What a shock. More free money from the rest of us for "that London"

[Del Usory]

Elizabeth.

Jubilee.

Victoria.

What the fuck is wrong with London Transport and this country?

[SouthdownRebel]

I've always felt Victoria line is perfectly appropriate for most of the country's transport infrastructure, given that's how dated it is.

[Hot Pepsi]

Anyone in particular? The cleaners who clean the offices for minimum wage? The people who work in shops and food outlets round there? the admin staff, receptionists, mail room staff etc who work there but see few of the benefits?
You see, you might think using terms like "shitty parasites" to describe a wide and varied group of people from all backgrounds, classes etc. Who happen to temporarily share geography on weekdays is edgy and cool. Personally I think it just makes you sound like a cunt.

In addition, while it is true that London does recieve an iniquitous amount from the public purse, something that could stand an rebalancing, they also contribute rather more according to the ONS.
So rather than being parasitic, it's quite the opposite in a strictly balance of accounts sense. London is just sharing somewhat less of its own money about than would arguably be ideal.

Yeah. This seems like the best of two bad options. It's unfortunate that economic development is too focused around London,* but given that, making it impossible for those people to get to work isn't really going to help.

The US Federal Government's inability to give the big urban areas a lot of transit money is the main reason why our urban transit is in decay and our inter-city rail is essentially non-existent. Meanwhile rural areas and suburban get new interstates. Though many of those are falling apart too.

Don't be like us.

*The Economist ran a convincing editorial arguing that the UK should move it's capital to Manchester. The current House of Parliament etc is getting old and expensive to maintain anyway and separating the capital of government from the capital of finance would spread the wealth a bit more and maybe compel policy makers to spend more time in the rest of the country.

And the moves to give northern cities and regions more autonomy make sense. Maybe parts of England need to devolve. I'm sure that's been suggested but I don't recall what the state of that movement is or what the cons of it would be.

[Hot Pepsi]

I've always felt Victoria line is perfectly appropriate for most of the country's transport infrastructure, given that's how dated it is.

Given that even non-Britons use the name of the reigning UK monarch for different eras of history - Elizabethan, Georgian, Victorian - it seems fine to name a line after the monarch on the throne when it was built.

What will do we call the current era the Second Elizabethan era? And what's the adjective for Charles? Charlesian?

[SouthdownRebel]

Chazian. Swiftly followed by Billian.

[Toby Gymshorts]

I'm a salaried professional working in "the city", not that I earn a great deal by anyone's standards. Nor do I work in "trading". I'll admit that insurance sometimes appears to be a nebulous money exchange mechanism, like.

Wonder where this puts me on the axis of shitty parasites?

[Del Usory]

"The city" is a shorthand cipher for people who make money on the back of trading people's livelihoods.

[Del Usory]

Given that even non-Britons use the name of the reigning UK monarch for different eras of history - Elizabethan, Georgian, Victorian - it seems fine to name a line after the monarch on the throne when it was built.

What will do we call the current era the Second Elizabethan era? And what's the adjective for Charles? Charlesian?

Fuck off.

The monarchy represent the biggest parasites of them all.

It was bad enough under the Godwinsons.

But after that it became iniquitable.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Yeah. This seems like the best of two bad options. It's unfortunate that economic development is too focused around London,* but given that, making it impossible for those people to get to work isn't really going to help.

The US Federal Government's inability to give the big urban areas a lot of transit money is the main reason why our urban transit is in decay and our inter-city rail is essentially non-existent. Meanwhile rural areas and suburban get new interstates. Though many of those are falling apart too.

Don't be like us.

*The Economist ran a convincing editorial arguing that the UK should move it's capital to Manchester. The current House of Parliament etc is getting old and expensive to maintain anyway and separating the capital of government from the capital of finance would spread the wealth a bit more and maybe compel policy makers to spend more time in the rest of the country.

And the moves to give northern cities and regions more autonomy make sense. Maybe parts of England need to devolve. I'm sure that's been suggested but I don't recall what the state of that movement is or what the cons of it would be.

"Regions" in England have never really worked as political units. Blair looked at a regional assembly for North East England, but not with a great deal of conviction and a referendum for one was lost by miles, and that's probably the region that's easiest to draw boundaries for and with the strongest identity. What we've got instead, is city regions, pushed by George Osborne, to his credit. They're under directly elected "mayors" and don't have much power at the moment, and they vary in each case, but I think they do more around transport and development. I think they're a good concept, in that they consider cities and suburbs/nearby towns that are closely linked.

(Greater) London, of course, is much more advanced with its mayor, and even when you get bellends like Boris Johnson elected, it's positive that there's a "Mr London" with a budget who can set transport planners to work and win grants from central government. It's unfortunate that the country is so centralized around London anyway. Hopefully building up the other mayoralties will help a bit. Not that turnout in these elections, even in London, is very good.

[caja-dglh]

"The city" is a shorthand cipher for people who make money on the back of trading people's livelihoods.

"The City" is shorthand cipher for "those people I don't like but am unable to define"

[hobbes]

"The city" is a shorthand cipher for people who make money on the back of trading people's livelihoods.

Be more precise. What do you mean people's livelihoods? And how are they being traded? And what percentage of people in the city does that encompass? 1%? 10%?

Technically everyone who works there ultimately makes money from these people. No traders means no admin staff, no IT workers, no shop workers, no bar staff, no baristas, no cleaners. So are they parasites because they're providing a service to these nebulous "the city" people?

Where are you from Del? Have you used public transport for any amount of time in London? Or do you just imagine that it, as well as the streets are gold paved?
Oh and finally, if it is indeed these faceless "the city" people who drive this, how does crossrail benefit them? Surely if they're that powerful as to get a whole railway built, they don't actually travel on public transport?

[ad hoc]

Vaguely related to this discussion, in a political earthquake in Romania the mayors of 4 cities in Western Romania have just announced an alliance to build stronger links better infrastructure etc. Essentially saying they've given up waiting for the corrupt and useless fuckers in Bucharest to ever get anything done (Romania is much more centralised than the UK). This has created fits of anger and accusations of treachery from the government. It will be interesting to see how it goes

[Tactical Genius]

Fun fact: London's population is about the same as what it was in 1939 (I think it passed the 1939 peak in 2015 - it's now about 200k higher). In that time, the population of the UK has nearly doubled. In 1939, not far off a quarter of the UK population lived in London.

The population is still growing, but barely, since Brexit so we may be hitting another peak.

You sure about that?
Most of the outer london boroughs were until 1966 part of Middlesex/Essesx etc

[Fussbudget]

Given that even non-Britons use the name of the reigning UK monarch for different eras of history - Elizabethan, Georgian, Victorian - it seems fine to name a line after the monarch on the throne when it was built.

Not sure if you're still talking about the Victoria line here, but that was built in the 1960s.

[Hot Pepsi]

Not sure if you're still talking about the Victoria line here, but that was built in the 1960s.

Really? I thought it was the oldest part.

I don’t know why I thought that.

Scratch what I said then.

[Hot Pepsi]

"Regions" in England have never really worked as political units. Blair looked at a regional assembly for North East England, but not with a great deal of conviction and a referendum for one was lost by miles, and that's probably the region that's easiest to draw boundaries for and with the strongest identity. What we've got instead, is city regions, pushed by George Osborne, to his credit. They're under directly elected "mayors" and don't have much power at the moment, and they vary in each case, but I think they do more around transport and development. I think they're a good concept, in that they consider cities and suburbs/nearby towns that are closely linked.

(Greater) London, of course, is much more advanced with its mayor, and even when you get bellends like Boris Johnson elected, it's positive that there's a "Mr London" with a budget who can set transport planners to work and win grants from central government. It's unfortunate that the country is so centralized around London anyway. Hopefully building up the other mayoralties will help a bit. Not that turnout in these elections, even in London, is very good.

It will take a while, perhaps, for voters to understand the importance of these elections.

The US, as the name implies, gives a lot of power and money to the states and municipalities and yet still many voters only pay attention to the presidency (which is also important, of course).

Sometimes infrastructure ends up as a popular referendum, which is hard to pass because the reactionary forces of “small government” have an easy time convincing “taxpayers” that somebody is trying to rob them. And if some people will refuse to vote for any version of a given project - school, road, train, etc. - is isn’t exactly the version that project they wanted. People suck.

[Hot Pepsi]

Chazian. Swiftly followed by Billian.

Thanks for the info.

[SouthdownRebel]

I considered Willian, but we need to avoid confusion with erstwhile Chelsea schemers.

[ad hoc]

I think Chuckish and Williamian would be better

[sw2borshch]

But he's not intending to be King Charles, as far as I remember. I can't remember the name he intends to reign under, but it's not Charles.

[ad hoc]

I hope it's Colin. Or Derek. Or DeShawn

[gavc23]

I believe Charles is going to reign as Ralph, he’s a big fan of disappointing 80s comedies.

[Jah Womble]

Maybe 'Cone', in deference to the popular ice-cream snack of the sixties/seventies.

[ad hoc]

[elguapo4]

Afaik he wants to be known as king George vii ,after 70 years of being known as Charles he'll be an even bigger laughing stock than he is now, if that's possible.