open i

When travelling around the countryside in south east England, it always seems that London is in the way. And those travelling elsewhere surely have the same challenge with other conurbationational obstructions. (555 words)

The "outer orbital" M25 motorway which circles London might have been designed to meet this challenge, but it seems always to be choked with traffic from within its ring. And it seems to do little to limit its spread beyond the orbit.

Electing to bite the bullet and travelling through London is twice as bad as a single visit to the capital itself. You have to suffer the return journey tedium of getting in and out on a single trek

In a perfect world the answer would be simply to find somewhere else to put it. The toe of Cornwall or the brow of the Western Isles of Scotland immediately come to mind as sufficiently remote to minimize the obstruction for most people as they go about their business.

But not the butt of Norfolk, please. It is the last thing we need. And this is where the challenge lies. The chore of hosting London would be less popular in the countryside than a nuclear power station to be manned by asylum seekers.

It is, of course, a problem that has been around for a couple of thousand years. The Romans, no doubt, were limited to the site where they got off their boats because nobody in the surrounding countryside, with astute foresight, want to participate in what they were planning.

It is tempting to conclude that, as the challenge is two thousand years old, we should continue to live with it, like the traffic congestion outside the church on a Sunday morning. There are, however, good reasons to address the problem at this time.

In the first place the excuse for people to live in close quarters was to facilitate business. The advent of computer technology and electronic communication has knocked that one on the head. That the people of London continue to huddle together the way they do, is surely indicative of their reluctance to move with the times.

An incentive to disperse would surely be positive as it would encourage Londoners to embrace modern technology and with that to become more competitive in the international marketplace. Further the drain on the economy in supporting the outdated concept of London, would be eliminated.

It is also evident that Londoners have, by and large, not been diligent in investing in the infrastructure of their city, and hence it is largely depreciated out. Indeed those parts that have antique, aesthetic or historic, as opposed to functional, value could surely be sold to good advantage to help finance the dispersal.

In a social context there would also be dividends. London seems to attract more than it fair share of those who seem to have little apparent purpose in life. The squalor resulting from their congregating together is something that society seems to be increasingly ineffective in addressing. The natural dispersal of these people would provide them with fresh opportunities and purpose in communities that have the vision and drive.

And this leaves the challenge of the congregation of politicians who take refuge in the centre of London. Yes, perhaps London should be left as it is.

January 16, 2003