Don't be so sure. We provincials have one vote each, just as Londoners have. We far outnumber them. And public-awareness of the obscene investment disparity is growing. The gap between transport infrastructure spending in London v NE is so extraordinarily large that I'd defy any MP to appear on BBC NE or Tyne-Tees to defend the status quo. In the interests of self-preservation, MP's will have to face up to this issue eventually.
I was talking about reducing the funds going to London, not changing the ratio between London and the rest of the UK. The question here is do people want more investment in the regions, or do they want money to be taken away from London/SE and that money be spent in the regions? You're free to your own opinion, but I shall not be supporting the latter. Any move to equalize the ratio of spending between London and the rest of the UK should come from increasing spending in the rest of the country and not from reducing spending in London.
It should come from pausing new publicly-funded projects in London to allow other regions to play catch-up for a while. There's nothing unfair about that. London has done extremely well at national taxpayer expense for two generations now.
Really? So just because the regions have 'suffered' from a lack of investment, your happy for London & the SE to experience the same whilst you catch up? An eye for an eye makes the world blind remember. The answer is NOT to divert funds away from London to the regions, but to increase funding to the regions from elsewhere (not in the country, but from other funding sources - private perhaps or from a 'Northern Powerhouse Transport Tax': £5 per month per person could raise almost half a billion pounds per year for transport investment across the North).
Let's keep it real. No multi-billion pound project would be funded for the express purpose of improving feed from the NE to Manchester Airport. The notion is ludicrous. However, it is conceivable that a major upgrade of road / rail infrastructure in the NE would deliver many spin-off economic advantages, improved airport access being one of these. But access to MAN would be a very peripheral consideration in any such undertaking - it would scarcely influence an investment decision at all. The project would stand or fall on far more immediate benefits accruing to access within and around the NE region itself.
My question was hypothetical to raise a point, but perhaps I should rephrase it. LHR expansion is a multi billion pound project. Improving access from the NE to LHR is not the primary purpose of that project but it is a part nevertheless. If there were a multi billion pound project centered around Manchester airport, and one of the parts of that project was improved access from the NE to Manchester Airport, would you still expect those NE MP's to oppose it as the money is not being spent in their region? Your logic suggests that MPs should oppose any scheme that doesn't directly benefit their region or doesn't include money being spent in their region - nothing would get approved!
I just want to make clear I'm not a Southerner. I'm not from London, nor have I ever lived there. However, after having visited London, Birmingham & Manchester, it is clear that significantly more spending is required in London than is required elsewhere in the country. I haven't traveled into Manchester at peak times, but I have traveled into Birmingham at peak times. The overcrowding that you see in London is on a completely different scale to that seen in Birmingham - the latter can be solved (for now) by adding a few carriages to each train. Overcrowding in London is so extreme that a few carriages won't make much difference. Maybe I'm wrong but the difference between London and the rest of the country, to me anyway, is that investment in transport in London is needed to keep up with demand, whilst investment in transport across the rest of the country is needed not to keep up with demand, but to help those regions grow. Look at the media. When Crossrail was announced, its primary purpose was stated to be about increasing capacity. When projects in the regions are covered by the media, the emphasis is very much more on how that project will help facilitate growth.
I've often been warned on this forum about the use of statistics for passenger numbers from airports, and I'd urge the same caution with all statistics. Yes, spending per capita is greater in London/SE than the rest of the country, but lets take a different, hypothetical look at things. Lets say for example that Manchester and the NE had the best, most efficient transport system in place, and that system meant spending £750 per capita across the North. Now lets say the London transport system wasn't doing great, was overcrowded and often ran late, and that system meant spending £2000 per capita across London. Would it still be fair for the North to demand more investment and that that investment should be made possible by London sacrificing funds? An extreme example I know, but it is made to demonstrate a point. Yes, transport in the North isn't fantastic and it needs more investment, but its not the only place that needs investing in, and that investment shouldn't be made possible by sacrificing investment elsewhere.
