I was just thinking of someone changing a tyre in a pink tutu and fairy wings!!
To answer your question though - which I effectively did in the OP - I was thinking along the lines of the hub of a wheel when the tyre was being changed by someone in a pink tutu -
Sorry.
There is no desperate need but it just seems - to me, at least - logical.
In a way, that's my point. The reasons that London became the capital are no longer valid. Unless anyone knows otherwise.
I am so tempted!! ;-) But isn't this because London was/is the capital? And couldn't you just as easily say that these lines, er, radiate into London. If you can radiate in.
Again it's a chicken and egg situation. Not sure about the likes of Nottingham but isn't Birmingham a fairly busy airport? Not too sure about any "feeder airports".
As it's years since I used a bus I wouldn't know. However, and with all due respect, I rather doubt that you've experienced all the bus services in the UK.
Again it's the chicken and egg thing.
With the exception of the M25 I'm afraid that's not correct. The M1 radiates from or is based near Edinburgh.
The M3 radiates from or is based near Southampton.
The M4 radiates from or is based near Llanelli, South Wales
Quite. How much does that have to do with geography?
It isn't so much that I want them to be the capital as they are - as near as dammit - central. And therefore, perhaps, ought to be the capital. I was just seeking opinions on the matter.
I'm not too sure, either, that many (infrastructure) changes would have to be made.
I'm not too familiar with the likes of Nottingham but Birmingham has fairly good links.
Thank you for that. All it tells me is that London Buses are one of the biggest and most comprehensive in the world. Doesn't mean it's any better or worse than anywhere else. Additionally I can't quite see what it has to do with where (or where not) the capital might be. Other than it's in the city that is currently the capital.
These motorways (the M1 being the first) are all based in or around London, as starting points from the capital.
The beginning and end of a motorway (or any road for that matter) will surely depend on a person's perception. You see them as starting from London - and maybe the junction numbers reinforce that opinion - but someone travelling to London might well see it the other way round.
Thank you for that. All it tells me is that London Buses are one of the biggest and most comprehensive in the world. Doesn't mean it's any better or worse than anywhere else. Additionally I can't quite see what it has to do with where (or where not) the capital might be. Other than it's in the city that is currently the capital.
The beginning and end of a motorway (or any road for that matter) will surely depend on a person's perception. You see them as starting from London - and maybe the junction numbers reinforce that opinion - but someone travelling to London might well see it the other way round.
Do you think we would have these airports if London wasn't the capital? If so, why? And, if not, why not?
OR, these railway lines all terminate at London!!
Again, would the Stock Exchange be in London were it not the capital?
And just how much bearing has the River Thames had on things?
The point I'm trying to make is, that in the UK at least, communications and transport links are centred on the capital (that being London) and if you want to relocate the capital to elsewhere in the UK, these things have to be taken into consideration.
Likewise, the major internet traffic in the world runs between London (and northern Europe) with the USA.
The point I'm trying to make is, that in the UK at least, communications and transport links are centred on the capital (that being London) and if you want to relocate the capital to elsewhere in the UK, these things have to be taken into consideration.
Likewise, the major internet traffic in the world runs between London (and northern Europe) with the USA.
This is kinda what I'm asking. Are these things centred on the capital because it is the capital or is it the capital because these things are centred on it?
I'm rather of the opinion that the River Thames was of a significant influence both in terms of trade and, of course, the navy in days gone by.
I think some people confuse the idea of a Capital and a big city.
A lot of countries don't have their biggest main city as the capital, or they have things split between many cities, meaning they have multiple capitals. South Africa, for example, has 3 capitals, Cape Town, Bloemfontein and Pretoria. Johannesburg is the biggest city there and has all the transport links etc, but is not the capital.
Australia's biggest city is Sydney which has all the glitz and Glamour, but sleepy Canberra is the capital. New Zealand has Wellington as the capital, but Auckland is the bigger player. The USA Has tiny Washington DC, but a lot of people think New York is the capital. Canada has Ottawa when Toronto and Vancouver are clearly the biggest draws for business and people. Istanbul is not the capital of Turkey but is still the countries heartbeat. etc etc etc
What I'm getting at is that London could retain everything it currently has even if the capital city status was passed on to, say, Birmingham. It'd be a pretty needless and costly task though and I can't see what, if any benefit it would bring to anyone.
London will always be the capital unless something dreadful happens in the future. It's quite possible for this to happen.
I have always thought that some of the government departments could move out of London to help generate other areas in the country.
Another idea which has been discussed is to allow parliament to travel for a only few weeks of the year. Spend one week in the midlands, another in the NE etc. But I read the logistics of doing such an endeavour would be huge. Which is a shame as I think it would be good for the politicians and the voters.
I think if we were to have a federal structure with London as the UK capital, it would be better to move the English Parliament to one of the other cities, but further north than Birmingham, maybe Manchester. I like the idea of York as it's very picturesque but really it's too small.
I'm quite happy having London as the capital. Keep that s**t hole of a city as far down the bottom end of the country as possible so it's nowhere near me. Why ruin somewhere else by making it overcrowded and full of tourists? London is the worst city I've visited in this country. It's crap for a night out, nothing is central, people are ignorant and everything's a rip off and the place is nothing but an overcrowded concrete jungle. Keep it, you're welcome to it. Mind you Birmingham isn't much better and that's an overcrowded dump too. Another city I never visit unless I have to.
There are far nicer prettier cities in England so why ruin them? Can you imagine what Nottingham would be like if was covered in smog and it had dozens of railway stations, undergrounds, skyscrapers, tourists, bankers and politicians and beer was over £4 a pint.
Unfortunately this seems to be turning into a pro/anti London thread and I'm getting sucked into it.
It wasn't what I intended.
Just wondered what people thought about a central - ish capital city.
That was inevitable, and would be the same wherever the capital city was.
With questions like this, I tend to think of it as to 'why change' rather than 'why stay the same.
You said in the OP why you thought London became the capital. The simple fact is, that it 'IS' the capital, so instead of thinking about why it should remain the same way, I tend to think of why should it change ?
What would be the benefit - on any level, of it being somewhere else - now ?
In practical terms, just think of the cost - and what would actually physically have to change and would it matter ?
Take for example, the BBC moving lots of things to Media City UK in Manchester. OK, so get passed all the BBC 'luvvies' having a dicky fit, did, for example, The One Show, change when the studio it was filmed in moved. Indeed, many TV shows, for both ITV and BBC were filmed in both BBC and Granada studios long before the move to Media City UK.
So, if the Capital of the UK was moved to Birmingham, would the Government's 'meeting place' have to physically move ? Would it change if it did - same staff, different set of walls ?!?!?
Back to TV - ITV have moved the Coronation Street set to new studios (in Media City UK). They have rebuilt them so that they are identical, so that even the puddles are the same as when they were filmed at Quay St - surely the same would be done with 'government'.
So, what is the point.
In case it matters, I am a born Southerner, of half Northern parentage, who now lives (by choice and very happily) in the North - yes I do see 'London-centric weighting' on things like news and weather reports, which I never noticed in all the years growing up in the South - and would have vehemently denied, but they do exist. Thereby I am not Anti-London/South (and get very annoyed that some think that London = South), nor Pro-North.
I just see this matter as, it is what it is, it was going to be somewhere and, well, to use an over-quoted cliche, if it ain't broke... in this case, would you 'fix' it ?!?!?!?
(EDIT - sorry if this gets posted twice, either DS or my computer seem to have blipped, so I am posting it again.)
There are far nicer prettier cities in England so why ruin them? Can you imagine what Nottingham would be like if was covered in smog and it had dozens of railway stations, undergrounds, skyscrapers, tourists, bankers and politicians and beer was over £4 a pint.
You talk like Nottingham is some kind of nirvana.
Smogs apparently do still occur in modern day London, but I'd like to know where, as having been there over 500 times by now, I've yet to encounter one.
Comments
Sorry.
I was just thinking of someone changing a tyre in a pink tutu and fairy wings!!
To answer your question though - which I effectively did in the OP - I was thinking along the lines of the hub of a wheel when the tyre was being changed by someone in a pink tutu -
Sorry.
There is no desperate need but it just seems - to me, at least - logical.
Wow. I don't know where to start with that one.
Here are some links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Buses#Scope
These motorways (the M1 being the first) are all based in or around London, as starting points from the capital.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_motorway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M25_motorway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_motorway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_motorway_%28Great_Britain%29
=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatwick_Airport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luton_airport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stansted_airport
=
These railways all start from London. ECML (Kings Cross), WCML (Euston), GWML (Paddington), MML (St. Pancras International).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECML
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Main_Line
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWML
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_Main_Line
Also GEML (Liverpool St.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Eastern_Main_Line
=
Stock exchanges (I forgot Tokyo).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_exchange#Major_stock_exchanges
ETA.
London Underground is by far the biggest in the UK; fourth largest in the world by infrastructure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_underground
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems#List
They can see it any way they like, but the fact is that the M1 exists because London exists, not because Leeds exists.
Geographically not demographically.
Just like the main railway lines connected other places because of London, not the other way around.
Thank you for that. All it tells me is that London Buses are one of the biggest and most comprehensive in the world. Doesn't mean it's any better or worse than anywhere else. Additionally I can't quite see what it has to do with where (or where not) the capital might be. Other than it's in the city that is currently the capital.
The beginning and end of a motorway (or any road for that matter) will surely depend on a person's perception. You see them as starting from London - and maybe the junction numbers reinforce that opinion - but someone travelling to London might well see it the other way round.
Do you think we would have these airports if London wasn't the capital? If so, why? And, if not, why not?
OR, these railway lines all terminate at London!!
Again, would the Stock Exchange be in London were it not the capital?
And just how much bearing has the River Thames had on things?
It wasn't what I intended.
Just wondered what people thought about a central - ish capital city.
(Moscow is that hub in the western part of the map)
The obvious thing would be make Winchester the capital again!!
Fair enough.
The point I'm trying to make is, that in the UK at least, communications and transport links are centred on the capital (that being London) and if you want to relocate the capital to elsewhere in the UK, these things have to be taken into consideration.
Likewise, the major internet traffic in the world runs between London (and northern Europe) with the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_exchange_points_by_size
DS servers are or used to be located at one of the Telehouse places, hosted by LINX.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telehouse_Europe
ETA.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/about/information/a23777/about-us-a-history.html
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/about/information/a23779/about-us-the-technical-setup.html
York was one of cities that were once a capital city.
Colchester
York
Winchester
I think I left two or three more out, but I can't remember which cities those were. My brain is blanking on me. Embarrassing.
This is kinda what I'm asking. Are these things centred on the capital because it is the capital or is it the capital because these things are centred on it?
I'm rather of the opinion that the River Thames was of a significant influence both in terms of trade and, of course, the navy in days gone by.
Was being the operative word. Now London is the centre of things for different reasons.
A lot of countries don't have their biggest main city as the capital, or they have things split between many cities, meaning they have multiple capitals. South Africa, for example, has 3 capitals, Cape Town, Bloemfontein and Pretoria. Johannesburg is the biggest city there and has all the transport links etc, but is not the capital.
Australia's biggest city is Sydney which has all the glitz and Glamour, but sleepy Canberra is the capital. New Zealand has Wellington as the capital, but Auckland is the bigger player. The USA Has tiny Washington DC, but a lot of people think New York is the capital. Canada has Ottawa when Toronto and Vancouver are clearly the biggest draws for business and people. Istanbul is not the capital of Turkey but is still the countries heartbeat. etc etc etc
What I'm getting at is that London could retain everything it currently has even if the capital city status was passed on to, say, Birmingham. It'd be a pretty needless and costly task though and I can't see what, if any benefit it would bring to anyone.
I have always thought that some of the government departments could move out of London to help generate other areas in the country.
Another idea which has been discussed is to allow parliament to travel for a only few weeks of the year. Spend one week in the midlands, another in the NE etc. But I read the logistics of doing such an endeavour would be huge. Which is a shame as I think it would be good for the politicians and the voters.
It's the UK's second city, so the natural choice.
There are far nicer prettier cities in England so why ruin them? Can you imagine what Nottingham would be like if was covered in smog and it had dozens of railway stations, undergrounds, skyscrapers, tourists, bankers and politicians and beer was over £4 a pint.
That was inevitable, and would be the same wherever the capital city was.
With questions like this, I tend to think of it as to 'why change' rather than 'why stay the same.
You said in the OP why you thought London became the capital. The simple fact is, that it 'IS' the capital, so instead of thinking about why it should remain the same way, I tend to think of why should it change ?
What would be the benefit - on any level, of it being somewhere else - now ?
In practical terms, just think of the cost - and what would actually physically have to change and would it matter ?
Take for example, the BBC moving lots of things to Media City UK in Manchester. OK, so get passed all the BBC 'luvvies' having a dicky fit, did, for example, The One Show, change when the studio it was filmed in moved. Indeed, many TV shows, for both ITV and BBC were filmed in both BBC and Granada studios long before the move to Media City UK.
So, if the Capital of the UK was moved to Birmingham, would the Government's 'meeting place' have to physically move ? Would it change if it did - same staff, different set of walls ?!?!?
Back to TV - ITV have moved the Coronation Street set to new studios (in Media City UK). They have rebuilt them so that they are identical, so that even the puddles are the same as when they were filmed at Quay St - surely the same would be done with 'government'.
So, what is the point.
In case it matters, I am a born Southerner, of half Northern parentage, who now lives (by choice and very happily) in the North - yes I do see 'London-centric weighting' on things like news and weather reports, which I never noticed in all the years growing up in the South - and would have vehemently denied, but they do exist. Thereby I am not Anti-London/South (and get very annoyed that some think that London = South), nor Pro-North.
I just see this matter as, it is what it is, it was going to be somewhere and, well, to use an over-quoted cliche, if it ain't broke... in this case, would you 'fix' it ?!?!?!?
(EDIT - sorry if this gets posted twice, either DS or my computer seem to have blipped, so I am posting it again.)
You talk like Nottingham is some kind of nirvana.
Smogs apparently do still occur in modern day London, but I'd like to know where, as having been there over 500 times by now, I've yet to encounter one.