commuted from outside London for an hour or more.  If we get HS2 (another high seed train route) that makes Birmingham as short a commute to London as Brighton then that opens up a whole new area of the country for commuters.

Not really. A single line will not have much carrying capacity and factor in the inevitable absurd premium on ticket prices for a loss-making line, and the idea that Birmingham will relieve the population pressure on the south east is a non-starter.