People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
I do.
It would be a pretty horrendous commute for your job, mind.
Newport is ~ 2 hours from Paddington with a half-hourly service. It's not as inaccessible as people might think.
I think CR works in East London...
Crossrail should be operational by 2018
I think CR works on Crossrail... so at which point he'll be jobless...
Nope, we'll sort of - but not quite. I work for a strategic change consultancy that is a programme partner for Crossrail. We specialise in big infrastructure projects.
We have plenty of work for the next 15 years: HS2, new runways, highways, GW electrification, power stations and confidential projects.
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Perhaps a truly federal Britain would be better placed to spread development around the country? Seems to me that federal countries like the US and Germany have a more equal distribution of big/important cities (NYC, LA, Miami, Chicago, Houston. Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich) - and therefore, a healthier population distribution - than unitary states like Britain and France, both massively and unhealthily dominated by their respective capitals.
Bit late for us to address being dominated by our Primary city - it's fluctuated, of course, but it has dominated for something like 1000 years.
Paris has a population of around 2 million. It's a village compared to London. A French village.
The metropolitan area is 12m. The city boundaries are drawn quite tightly.
Yes, only the area within the peripherique is real Paris. It would be like saying London ends at zone 2. Come to think of it, that's what many people believe.
I believe Mr Meeks has said the same thing.
London should end at the edge of the Oystercard Network
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 6m6 minutes ago Mood at today's Labour NEC suggests high command worried Michael Foster's legal case on Corbyn standing without 51 nominations might succeed
another TWIST
What good does any of this do either side, honestly? For god's sake Corbyn, stand down and let McDonnell or Lewis or someone takeover, given all the crap they've spoken about not having a problem with the policies, for the most part, there's no way those two wouldn't get on the ballot as what excuse for not nominating them?
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Most people do live in the provinces and are a damn sight happier there than they would be in London or thereabouts.
London is a fucking shithole.
I live in the glorious English county of Hampshire.
That does condemn you to a Bunfight at Waterloo every night though.
Bedfordshire means you get eight glorious 12 car Thameslinks per hour and can get on from much of Central London without using the tube - and will have direct interchange with Crossrail at Farringdon.
Houseprices are dirt cheap too by south of England standards. £200-250k for a 3 bed house.
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Most people do live in the provinces and are a damn sight happier there than they would be in London or thereabouts.
London is a fucking shithole.
I live in the glorious English county of Hampshire.
I spent the first ten years of life in London, and travel to London regularly. It's an absolutely brilliant city.
There are very many individual cubicles which are labelled with a gender (or perhaps a sex) but which are identical no matter what. We have plenty where I work.
I don't see why they couldn't be available for everyone.
I'm used to using disabled toilets, which are invariably unisex. I don't really understand the big deal about anyone else using unisex toilets either.
(Disabled toilets are great by the way. Means you can use the bogs at Stratford station, for instance, which would otherwise be on Sunil's list of "major train stations without public toilets". Suspect it is the busiest UK station without non-disabled toilets, though Sunil can likely correct me on that. They tend to have very little vandalism. Generally remarkably clean. Unlike the blokes' bogs I was once used to, no writing on the wall informing of me the sexual availability of local chaps - do women's loos have this too? Perhaps for chapesses rather than chaps? Or has it even died out in men's bogs, in this Age of Grindr?)
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Most people do live in the provinces and are a damn sight happier there than they would be in London or thereabouts.
London is a fucking shithole.
I live in the glorious English county of Hampshire.
I was in London the weekend before last. It really is an amazing city, and I can see why so many people want to live there. But that's because I was hanging round in areas where 4-bedroomed houses cost in excess of £1m. Both my wife and I have fairly good, if not spectacularly high-flying jobs. But we have three children. There's no way we could have the lifestyle we have in Manchester if we had to bear London housing costs (and all London's other costs). Londoners: move to Manchester! You can get a good job, a house two or three times the size, and you needn't spend hours commuting to the nearest affordable suburb. And you'll be within an hour's drive of three of the country's finest national parks. You won't be surrounded by quite the same heights of architecture and culture. But you'll have a much nicer quality of life. (Britain has many other fine cities offering a better quality of life than London too, of course. But move to Manchester nonetheless.)
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Perhaps a truly federal Britain would be better placed to spread development around the country? Seems to me that federal countries like the US and Germany have a more equal distribution of big/important cities (NYC, LA, Miami, Chicago, Houston. Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich) - and therefore, a healthier population distribution - than unitary states like Britain and France, both massively and unhealthily dominated by their respective capitals.
Bit late for us to address being dominated by our Primary city - it's fluctuated, of course, but it has dominated for something like 1000 years.
Paris has a population of around 2 million. It's a village compared to London. A French village.
The metropolitan area is 12m. The city boundaries are drawn quite tightly.
Yes, only the area within the peripherique is real Paris. It would be like saying London ends at zone 2. Come to think of it, that's what many people believe.
I believe Mr Meeks has said the same thing.
Beyond zone 2 be dragons (or Brexit voters at least)
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Perhaps a truly federal Britain would be better placed to spread development around the country? Seems to me that federal countries like the US and Germany have a more equal distribution of big/important cities (NYC, LA, Miami, Chicago, Houston. Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich) - and therefore, a healthier population distribution - than unitary states like Britain and France, both massively and unhealthily dominated by their respective capitals.
Bit late for us to address being dominated by our Primary city - it's fluctuated, of course, but it has dominated for something like 1000 years.
Paris has a population of around 2 million. It's a village compared to London. A French village.
The metropolitan area is 12m. The city boundaries are drawn quite tightly.
Yes, only the area within the peripherique is real Paris. It would be like saying London ends at zone 2. Come to think of it, that's what many people believe.
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Perhaps a truly federal Britain would be better placed to spread development around the country? Seems to me that federal countries like the US and Germany have a more equal distribution of big/important cities (NYC, LA, Miami, Chicago, Houston. Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich) - and therefore, a healthier population distribution - than unitary states like Britain and France, both massively and unhealthily dominated by their respective capitals.
Bit late for us to address being dominated by our Primary city - it's fluctuated, of course, but it has dominated for something like 1000 years.
Dominated? Well maybe because of it being the centre of government and the law and where the railways (when they came along) started/ended. However, I not sure that the current dominant position of London and the SE is not a very new phenomena.
I think we do not have to go back too far to find when Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Glasgow and a whole host of other places had an economic contribution which together dwarfed that of London and the Home Counties.
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Perhaps a truly federal Britain would be better placed to spread development around the country? Seems to me that federal countries like the US and Germany have a more equal distribution of big/important cities (NYC, LA, Miami, Chicago, Houston. Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich) - and therefore, a healthier population distribution - than unitary states like Britain and France, both massively and unhealthily dominated by their respective capitals.
Bit late for us to address being dominated by our Primary city - it's fluctuated, of course, but it has dominated for something like 1000 years.
Paris has a population of around 2 million. It's a village compared to London. A French village.
The metropolitan area is 12m. The city boundaries are drawn quite tightly.
Yes, only the area within the peripherique is real Paris. It would be like saying London ends at zone 2. Come to think of it, that's what many people believe.
I believe Mr Meeks has said the same thing.
Beyond zone 2 be dragons (or Brexit voters at least)
Redbridge is in zone 4, and we voted 54% REMAIN (though I personally was one of the '46!)
I am outing TSE as Hugo Rifkind based on this tweet:
@hugorifkind: "We will fight, and fight, and fight again, to save the party we love," quotes @DAaronovitch. "S Club 7?" I say. "Hugh Gaitskell," he says.
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Perhaps a truly federal Britain would be better placed to spread development around the country? Seems to me that federal countries like the US and Germany have a more equal distribution of big/important cities (NYC, LA, Miami, Chicago, Houston. Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich) - and therefore, a healthier population distribution - than unitary states like Britain and France, both massively and unhealthily dominated by their respective capitals.
Bit late for us to address being dominated by our Primary city - it's fluctuated, of course, but it has dominated for something like 1000 years.
Paris has a population of around 2 million. It's a village compared to London. A French village.
The metropolitan area is 12m. The city boundaries are drawn quite tightly.
Yes, only the area within the peripherique is real Paris. It would be like saying London ends at zone 2. Come to think of it, that's what many people believe.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
I do.
It would be a pretty horrendous commute for your job, mind.
Newport is ~ 2 hours from Paddington with a half-hourly service. It's not as inaccessible as people might think.
I think CR works in East London...
Crossrail should be operational by 2018
I think CR works on Crossrail... so at which point he'll be jobless...
Nope, we'll sort of - but not quite. I work for a strategic change consultancy that is a programme partner for Crossrail. We specialise in big infrastructure projects.
We have plenty of work for the next 15 years: HS2, new runways, highways, GW electrification, power stations and confidential projects.
What are the confidential projects?
New airports in Witney and Tatton to replace Heathrow and Manchester airports.....
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Perhaps a truly federal Britain would be better placed to spread development around the country? Seems to me that federal countries like the US and Germany have a more equal distribution of big/important cities (NYC, LA, Miami, Chicago, Houston. Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich) - and therefore, a healthier population distribution - than unitary states like Britain and France, both massively and unhealthily dominated by their respective capitals.
Bit late for us to address being dominated by our Primary city - it's fluctuated, of course, but it has dominated for something like 1000 years.
Dominated? Well maybe because of it being the centre of government and the law and where the railways (when they came along) started/ended. However, I not sure that the current dominant position of London and the SE is not a very new phenomena.
I think we do not have to go back too far to find when Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Glasgow and a whole host of other places had an economic contribution which together dwarfed that of London and the Home Counties.
That you have to add them together to overcome London and the Home Counties I would think proves the point about domination - not as much as now, certainly, but of our cities it has been the primary one for a long time, even if at times other cities made a creditable job of their own, but I'm not sure if any of them have consistently done so. IIRC Norwich was one of the biggest places outside London in the 13th Century. I'd say being preeminent among the cities counts as dominant for the entire time. It just may not have been overbearingly so.
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Most people do live in the provinces and are a damn sight happier there than they would be in London or thereabouts.
London is a fucking shithole.
I live in the glorious English county of Hampshire.
Hampshire is indeed lovely. But I can bring you to my bit of London and show you somewhere glorious. On a day like today and in a few hours I will be sitting on my terrace having a drink and looking over London and at the glorious evening sky. The only sounds to be heard will be birds and ice clinking in a glass.
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Perhaps a truly federal Britain would be better placed to spread development around the country? Seems to me that federal countries like the US and Germany have a more equal distribution of big/important cities (NYC, LA, Miami, Chicago, Houston. Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich) - and therefore, a healthier population distribution - than unitary states like Britain and France, both massively and unhealthily dominated by their respective capitals.
Bit late for us to address being dominated by our Primary city - it's fluctuated, of course, but it has dominated for something like 1000 years.
Paris has a population of around 2 million. It's a village compared to London. A French village.
The metropolitan area is 12m. The city boundaries are drawn quite tightly.
Yes, only the area within the peripherique is real Paris. It would be like saying London ends at zone 2. Come to think of it, that's what many people believe.
I believe Mr Meeks has said the same thing.
Beyond zone 2 be dragons (or Brexit voters at least)
There are very many individual cubicles which are labelled with a gender (or perhaps a sex) but which are identical no matter what. We have plenty where I work.
I don't see why they couldn't be available for everyone.
I'm used to using disabled toilets, which are invariably unisex. I don't really understand the big deal about anyone else using unisex toilets either.
(Disabled toilets are great by the way. Means you can use the bogs at Stratford station, for instance, which would otherwise be on Sunil's list of "major train stations without public toilets". Suspect it is the busiest UK station without non-disabled toilets, though Sunil can likely correct me on that. They tend to have very little vandalism. Generally remarkably clean. Unlike the blokes' bogs I was once used to, no writing on the wall informing of me the sexual availability of local chaps - do women's loos have this too? Perhaps for chapesses rather than chaps? Or has it even died out in men's bogs, in this Age of Grindr?)
St Pancras is the only main railway terminus in London with free bogs. Everywhere else seems to be 30p, or even 50p at Victoria FFS!
I was at Skegness yesterday*, but was surprised you had to leave the station cross the road to use the public toilets.
(*Um, before you ask, I did the Grantham to Skegness via Sleaford line).
There are very many individual cubicles which are labelled with a gender (or perhaps a sex) but which are identical no matter what. We have plenty where I work.
I don't see why they couldn't be available for everyone.
I'm used to using disabled toilets, which are invariably unisex. I don't really understand the big deal about anyone else using unisex toilets either.
(Disabled toilets are great by the way. Means you can use the bogs at Stratford station, for instance, which would otherwise be on Sunil's list of "major train stations without public toilets". Suspect it is the busiest UK station without non-disabled toilets, though Sunil can likely correct me on that. They tend to have very little vandalism. Generally remarkably clean. Unlike the blokes' bogs I was once used to, no writing on the wall informing of me the sexual availability of local chaps - do women's loos have this too? Perhaps for chapesses rather than chaps? Or has it even died out in men's bogs, in this Age of Grindr?)
I always suspected that such grafitting was largely down to higher year schoolkids writing down the phone number of a fellow pupil who has annoyed them.
There are very many individual cubicles which are labelled with a gender (or perhaps a sex) but which are identical no matter what. We have plenty where I work.
I don't see why they couldn't be available for everyone.
I'm used to using disabled toilets, which are invariably unisex. I don't really understand the big deal about anyone else using unisex toilets either.
(Disabled toilets are great by the way. Means you can use the bogs at Stratford station, for instance, which would otherwise be on Sunil's list of "major train stations without public toilets". Suspect it is the busiest UK station without non-disabled toilets, though Sunil can likely correct me on that. They tend to have very little vandalism. Generally remarkably clean. Unlike the blokes' bogs I was once used to, no writing on the wall informing of me the sexual availability of local chaps - do women's loos have this too? Perhaps for chapesses rather than chaps? Or has it even died out in men's bogs, in this Age of Grindr?)
St Pancras is the only main railway terminus in London with free bogs. Everywhere else seems to be 30p, or even 50p at Victoria FFS!
I was at Skegness yesterday*, but was surprised you had to leave the station cross the road to use the public toilets.
(*Um, before you ask, I did the Grantham to Skegness via Sleaford line).
Disabled toilets at Victoria are free to use, or were the last time I went. That's another pro.
At least the other major stations in London have loos, even if you need to pay for them. Are there any plans to install them in Stratford? I think there really ought to be, if only on public health grounds, and making it easier for e.g. our increasing number of older people to travel.
There are very many individual cubicles which are labelled with a gender (or perhaps a sex) but which are identical no matter what. We have plenty where I work.
I don't see why they couldn't be available for everyone.
I'm used to using disabled toilets, which are invariably unisex. I don't really understand the big deal about anyone else using unisex toilets either.
(Disabled toilets are great by the way. Means you can use the bogs at Stratford station, for instance, which would otherwise be on Sunil's list of "major train stations without public toilets". Suspect it is the busiest UK station without non-disabled toilets, though Sunil can likely correct me on that. They tend to have very little vandalism. Generally remarkably clean. Unlike the blokes' bogs I was once used to, no writing on the wall informing of me the sexual availability of local chaps - do women's loos have this too? Perhaps for chapesses rather than chaps? Or has it even died out in men's bogs, in this Age of Grindr?)
St Pancras is the only main railway terminus in London with free bogs. Everywhere else seems to be 30p, or even 50p at Victoria FFS!
I was at Skegness yesterday*, but was surprised you had to leave the station cross the road to use the public toilets.
(*Um, before you ask, I did the Grantham to Skegness via Sleaford line).
Ahem: the reason why I would prefer to use ladies' loos is because one cannot always be confident that the loos will be clean after they have been used by men.
There are very many individual cubicles which are labelled with a gender (or perhaps a sex) but which are identical no matter what. We have plenty where I work.
I don't see why they couldn't be available for everyone.
I'm used to using disabled toilets, which are invariably unisex. I don't really understand the big deal about anyone else using unisex toilets either.
(Disabled toilets are great by the way. Means you can use the bogs at Stratford station, for instance, which would otherwise be on Sunil's list of "major train stations without public toilets". Suspect it is the busiest UK station without non-disabled toilets, though Sunil can likely correct me on that. They tend to have very little vandalism. Generally remarkably clean. Unlike the blokes' bogs I was once used to, no writing on the wall informing of me the sexual availability of local chaps - do women's loos have this too? Perhaps for chapesses rather than chaps? Or has it even died out in men's bogs, in this Age of Grindr?)
St Pancras is the only main railway terminus in London with free bogs. Everywhere else seems to be 30p, or even 50p at Victoria FFS!
I was at Skegness yesterday*, but was surprised you had to leave the station cross the road to use the public toilets.
(*Um, before you ask, I did the Grantham to Skegness via Sleaford line).
Ahem: the reason why I would prefer to use ladies' loos is because one cannot always be confident that the loos will be clean after they have been used by men.
Well, I shan't be popping corks whatever happens, but I'll believe we're out when we're out.
Nonsense. Of course should be opening the bubbly!
Now, what is Independence Day in that case? The 23rd June when votes were cast, the 24th when the result was declared or the day we officially leave the EU?
What a lovely problem to have? I'll certainly be awash with fizz when we finally do.
There are very many individual cubicles which are labelled with a gender (or perhaps a sex) but which are identical no matter what. We have plenty where I work.
I don't see why they couldn't be available for everyone.
I'm used to using disabled toilets, which are invariably unisex. I don't really understand the big deal about anyone else using unisex toilets either.
(Disabled toilets are great by the way. Means you can use the bogs at Stratford station, for instance, which would otherwise be on Sunil's list of "major train stations without public toilets". Suspect it is the busiest UK station without non-disabled toilets, though Sunil can likely correct me on that. They tend to have very little vandalism. Generally remarkably clean. Unlike the blokes' bogs I was once used to, no writing on the wall informing of me the sexual availability of local chaps - do women's loos have this too? Perhaps for chapesses rather than chaps? Or has it even died out in men's bogs, in this Age of Grindr?)
St Pancras is the only main railway terminus in London with free bogs. Everywhere else seems to be 30p, or even 50p at Victoria FFS!
I was at Skegness yesterday*, but was surprised you had to leave the station cross the road to use the public toilets.
(*Um, before you ask, I did the Grantham to Skegness via Sleaford line).
Ahem: the reason why I would prefer to use ladies' loos is because one cannot always be confident that the loos will be clean after they have been used by men.
A cultural problem that we should tackle, not create discriminatory gender segregatory excretory chambers to avoid!
@GuidoFawkes: Rumour: Labour sources say Angela Eagle is pulling out
This would really piss me off, if true. She's the only one who had the balls to challenge in the first place. She may be useless though not noticeably more so than anyone else. But at least she had a bit of courage which is more than anyone else showed. But oh no: having done that the boys get to have the fight. Labour believes in equality, my arse!
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Perhaps a truly federal Britain would be better placed to spread development around the country? Seems to me that federal countries like the US and Germany have a more equal distribution of big/important cities (NYC, LA, Miami, Chicago, Houston. Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich) - and therefore, a healthier population distribution - than unitary states like Britain and France, both massively and unhealthily dominated by their respective capitals.
Bit late for us to address being dominated by our Primary city - it's fluctuated, of course, but it has dominated for something like 1000 years.
Paris has a population of around 2 million. It's a village compared to London. A French village.
The metropolitan area is 12m. The city boundaries are drawn quite tightly.
Yes, only the area within the peripherique is real Paris. It would be like saying London ends at zone 2. Come to think of it, that's what many people believe.
I believe Mr Meeks has said the same thing.
Beyond zone 2 be dragons (or Brexit voters at least)
Well, I shan't be popping corks whatever happens, but I'll believe we're out when we're out.
Nonsense. Of course should be opening the bubbly!
Now, what is Independence Day in that case? The 23rd June when votes were cast, the 24th when the result was declared or the day we officially leave the EU?
What a lovely problem to have? I'll certainly be awash with fizz when we finally do.
The Queen has two birthdays.
Surely Brexiteers can have three Independence Days.
That's five big holidays for Little England to take the people's mind off where to scavenge their next morsel of food.
Well, I shan't be popping corks whatever happens, but I'll believe we're out when we're out.
Nonsense. Of course should be opening the bubbly!
Now, what is Independence Day in that case? The 23rd June when votes were cast, the 24th when the result was declared or the day we officially leave the EU?
What a lovely problem to have? I'll certainly be awash with fizz when we finally do.
It should be 19 September. It'll be a bank holiday no doubt and we need one later in the year, so it seems the perfect time for an Independence Day.
That is is also the same date the SindyRef result was declared is a bonus. (If they are still in UK for long).
@GuidoFawkes: Rumour: Labour sources say Angela Eagle is pulling out
This would really piss me off, if true. She's the only one who had the balls to challenge in the first place. She may be useless though not noticeably more so than anyone else. But at least she had a bit of courage which is more than anyone else showed. But oh no: having done that the boys get to have the fight. Labour believes in equality, my arse!
She pitched herself wrongly if she actually wanted to beat Corbyn among the membership. Whereas Owen Smith has been smarter, even if he'll probably end up just being discount Burnham.
There are very many individual cubicles which are labelled with a gender (or perhaps a sex) but which are identical no matter what. We have plenty where I work.
I don't see why they couldn't be available for everyone.
I'm used to using disabled toilets, which are invariably unisex. I don't really understand the big deal about anyone else using unisex toilets either.
(Disabled toilets are great by the way. Means you can use the bogs at Stratford station, for instance, which would otherwise be on Sunil's list of "major train stations without public toilets". Suspect it is the busiest UK station without non-disabled toilets, though Sunil can likely correct me on that. They tend to have very little vandalism. Generally remarkably clean. Unlike the blokes' bogs I was once used to, no writing on the wall informing of me the sexual availability of local chaps - do women's loos have this too? Perhaps for chapesses rather than chaps? Or has it even died out in men's bogs, in this Age of Grindr?)
St Pancras is the only main railway terminus in London with free bogs. Everywhere else seems to be 30p, or even 50p at Victoria FFS!
I was at Skegness yesterday*, but was surprised you had to leave the station cross the road to use the public toilets.
(*Um, before you ask, I did the Grantham to Skegness via Sleaford line).
Ahem: the reason why I would prefer to use ladies' loos is because one cannot always be confident that the loos will be clean after they have been used by men.
I prefer urinals whenever available, you don't have to touch a toilet seat, door or lock with your hands
Well, I shan't be popping corks whatever happens, but I'll believe we're out when we're out.
Nonsense. Of course should be opening the bubbly!
Now, what is Independence Day in that case? The 23rd June when votes were cast, the 24th when the result was declared or the day we officially leave the EU?
What a lovely problem to have? I'll certainly be awash with fizz when we finally do.
4th July is the DECLARATION of US independence in 1776, isn't it? Not the Treaty of Paris in 1783 when independence was recognised?.
There are very many individual cubicles which are labelled with a gender (or perhaps a sex) but which are identical no matter what. We have plenty where I work.
I don't see why they couldn't be available for everyone.
I'm used to using disabled toilets, which are invariably unisex. I don't really understand the big deal about anyone else using unisex toilets either.
(Disabled toilets are great by the way. Means you can use the bogs at Stratford station, for instance, which would otherwise be on Sunil's list of "major train stations without public toilets". Suspect it is the busiest UK station without non-disabled toilets, though Sunil can likely correct me on that. They tend to have very little vandalism. Generally remarkably clean. Unlike the blokes' bogs I was once used to, no writing on the wall informing of me the sexual availability of local chaps - do women's loos have this too? Perhaps for chapesses rather than chaps? Or has it even died out in men's bogs, in this Age of Grindr?)
St Pancras is the only main railway terminus in London with free bogs. Everywhere else seems to be 30p, or even 50p at Victoria FFS!
I was at Skegness yesterday*, but was surprised you had to leave the station cross the road to use the public toilets.
(*Um, before you ask, I did the Grantham to Skegness via Sleaford line).
Ahem: the reason why I would prefer to use ladies' loos is because one cannot always be confident that the loos will be clean after they have been used by men.
A cultural problem that we should tackle, not create discriminatory gender segregatory excretory chambers to avoid!
There's no discrimination involved. Just have loos for men and women. And have more for women. The queues for them are always enormous. We need more time. God only knows why men can't pee into a large bowl without also spraying everything else in sight but I'm damned if I'm going to clean up after random men in public in order to have a wee because the Mayor thinks the most important thing to do some two months after being elected is create gender neutral loos.
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Most people do live in the provinces and are a damn sight happier there than they would be in London or thereabouts.
London is a fucking shithole.
I live in the glorious English county of Hampshire.
Hampshire is indeed lovely. But I can bring you to my bit of London and show you somewhere glorious. On a day like today and in a few hours I will be sitting on my terrace having a drink and looking over London and at the glorious evening sky. The only sounds to be heard will be birds and ice clinking in a glass.
I suspect that sort of experience (with an equally good if less urban view) is available at much more of an affordable price in the provinces. But, nevertheless, I am curious as to (roughly) whereabouts in the great city you will be enjoying your drink,...?
There's no discrimination involved. Just have loos for men and women. And have more for women. The queues for them are always enormous. We need more time. God only knows why men can't pee into a large bowl without also spraying everything else in sight but I'm damned if I'm going to clean up after random men in public in order to have a wee because the Mayor thinks the most important thing to do some two months after being elected is create gender neutral loos.
Well, it's not like the mayor gets much to do, in actuality. But as my reference to excretory chambers probably indicated, it's not a subject on which I comment with any seriousness.
@GuidoFawkes: Rumour: Labour sources say Angela Eagle is pulling out
This would really piss me off, if true. She's the only one who had the balls to challenge in the first place. She may be useless though not noticeably more so than anyone else. But at least she had a bit of courage which is more than anyone else showed. But oh no: having done that the boys get to have the fight. Labour believes in equality, my arse!
I see that some private school has banned he and she from being said. Instead you must say zie to avoid upsetting transgender pupils.
I suspect that they are zealously enforcing this. (zie orders must always be obeyed).
Posted this earlier. There are ~15k trans people being treated by the various UK GICs (that includes people on the waiting list for their first appointment). Leaders are losing perspective on the scale of our condition.
I can't speak for all, but most TG people I know would like to be addressed as either 'he' or 'she' depending on the direction of travel.
I would much rather see more mental health support for young transgender people, almost half of whom attempt suicide at some point pre-transition.
I bet a lot of people using the London Underground are wishing that Crossrail with its air conditioning was already open.
Those Victorian and Edwardian tunnels really should have been built to main-line size diameter. One line did open in 1904 to main-line diameter, the Moorgate to Drayton Park line (part of British Rail, now operated by Great Northern, since 1976).
Didn't know that, interesting. They could shut each tube line down one by one and upgrade the tunnels, although they'd probably have to get the Sultan of Brunei to sponsor it.
Why should not the people who will benefit from the upgrades fork out the cash. Bung up the ticket prices to either pay for the improvements direct or fund the interest payments/return of capital on bonds issued for the purpose.
I haven't travelled on the tube for more than a decade and cannot see why anyone would want to. Whenever I am in Town (granted not often in the last couple of years) it has been a cab, a walk, or a driver up from Sussex to start with. The underground is just so disgustingly filthy, overcrowded and just bloody awful.
I mostly avoid the tube in summer. It's just about the right temperature in January and February, provided you're wearing shorts and a T-shirt.
Can't say I approve of the first Cabinet meeting - almost everyone has taken their jackets off, it's a disgrace.
You may have noticed it is slightly warmer than it has been of late...
I had to rewire my fan having discovered that an earlier repair had been incompetently completed by the vendor
Until about 15 minutes ago I was facing a full day in court tomorrow wearing a waist coat, tails, a court gown, wing collar and bow tie and a horse hair wig. People on the Northern line have nothing to complain about, believe me.
I think we can guess at why house prices are a problem. ttps://twitter.com/montie/status/755413874975903744
Has Monty considered that the worst recession in our lifetime may have had something to do with that?
Also there's only so much of London &SE that is still OK to build on once you've excluded the Green Belt.
My local town is still the same size as it was during the 80s when I was growing up despite huge population increase. It hasn't seen anything like the expansion and development that occurred in the 60s and 70s, probably due to nimbyism.
To be honest, most towns could expand onto the next row of farmers fields around their fringes and provide hundreds of new decent homes in so doing.
People don't want to live in the provinces though. There are ~90k people in all of Monmouthshire. Bags of room for new houses. Not that much demand. House price inflation is running at ~3%.
Perhaps a truly federal Britain would be better placed to spread development around the country? Seems to me that federal countries like the US and Germany have a more equal distribution of big/important cities (NYC, LA, Miami, Chicago, Houston. Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich) - and therefore, a healthier population distribution - than unitary states like Britain and France, both massively and unhealthily dominated by their respective capitals.
Bit late for us to address being dominated by our Primary city - it's fluctuated, of course, but it has dominated for something like 1000 years.
Paris has a population of around 2 million. It's a village compared to London. A French village.
The metropolitan area is 12m. The city boundaries are drawn quite tightly.
Yes, only the area within the peripherique is real Paris. It would be like saying London ends at zone 2. Come to think of it, that's what many people believe.
I believe Mr Meeks has said the same thing.
I lived in south London for 32 years - the real charm of the city is the plethora of parks and commons interspersed between all the concrete. The centre stopped being fun for me pretty soon - the sights are really for the tourists.
Dominated? Well maybe because of it being the centre of government and the law and where the railways (when they came along) started/ended. However, I not sure that the current dominant position of London and the SE is not a very new phenomena.
I think we do not have to go back too far to find when Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Glasgow and a whole host of other places had an economic contribution which together dwarfed that of London and the Home Counties.
It is true that for about 150 years in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries London was primus inter pares rather than primus maximus as it now is.
However, it was always by far the largest city and had the largest economic contribution. Don't forget it was the world's largest port and most of the imports and exports of the country went through it. It was also the social hub of the land - comparatively unusually, it was the capital in pretty well every sphere from the get go, in a way that really only Paris of other European and even wider world cities was.
Throughout the Middle Ages from about 940 onwards even though London was not officially the capital of England until quite late on - I think it was Henry II who finally made it the permanent seat of government - what Londoners said went. They toppled kings (Henry III and VI) raised taxes differently, and were the target of all the key rebellions in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
It's a daft place to have a capital and major city but that is where it is and we are kind of stuck with it
There are very many individual cubicles which are labelled with a gender (or perhaps a sex) but which are identical no matter what. We have plenty where I work.
I don't see why they couldn't be available for everyone.
I'm used to using disabled toilets, which are invariably unisex. I don't really understand the big deal about anyone else using unisex toilets either.
(Disabled toilets are great by the way. Means you can use the bogs at Stratford station, for instance, which would otherwise be on Sunil's list of "major train stations without public toilets". Suspect it is the busiest UK station without non-disabled toilets, though Sunil can likely correct me on that. They tend to have very little vandalism. Generally remarkably clean. Unlike the blokes' bogs I was once used to, no writing on the wall informing of me the sexual availability of local chaps - do women's loos have this too? Perhaps for chapesses rather than chaps? Or has it even died out in men's bogs, in this Age of Grindr?)
St Pancras is the only main railway terminus in London with free bogs. Everywhere else seems to be 30p, or even 50p at Victoria FFS!
I was at Skegness yesterday*, but was surprised you had to leave the station cross the road to use the public toilets.
(*Um, before you ask, I did the Grantham to Skegness via Sleaford line).
Ahem: the reason why I would prefer to use ladies' loos is because one cannot always be confident that the loos will be clean after they have been used by men.
I prefer urinals whenever available, you don't have to touch a toilet seat, door or lock with your hands
As I observed on previous thread, "gender neutral" = hermaphrodites only?
Dominated? Well maybe because of it being the centre of government and the law and where the railways (when they came along) started/ended. However, I not sure that the current dominant position of London and the SE is not a very new phenomena.
I think we do not have to go back too far to find when Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Glasgow and a whole host of other places had an economic contribution which together dwarfed that of London and the Home Counties.
It is true that for about 150 years in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries London was primus inter pares rather than primus maximus as it now is.
I think that is where people get the, I would say, incorrect impression about London and its place in England. Sure it hasn't always been as dominant as now, nor does it had a god given right to be, but the period during industrialisation was not 'normal' as far as historical position goes.
Surely that would be like suggesting China's rising power is an aberration because of its position in the 19th Century.
If Owen Smith is the answer, what on earth is the question?
Who could be better than Corbyn?
I don't think he has a chance of beating Corbyn with the membership. Eagle might have.
But he's got one of those dangly things and Labour always vote for someone with one of them.
The "Labour members are a bunch of sexists" argument might be easier to make had they not selected women in the majority of open selections for the 2015 election.
Whenever I hear the song 'maybe it's because I'm a Londoner/that I love London town' I'm tempted to agree because there's no reason other than habit to love an expensive, ugly, smelly, dirty, noisy, overcrowded wasteland like London. Anyone with any sense lives elsewhere.
I think I would rather live in Newport than London although admittedly it would be a close call. I'd take London over Cinderford but that's about the only place I'd like less than London.
I live in the glorious English county of Hampshire.
Hampshire is indeed lovely. But I can bring you to my bit of London and show you somewhere glorious. On a day like today and in a few hours I will be sitting on my terrace having a drink and looking over London and at the glorious evening sky. The only sounds to be heard will be birds and ice clinking in a glass.
I suspect that sort of experience (with an equally good if less urban view) is available at much more of an affordable price in the provinces. But, nevertheless, I am curious as to (roughly) whereabouts in the great city you will be enjoying your drink,...?
West Hampstead. As I am on a hill I get fantastic views across London. And, particularly, of the evening sky. And because of our location when there are fly pasts down the Mall we can see those on the TV then rush upstairs and see them fly in front of us as they go out of London. Fireworks night is splendid. We get to see everyone else's fireworks, cheapskates that we are! You're probably right about the price now though not so much when I bought 26 years ago.
My little corner is surprisingly quiet, surrounded by trees and within 2 minutes walk there is a lot of green space and even more within 10 minutes walk away. But what I love above all about my street is that most people living here have been here for a long time. There is very little of that constant purchase/sale that you get in some other areas. And the housing is mixed: some renters and some housing association homes. So not all rich City types who are never there. It's ordinary - for London anyway (though even I could not afford to buy here now). There are lots of retreats and corners like this in London, though I can see why those not living here might think of it as a "fucking shithole". But it isn't.
Can't say I approve of the first Cabinet meeting - almost everyone has taken their jackets off, it's a disgrace.
You may have noticed it is slightly warmer than it has been of late...
The Cabinet Office doesn't have air conditioning?
In any case, still no excuse, have to look professional. They can take them off and pass out afterwards.
Usual rule would be you can take it off if the Chairman takes off their jacket.
Lots of the old townhouse Whitehall buildings don't. I sweltered in several - DWP had some awfully hot ones. Admiralty Arch was an occasional Cabinet Office overspill space and didn't have any at all - it was being refurbished so maybe that changed.
Comments
But, May will know she will be in deep political trouble if she fails to deliver meaningful reductions post Brexit.
https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/images/london-rail-and-tube-services-map.gif
[swaggering] I've visited EVERY station marked on that map, BTW. Taken me several years, mind
Bedfordshire means you get eight glorious 12 car Thameslinks per hour and can get on from much of Central London without using the tube - and will have direct interchange with Crossrail at Farringdon.
Houseprices are dirt cheap too by south of England standards. £200-250k for a 3 bed house.
(Disabled toilets are great by the way. Means you can use the bogs at Stratford station, for instance, which would otherwise be on Sunil's list of "major train stations without public toilets". Suspect it is the busiest UK station without non-disabled toilets, though Sunil can likely correct me on that. They tend to have very little vandalism. Generally remarkably clean. Unlike the blokes' bogs I was once used to, no writing on the wall informing of me the sexual availability of local chaps - do women's loos have this too? Perhaps for chapesses rather than chaps? Or has it even died out in men's bogs, in this Age of Grindr?)
Both my wife and I have fairly good, if not spectacularly high-flying jobs. But we have three children. There's no way we could have the lifestyle we have in Manchester if we had to bear London housing costs (and all London's other costs).
Londoners: move to Manchester! You can get a good job, a house two or three times the size, and you needn't spend hours commuting to the nearest affordable suburb. And you'll be within an hour's drive of three of the country's finest national parks. You won't be surrounded by quite the same heights of architecture and culture. But you'll have a much nicer quality of life.
(Britain has many other fine cities offering a better quality of life than London too, of course. But move to Manchester nonetheless.)
The lack of serious opposition is not just a problem for the left of centre right now ^^;
It's nearly as impressive to be honest..
I think we do not have to go back too far to find when Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Glasgow and a whole host of other places had an economic contribution which together dwarfed that of London and the Home Counties.
@hugorifkind:
"We will fight, and fight, and fight again, to save the party we love," quotes @DAaronovitch.
"S Club 7?" I say.
"Hugh Gaitskell," he says.
It is a bit of a mystery why more businesses don;t relocate.
I was at Skegness yesterday*, but was surprised you had to leave the station cross the road to use the public toilets.
(*Um, before you ask, I did the Grantham to Skegness via Sleaford line).
At least the other major stations in London have loos, even if you need to pay for them. Are there any plans to install them in Stratford? I think there really ought to be, if only on public health grounds, and making it easier for e.g. our increasing number of older people to travel.
@PickardJE: The race to choose who gets beaten by Jeremy Corbyn again is turning into a real nail-biter.
What a lovely problem to have? I'll certainly be awash with fizz when we finally do.
She has to win. She is a WOMAN!
This would really piss me off, if true. She's the only one who had the balls to challenge in the first place. She may be useless though not noticeably more so than anyone else. But at least she had a bit of courage which is more than anyone else showed. But oh no: having done that the boys get to have the fight. Labour believes in equality, my arse!
Surely Brexiteers can have three Independence Days.
That's five big holidays for Little England to take the people's mind off where to scavenge their next morsel of food.
[swaggering] I've visited EVERY station marked on that map, BTW. Taken me several years, mind
How was Perivale station?
That is is also the same date the SindyRef result was declared is a bonus. (If they are still in UK for long).
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/755435696798699520
Angela Eagle about to withdraw her fledgling candidacy for Labour leadership. Will possibly tell the party: 'I have no egrets'
I suspect that they are zealously enforcing this. (zie orders must always be obeyed).
The Eagle Disbanded.
Holed Eagle.
Eagle cries.
Strangely, there's an organisation that campaigns to establish a sovereign Mercian state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Mercia
Not sure about the national anthem though...
I can't speak for all, but most TG people I know would like to be addressed as either 'he' or 'she' depending on the direction of travel.
I would much rather see more mental health support for young transgender people, almost half of whom attempt suicide at some point pre-transition.
You could almost call him... "normal".
However, it was always by far the largest city and had the largest economic contribution. Don't forget it was the world's largest port and most of the imports and exports of the country went through it. It was also the social hub of the land - comparatively unusually, it was the capital in pretty well every sphere from the get go, in a way that really only Paris of other European and even wider world cities was.
Throughout the Middle Ages from about 940 onwards even though London was not officially the capital of England until quite late on - I think it was Henry II who finally made it the permanent seat of government - what Londoners said went. They toppled kings (Henry III and VI) raised taxes differently, and were the target of all the key rebellions in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
It's a daft place to have a capital and major city but that is where it is and we are kind of stuck with it
Bit annoying she is flying off with a green number next to her that is now pretty much worthless, but not much odds overall to me.
Surely that would be like suggesting China's rising power is an aberration because of its position in the 19th Century.
https://twitter.com/peston/status/755437464177836032
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-36828787
A comment only a Londoner could make.
Whenever I hear the song 'maybe it's because I'm a Londoner/that I love London town' I'm tempted to agree because there's no reason other than habit to love an expensive, ugly, smelly, dirty, noisy, overcrowded wasteland like London. Anyone with any sense lives elsewhere.
I think I would rather live in Newport than London although admittedly it would be a close call. I'd take London over Cinderford but that's about the only place I'd like less than London.
My little corner is surprisingly quiet, surrounded by trees and within 2 minutes walk there is a lot of green space and even more within 10 minutes walk away. But what I love above all about my street is that most people living here have been here for a long time. There is very little of that constant purchase/sale that you get in some other areas. And the housing is mixed: some renters and some housing association homes. So not all rich City types who are never there. It's ordinary - for London anyway (though even I could not afford to buy here now). There are lots of retreats and corners like this in London, though I can see why those not living here might think of it as a "fucking shithole". But it isn't.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/owen-smith-labour-leadership-election-angela-eagle-jeremy-corbyn-candidates-vote-a7143221.html