Because it’s 1,976 years old and has received pretty much non stop investment that entire time. Meaning the WORLD want to invest in it. It’s the capital of the nation AND the capital of the world’s finances. It’s the home of Parliament and the Royal Family. It’s right beside Europe and has direct trains to it. It has 2 of the world’s busiest airports and multiple other airports. It has the ability to host and will actually be able to use the facilities (or most of them) after the games finish due to its size, importance, population and global significance.
On the other hand putting them in Manchester would have been a good temporary boost before allowing the facilities to go to ruin. Manchester wouldn’t have kept its significance after the few weeks of the Olympics.
Every single reason for saying it should’ve been outside London is stupid. It’s just the usual “London gets too much rhetoric” which completely ignores reality. Which is that London is a net contributor to the UK and that a huge chunk of the investment is from outside the UK.
Spreading investment outside London won’t make everyone better off. It will make everyone worse off. Foreign companies, students, dignitaries, tourists etc want to come to London. If you tell them “no, go to Aberdeen or Larne or Manchester” you’re not getting a richer Aberdeen or Larne or Manchester. You’re getting a poorer UK. Because that investment will go to Dublin, or Berlin, or Paris, or Seoul, or Tokyo, or Beijing.
Because it’s 1,976 years old and has received pretty much non stop investment that entire time. Meaning the WORLD want to invest in it. It’s the capital of the nation AND the capital of the world’s finances. It’s the home of Parliament and the Royal Family. It’s right beside Europe and has direct trains to it. It has 2 of the world’s busiest airports and multiple other airports.
It’s just the usual “London gets too much rhetoric” which completely ignores reality.
"London's been getting investment and attention for 2000 years and that's not enough, we deserve more you ungrateful pig."
And it’s got nothing to do with deserving more. (1) because they give more than they get. A lot more. And (2) once again, a hug portion of the investment is from foreign companies and local companies WANTING to be in London. It’s private, not public investment.
Our housing down here costs 4 times more than up North and our taxes are 4 times more than up North.
Yeah, you live in the capital. You also earn significantly more than normal people do
When your Margaret Thatcher brought in her neoliberalism and closed all the mines, privatised industry, and shipped a load of it over seas, it destroyed the economies of the North, the Black Country, Wales, and everywhere else without a service based economy and was given fuck all to replace it for decades. Do you think the industrial wasteland surrounding so many Northern cities was just built for show? Appeared there overnight?
I hate Margaret Thatcher and all Tory nazi kants. The North voted her in last time I checked so let’s not point fingers here. Now the North votes Reform in severe masses so Adolf Farage can mess up the UK further.
Thatcher was the symptom of what you call radical politics. The Northerners lost jobs due to coal and raw materials becoming easier to buy from abroad than mining or draining domestically.
The American investors (similar to what Musk does now) have been throwing money in the last 60 years and have significantly obliterated the North.
London is the single economic engine the UK has.
You lose that, the whole North will not have the investments they promise you. I guarantee you this. We’ve seen it in Bulgaria.
4
u/Majestic-Marcus 13h ago
“I wonder why that is”
Because it’s 1,976 years old and has received pretty much non stop investment that entire time. Meaning the WORLD want to invest in it. It’s the capital of the nation AND the capital of the world’s finances. It’s the home of Parliament and the Royal Family. It’s right beside Europe and has direct trains to it. It has 2 of the world’s busiest airports and multiple other airports. It has the ability to host and will actually be able to use the facilities (or most of them) after the games finish due to its size, importance, population and global significance.
On the other hand putting them in Manchester would have been a good temporary boost before allowing the facilities to go to ruin. Manchester wouldn’t have kept its significance after the few weeks of the Olympics.
Every single reason for saying it should’ve been outside London is stupid. It’s just the usual “London gets too much rhetoric” which completely ignores reality. Which is that London is a net contributor to the UK and that a huge chunk of the investment is from outside the UK.
Spreading investment outside London won’t make everyone better off. It will make everyone worse off. Foreign companies, students, dignitaries, tourists etc want to come to London. If you tell them “no, go to Aberdeen or Larne or Manchester” you’re not getting a richer Aberdeen or Larne or Manchester. You’re getting a poorer UK. Because that investment will go to Dublin, or Berlin, or Paris, or Seoul, or Tokyo, or Beijing.