h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well done, but it has to be said that funding for Crosslink was made by Blair's gov't at the expense of what are arguably even more important local transport improvements in the North of England.

We were specifically told that Britain could not sustain building Cfrosslink in London AND doubling the Manchester Metro urban tram network. Therefore, regrettably, to pay for Crosslink, any improvements to local public transport in Manchester were being shelved indefinitely, maybe even cancelled permanently.

As you might imagine, being told that London had priority for the improvement money really pi$$ed off a lot of people up here. It reinforced a perception that Blair and the Labour Party consider anywhere outside the M25 to be second-class turf and only of importance when they want our votes. In any choice between London and the North, there's no contest - London gets the resources.

Even one of our most ultra-loyal Stepford Wives ("Blair Babes" - women Labour MP's) was so annoyed she spoke up against her own party leadership for the one and only time (so far) in a career of otherwise unbroken brown-nosing. In this case Ann Coffey MP (Stockport) justified her salary, for once, in voicing the sentiments of South Manchester for losing the long-awaited tram extension to Stockport. (Otherwise she remains a Blairite waste of oxygen)

So when you Londoners get Crossrail - just remember who paid for it?

Where is yur evidence for your point of view
In fact the reality is different, it has been the London and the South East that have been robbed to pay for all the North's white elephant sports centres, cultural centres, museums, transport deams and failures.

Ken Livingstone (London's Mayor said:

London subsidises the rest of the UK by over £20billion yet it has been left with the highest poverty rate in England, unemployment which is greater than that of Scotland and Northern Ireland combined and some of the worst housing, public health and homelessness in the UK.

On the same day I launched a new document: "Investing in London: The case for the capital" setting out the arguments for greater public investment in London. The document included new research by Tony Travers of the LSE showing that, according to Treasury figures, London's share of identifiable public expenditure has fallen from 18.0% to 17.2% in the five years since 1995/6 and that London is the only region with a rising population and a falling share of public expenditure. The research also showed that the regions which had gained at London's expense were not urban regions in the North of England, but the South East, East and South West.

The document also made the case for higher investment, particularly in transport, housing, education and policing, to protect London's competitiveness as a world city and to enable London to continue to play its role as a gateway for the UK to the international economy. Any brake on London's success would have a disproportionately severe impact on the national economy.

am very pleased at the widespread support for the case set out in the document from business in London, London Boroughs and other stakeholders. One of my priorities over the next year will be to continue to work with the widest range of partners to make the overall case for investment in London and to resist any attempts to reduce Government funding and support for education, police and other key London public services.

Source http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/mayors_report/july18_2001.jsp
www.oxfordprospect.co.uk

In short, London subsidises the rest of the UK, enabling the nation as
a whole to benefit from the capital’s success.
The gap between government revenue raised in London and the level of
public spending within the capital amounts to what is commonly termed the
London Deficit. The current balance of revenue against expenditure means
that the capital pays more in tax than it receives in public spending.
Estimates as to the full extent of the London Deficit vary according to whether
measurement is based on a residency or employment basis, but it is generally
accepted to fall between £15 and £20 billion.
Source:http://www.londonchamber.co.uk/docimages/692.pdf

Well, Ken Livingstone would, wouldn't he, advocating for London is what he's paid for...

Evidence: see above, where a visiting Blairite spokesdroid frankly admitted there wasn't enough in the kitty to pay for Crossrail AND improvements to the Manchester tram system, so sorry Manchester, I live in London and you're out of sight, out of mind... which a lot of us interpreted as robbing the North to pay for London.

I'll spare the comments about how the north was a lot more prosperous before Thatcher set about needlessly destroying manufacturing industry and exporting our resources to the south-east! (Blair? a continuation of Thatcher by any other means)

I will admit we sometimes don't help ourselves: Manchester's local council is New "Labour" and frankly lunatic in its priorities. One minute they are saying they don't have enough money to pay for decent upkeep of its old peoples' homes and starts wholesale closure of said OAP residential homes.

The next it's somehow found ten million (!!!) to pay for an "Irish in Manchester Museum and Heritage Centre". That's laudable and it's a worthy ambition to celebrate an immigrant community that helped shape this city, but I can't help reflecting that there are so many rich micks who've made a fortune in construction, that if it's THAT important to the Irish immigrant community then they could bloody well afford to pay for it themselves! (I mean, should I advocate a "Welsh in Manchester" museum for MY tribe??? Not necessary, and besides where Manchester has a host of councillors called Kearney, Callaghan, McKenna, et c, it doesn't have any Councillor Williams or Hughes...) And three million of that money - that's ALL it needs - could have saved the old people's homes.

Maybe the problem is the bloody politicians of whatever ilk: it might suit them to have us snarling at each other across the North-South divide, rather than use our energies to ask where the REAL problem is and what can be done about it...

(I learnt to hate the Tories. After the high hopes of 1997 and getting THEM out at last, I've come to despise New "Labour" with equal rage for all their broken promises and expectations that never materialised)