John B makes many good points here. So, curmudgeonly as always, I’ll disagree with something. He says:
London isn’t like other cities. It’s better than all the others put together, for a start.
Pish and tush. London’s crap. Here’s why:
1. Women. Whaddya call a good-looking woman in London? An Australian. It’s prodigiously rare to see an attractive woman in London. And they don’t grow on me when I meet them. Helen Fielding put Bridget Jones in London for a reason. London women are obsessed with self and “career” – no intelligent person over the age of 30 has a “career” FFS. Soaps reflect this perfectly. Corrie and Emmerdale have babes a-plenty. The female cast of Eastenders could munt for England.
2. Pubs. Over-crowded with too few seats (a natural result of high rents). London landlords cannot keep beer. And what happened to beer mugs and cockle-sellers?
3. Concert audiences. In London, they think they’re doing the performer a huge favour just by showing up. The sheer variety of fuckwit you get at any London gig is one of the few miracles of nature as yet unexplored by David Attenborough (who of course comes from a truly great city).
4. Roads. Londoners have never understood the purpose of these. Instead, they are used as popular venues for car parks, holes and police roadblocks (though these are, of course, never intended to catch serious criminals).
5. Their stupid pride in fake multiculturalism. Londoners think they’re open to foreign cultures simply because they’ve got a Polish cleaner and have a curry sometimes. For me, though, the amazing thing about London is just how white it is: I don’t remember the last time I saw a turban or sari.
6. Kids. Are worse behaved in London than elsewhere. I don’t mean the chavs – they’re everywhere. Middle-class parents in London have less discipline over their kids than parents in the rest of the country. Go into Waterstone’s in Hampstead on a Saturday afternoon. You’ll soon see Thomas Hamilton’s point.
7. London is a capital city. It cannot, therefore, be admirable – any more than Washington DC can be the best part of the US. Most of central London, in its architecture and armed police, reminds us that the city is founded upon power and oppression. Of course, Liverpool and Bristol were built on the slave trade. But they don’t take pride in advertising the fact, as London does.
8. London has produced remarkably few great people. For centuries, London has had about one-fifth of the English population. It should therefore have produced one-fifth of our greatest citizens. I don’t think it has. One rough gauge is the BBC’s poll of 100 greatest Britons. Excluding monarchs, Londoners make up only 3 of the top 30 places: Bowie, Baden-Powell and Faraday. Sure, there are loads of faults with the poll. But you’d have to go some to get London up to its weight. This is no accident. Power and progess don't mix. London is the centre of one. The rest of Britain produces the other.
On all these counts, London is so rubbish that I'd go so far as to say I prefer Scotland.
Natch, there are some things to be said for London: Arsenal, Hampstead Heath and Regents Park. But I – like all intelligent people in London– am here only because of work. Give me the idiocy of rural life any day.
Leicester is a truly great city? Half-decent, I'll grant you, but 'truly great'? I should know - I'm sitting in it. And 'Fake multiculturalism' doesn't stop at Watford Gap, either, alas.
Posted by: Chris Williams | October 06, 2005 at 04:44 PM
I thought Faraday was from Manchester.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | October 06, 2005 at 08:31 PM
You never see a sari or turban? Where the hell in London are you living? It's got by far the largest non-native population in the UK - try Edgware Road (where I live) and see if you doubt it. You're right about the roads, wrong about the women (though my fiancee is Australian I suppose) and your point about capitals is misguided.
Washington (and Canberra Pretoria etc) were built by Governments. London wasn't, nor was it built by 'the slave trade', but by commerce and industry - a bit more admirable than state money in my opinion
Posted by: Tim | October 06, 2005 at 09:21 PM
On the other hand, there's a big statue in London (to the Machine Gun Corps) with the proud inscription "David hath slain in his thousands but Saul hath slain in his tens of thousands". And nobody seems to mind. London's not been entirely built by governments, but it has been decorated by them.
Posted by: Chris Williams | October 06, 2005 at 11:15 PM
Going back to the original posting, most of which was bang on, but...
Crossrail. The level of consensus about how necessary etc this all is makes me suspicious. The object of Crossrail appears to be to allow stockbrokers in Fulham to get to work in Canary Wharf without using the District Line. And to link Heathrow, Europe's most ludicrous airport, to the City/Canary Wharf. The money wasted on Crossrail could be spent on a far greater range of needed projects.
I'm constantly amazed at official antipathy to cycling. You'd have thought governments would love it. Compared to other forms of transport investment, cycle paths etc are dead cheap, and all the ongoing expenditure (replacing bikes after they've been nicked etc) falls upon the individual.
Posted by: Jonathan Eley | October 07, 2005 at 12:36 PM
Chris Williams:
"Leicester is a truly great city? Half-decent, I'll grant you, but 'truly great'? I should know - I'm sitting in it."
Yup, me too. On all counts.
Posted by: Blimpish | October 07, 2005 at 03:06 PM
"Londoners make up only 3 of the top 30 places"
Exactly the correct proportion. Probably. At least.
How many people who have ever lived in London were born there? Consider that 25% of the current population were born outside the UK and, "In the mid-19th century, half of the people of London had been born outside the city" [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574117_2/London_(England).html] and I would say not many. Accept the half, and that means a tenth of the top 30 in the poll should be Londoners. I think that means three.
Posted by: Matt | October 07, 2005 at 05:14 PM
"Londoners make up only 3 of the top 30 places"
Exactly the correct proportion. Probably. At least.
How many people who have ever lived in London were born there? Consider that 25% of the current population were born outside the UK and, "In the mid-19th century, half of the people of London had been born outside the city" [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574117_2/London_(England).html] and I would say not many. Accept the half, and that means a tenth of the top 30 in the poll should be Londoners. I think that means three.
Posted by: Matt | October 07, 2005 at 05:15 PM
After a lifetime in provincial Britain, London is so much more multicultural etc. My wife is not-British, non-White, and when we moved she was so relieved not to be stared at all the time on the bus/train etc.
As for birdz - well there seems to be plenty around, but I am married, and am certainly not on the sniff so don't know how bad it can get. Advice: go to Newcastle for a weekend to compare. Bigg Market and Quayside.
London pubs are great I think - old pubs are sadly missing or culled in many cities in the UK.
I have lived in Scotland and enjoyed it yes. BBut it is different to London. Totally different.
How does living in London compare to other big international cities such as Paris, NYC, etc?
Posted by: Dr. angry economist | October 11, 2005 at 01:28 PM
Hey alot of the East European Birds that have flocked to London are loads better than the homegrown muck.
Let me take you around Shoreditch and show you these enterprising self-employed females.
Posted by: Rob Read | October 13, 2005 at 06:27 PM
After a lifetime in provincial Britain,
If there's one locution that makes my teeth grate more than any other, it's 'provincial'/'provinces' - centuries of metropolitan snobbery in a word. Certainly never met anyone who claimed to come from 'the provinces' before.
London is so much more multicultural etc. My wife is not-British, non-White, and when we moved she was so relieved not to be stared at all the time on the bus/train etc.
Yes, I'm sure you'd get that a lot here in Manchester.
London pubs are great I think
Now I know you're trolling. (Or things are worse than I thought in the north-east...)
Posted by: Phil | October 18, 2005 at 07:58 AM
So youre a miserable ugly blind undersexed twat who relies on pissed aussies for what little you do get. we get the picture.
Posted by: CharmedImsure | October 28, 2005 at 12:50 PM
I think london is crap - Dublin is 20 times better. London is full of self obsessed nobbers!!!
Posted by: Denise | January 15, 2007 at 02:59 PM
Its a dump, I dont even think the Blitz could make it look worse.
Posted by: candy | May 14, 2007 at 11:48 AM
london is a right old shit hole, as far as im concerned the population is mainly foreign, roughly about 30% british n 70% percent every thing else they wanted multicultural they certainly got it. it is very rare to see a group of young white lads it is either groups of asian lads or blacks look at all the crime in london it is dominantly black youths stabbing and murdering people we need a british version of hitler to sort this dump out so vote for the B.N.P
Posted by: Anthony | October 18, 2008 at 05:11 PM
london is a fucking shithole
Posted by: adam smith | June 29, 2010 at 08:44 PM
i dont think any thing is bad...its your perspective...
Posted by: gold buyers uk | March 25, 2011 at 11:25 AM