This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Londoncentricity

The Londoncentric nature of the UK.

Is it unhealthy?
Is it exaggerated?
Would it be a positive thing to shift the balance of power to some other cities in England at least?
Discuss

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

L i b

I think it's fairly natural. We should be quite chuffed that we have one of the greatest cities in the world on our doorstep.

I don't quite see how you can balance power across England. There are government offices across the UK, but generally the main civil servants don't want to move (indeed, watch Yes Minister and see why...). There are no new institutions to create, save perhaps an English Assembly - and I don't see that happening, and business etc prefers being in London.

Reply 2

naivesincerity

L i b

There used to be a lot of finance, actuaries, insurance etc in Liverpool. Now it's London. Just one tiny example, but I just wonder what it'd be like if things were more spread out. There's been cool stuff going on in Manchester but asides that it's pretty much all London. Just seems a tad predictable. In Italy you have Florence, Rome , Venice, Milan. In USA you have LA, NY, Chicago, Washington, Seattle etc. Stronger rival cities.

Reply 3

Mr. Mortell

It is just easy for everyone to get to. Not always in time, but from my home town of Cheltenham it is easier to get to via public transport then say, Reading or Liverpool.

Reply 4

Kater Murr

Well, it happens with lots of places. I have a Norweigan friend, and, you know, it's true - whenever people meet her the first question is "Are you from Oslo?" At least we still have a lot of cities outside of London - many countries consist of the huge, vast, overpopulated cities, and then the rest is rural.

Reply 5

blondevalkyrie

London's amazing i've been there 3 times and had a wicked visit each time

Reply 6

Socrates

L i b

I think it's fairly natural. We should be quite chuffed that we have one of the greatest cities in the world on our doorstep.

True that.

And London just has a different feel to it compared to even the big cities in England like Manchester and Birmingham.

Reply 7

Socrates

naivesincerity

In Italy you have Florence, Rome , Venice, Milan. In USA you have LA, NY, Chicago, Washington, Seattle etc. Stronger rival cities.

The latter is more to do with size though.

Reply 8

naivesincerity

Socrates

The latter is more to do with size though.

OK then, Scotland has Edinburgh vs Glasgow. :wink:

Reply 9

Thud

Is it just me that doesn't like the smelly, overcrowded, dirty, congested, busy London?

Of course Britain is "londoncentric" because there really isn't anywhere else in this country. Everything is there so why would anyone need to focus on anything else?

naivesincerity

OK then, Scotland has Edinburgh vs Glasgow. :wink:

I don't think that's a hard choice...

Reply 10

naivesincerity

Thud

Course there is something else. I prefer places like Liverpool/Manchester t bh. They're a more interesting size.

Reply 11

naivesincerity

Thud

I don't think that's a hard choice...

They rival each other in size and chutzpah though.

Reply 12

Thud

naivesincerity

Course there is something else. I prefer places like Liverpool/Manchester t bh. They're a more interesting size.

By something else I mean somewhere else where there's important stuff. What exactly do Manchester or Liverpool have other than some very good music?

In the OP you asked if we should be aiming to get rid of this centralisation, it wouldn't work because there would have to be something first out of London - London has everything and so everything else wants to be there so it's also got everything.

America only really has NYC and Washington, no where else really has anything important. And Washington is totally dead on weekends.

Reply 13

naivesincerity

Thud

America only really has NYC and Washington, no where else really has anything important. And Washington is totally dead on weekends.

LA isn't important?!

Then there's the (albeit smaller) San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle.

Reply 14

blondevalkyrie

i think all of america is imporant, it amazes me

Reply 15

Thud

naivesincerity

LA isn't important?!

Then there's the (albeit smaller) San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle.

What's in LA?

Celebrities? Big w00p. Not particularly many businesses, little water and a lot of Mexicans.

There are smaller cities in Britain too, that doesn't mean they actually have much there. Most countries will have one city which really stands out because it's most efficent that way and people can make most money, have easier access to stuff etc. It's simply not fiesable to have 2 important centres of er...stuff hundreds of miles apart.

Reply 16

El Doctoré de Mystéro

naivesincerity

The Londoncentric nature of the UK.

Is it unhealthy?
Is it exaggerated?
Would it be a positive thing to shift the balance of power to some other cities in England at least?
Discuss

I do think it is unhealthy but I also think it is inevitable. When the main intellectual resources all reside in one place that is where the business will locate itself.

However I also think that it is possible to spread the power slightly, over a long time period. With technology being what it is it's easy for people on the other side of the world to have video convos, along with those in another office of the same city. Some offices are relatively insulated in terms of how often the employees contact anyone outside their office face to face, and many workers would prefer to live outside of London.

Having said that, London rules. The best city on the planet.