|
|
|
|
|
|
by barnabee
3703 days ago
|
|
|
Making London (or any city) better to live in is a good idea if it's affordable, as is attracting more people to places that have a relative advantage in attracting investment and creating jobs. The terrorist argument doesn't make much sense - London must already be pretty high up on the list of "attractive" terrorist targets based on all kinds of factors and I can't see how a million or two more (or fewer) people is going to make much difference. On the other hand, there's an excellent argument for creating infrastructure outside London, it would be great to see a much stronger second city (or metropolitan region) - this would be attractive to some businesses that may be put off the capital by cost, relieve pressure on London, and be great for people for a multitude of reasons. Given how cheaply governments can borrow money right now, I don't understand why they're not doing both, or why developed countries in general currently spend so little on infrastructure. |
|
|
The basic problem is that people, by and large, want to live and work in London rather than Manchester (which is I think the only credible competitor to London for mega-city status right now).
Building Crossrail isn't something where you can just sort of pick and choose where to drop it. London transport is horribly overcrowded already. If it doesn't keep up with demand then it's not like everyone will just say, oh well, we'll all just move en-masse to a different city. If that were going to happen it'd have happened already. Instead they'll just keep packing in like sardines and feel miserable.
The UK already borrows huge sums of money. It's only cheap because so many countries have been or are printing money to fund public spending, which means it's not really anywhere near as cheap as it looks.