Talk:Birmingham/Archive 9

message: On a totally different note, there'll be a WikiMeetup in Birmingham in January, which some editors on this page might be interested in. There's the matter of trying to avoid an overly noisy bar, ie one with a big screen showing football, so Brummie residents "on the ground" would be helpful.. Cormaggio @ 21:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a million and one places, but 'quiet' and (obviously) near the train station makes me think of Raphael's, by the Central Library.  It's also quite light and airy, which is good as the chances of nutters at meetups are quite high, so it'd be easy to get away. There's a Wetherspoon's opposite (slightly cheaper drinks), but Raphael's is always quiet (thanks to that very same Wetherspoons), and they don't play music.  Plus there's a really fit barmaid, and a McDonald's nearby. Proto t c 11:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meetup 

message: Back to population :-) I'm a little confused - are the metropolitan area of Birmingham and the West Midlands conurbation different delineations? It certainly seems so from the two different population figures quoted in this article's opening paragraphs. New 2004 estimates have been released and I don't know which figure(s) to change. Cormaggio @ 17:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - Coventry is part of the West Midlands but can't be considered part of the Birmingham conurbation - drive along the M6 and you'll see why! :-) Matthew 21:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify Matthew's comments. Coventry is part of the West Midlands (county), but is physically separate from the West Midlands conurbation. This includes pretty much the whole of the metropolitan boroughs of Birmingham, Sandwell, Dudley, Walsall and Wolverhampton, the urban half of the metropolitan borough of Solihull (which has most of its population), plus parts of the neighbouring boroughs of North Warwickshire (Coleshill and Water Orton) and Bromsgrove (Hagley). This is as per the source I quote below, although how you define an urban area is open to some debate and I'd suggest many would consider the area around Cannock to be as good as part of the same conurbation. The figure quoted in the article for the conurbation is from the article Largest urban areas of the European Union which quotes National Statistics figures here as a source. (Interestingly enough the figure in the article is 2,275,000 in 2005, the source quotes a figure for 2001 of 2,284,093. I'm unsure where the 2005 figure comes from. The article also quotes a Europe-wide source at the University of Avignon but this source shows the page for the UK as a work in progress and gives no data). The figures you have new estimates for are those for the county so you should change the second figure in the article. IMO, there is actually no good reason to quote the population figures for the county in an article on Birmingham, whereas those for the urban area have some relevancy. I would remove the county figures but someone would only put them back again and there are more useful ways to spend my time... Valiantis 18:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining an area and population 

message: Does anybody have a citation for the claim that Birmingham is Europe's second-largest insurance market?  My father works in insurance and he's quite sceptical of that assertion.  Matthew 21:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be where this was taken from originally - Locate Birmingham which includes the very words. I'm not sure this is a wholly unbiased source however. A linked page on the same site states that over 100,000 people work in the financial services industry in B'ham and this fact is sourced back to  an (apparently) independent report. This government site clearly states Birmingham is Britain's second largest centre for financial services (and as London is Europe's largest then I guess the claim is not yet disproved). The UK is apparently the largest insurance market in Europe, so again the claim is not disproved. It depends, partly, on what they mean by Birmingham, what they mean by Europe, and what they mean by insurance market :) Valiantis 19:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's quite happy to buy into all of that, other than that Birmingham is Europe's second-largest insurance market - especially given London's prominence in such matters.  He believes it far more likely to be somewhere in Switzerland or Germany. Matthew 20:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would guess it is biased rubbish, like much of this article. London is the biggest, probably followed by Zurich and then Frankfurt. Silly really having it on this page. I doubt from my knowledge of the business life of Birmingham if it is even second in the UK in this sector; Edinburgh and Manchester both have much bigger financial sectors than Birmingham and this will be reflected in insurance. MarkThomas 11:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a point of interest, please can you elaborate on the size Manchester's financial services sector?  I ask because I don't really have a clue what's there!  That Edinburgh's is sizeable is pretty obvious because of the banks and insurance companies headquartered there, but I can't think of anything equivalent that would swell Manchester's financial services sector, and given my anecdotal knowledge that Manchester's would be larger than Birmingham's is a bit of a surprise.  I work for one of the Big 4 accountancy firms, for instance, and our Birmingham presence is notably bigger than our Manchester presence.  From having spoken with other accountants in and outside the area I'm fairly certain the same applies for the other three Big 4 firms.  Plus there are quite a few offshoots from London banks, brokers, insurers, and so on in Birmingham too - so while there aren't any major headquarters, the financial sector's still a major part of the city's economy. Matthew 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Corrected this now. Not sure if even the more moderate statement I have put in really works; a simple Yellow pages check reveals absolutely no headquarters of notable insurance companies in Birmingham. MarkThomas 12:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the revision works just fine - just because there are no headquarters doesn't mean that there aren't any insurers present.  As an easy-to-find example, there's a large Direct Line office beside Snow Hill Station, and there must surely be plenty of companies that aren't household names! :-) Matthew 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose that it partly depends on what we're discussing; the Big 4 are different beasts to insurance and if it's true that Birmingham is a particular centre of accounting firms, then let's put that in? Also I have long heard that it is the second city for property firms outside London, and I will look for evidence on this point. However, the particular point I was correcting was the "second in Europe" assertion, which was clearly nonsense. On the Direct Line point, a quick check on their corporate website 1 shows none of their main addresses in Birmingham; they have lots of ordinary business offices though in all the major cities, but I believe the one you are thinking about is a call centre; call centres whilst offering valuable low-paid employment are not what I think many people would consider evidence of a leading role in the market. Most I think would look at things like HQ locations, aggregations of big name company offices, etc. Note that Direct Line's national HQ is in Croydon and it's main subsidiaries are HQ'ed in Glasgow. MarkThomas 19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insurance Market 

message: Is there any evidence for this? It seems very unlikely.86.6.110.247 10:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that Birmingham is the world's biggest manufacturer of buttons =D Even that's being taken over by China though... Erebus555 10:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed - though physical exports I could perhaps agree with. However, without a supporting citation I think that the claim should be removed from the article. Any offers of evidence? Matthew 11:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure this is not true and seeking further sources at the moment such as govt. statistics. I recall reading for example that just three companies, Rolls Royce Aerospace, British Aerospace and Glaxo Wellcome between them account for 41% of UK exports, and neither of them have anything much to do with Brum. MarkThomas 11:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I've corrected this following checks on the official sources; the correct figure for the whole of the West Midlands is 7.1%, don't know what it is for Birmingham city area but is obviously less. MarkThomas 12:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Over a quarter of the UK's exports originate around the Birmingham area" 

message: This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because the article does not give full information on aspects compared to other large city articles.
I readded it as your is a invalid reason, Please explain better, like what info is missing. also please add in the dispute section of GAs also. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article removed from [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]

message: I can find no sources which say that Limassol, Cyprus is a partner city of Birmingham. Can anyone shed any light onto why it was added? - Erebus555 13:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limassol - partner city? 

message: I feel that this section is too listed. Could this be editted into paragraphs and possibly sub-headings such as retail, historical, cultural and miscelaneous etc? Other city articles are also doing the same to their sections which have lists in them by breaking them into paragraphs. The list we have is extensive and takes up a lot of room.
Also, I feel we could begin a section on the Birmingham Coat of Arms as there is significant information on it in the article for a summarised section to be added possibly in the politics heading.
The same applies to Religion in Birmingham which would make a sizable and detailed section on the Birmingham page.
Expansion to the Geography section is greatly needed with references as well of course. This will also mean extensive information on the River Rea and its threats to flood in the Digbeth/ Deritend which has affected planning applications for developments such as Digbeth Coach Station. Information on other tornadoes including the 1930s tornado as well as some more information of the last two tornadoes, with the first being the most damaging. Images of the impact and images of other areas of geographical importance would also be greatly appreciated and enhance this section further. Also information on park areas around the city as well as the green belt by the River Cole could help this section alot. Overall, this section needs a lot of expansion work and maybe this article could become a featured article. - Erebus555 14:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This link will be helpful in the expansion of the geographical section: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=22959 - Erebus555 14:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible to do's. 

message: ˈbɜ:mɪŋˌhæm (as at present - sounds rather like the American place to me) or ˈbɜ:mɪŋˌəm (which sounds more like how most educated British people would pronounce the English city)? 82.36.26.229
:Wouldn't educated British people also pronounce the 'g'?  (Apologies if I've misunderstood this phoenetic spelling - it's not the easiest of things to fathom without hearing someone prounce the components.)  But agreed that nobody British and educated - or uneducated, come to that - would pronounce the 'h'. Matthew 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IPA character ŋ represents the 'ng' sound on English. I would however agree that the 'h' is not sounded in any British accent I've heard, and the pronuncation suggested by above by 82.36.26.229 seems the correct RP pronunciation. --Safalra 10:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't use original research so you'd have to find a source for this, but I am from Birmingham, and I speak RP English, and I always pronounce the h. Ammi 18:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RP pronunciation of Birmingham 

message: As the result of someone's recent edit, I notice that the primary units of distance in this article are kilometers, not miles.  Is this normal for UK articles?  Given that the article is of a UK focus, should miles be the primary units instead?  I had a quick look at the Wikipedia style guide but couldn't find anything concrete.  Does anyone know the answer? Matthew 13:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you have done is fine and I have no objections to it. If you changed kilometers to kilometres on an American city article then that is the problem. I found this out after changing meters to metres on American skyscraper articles using AWB and ended up getting blocked for it.--Erebus555 15:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not just suggesting a change from 'kilometers' to 'kilometres', but also a change from, for instance, '160 kilometres (100 miles)' to '100 miles (160 kilometres), as the primary unit of distance in the UK is miles and not kilometres. Matthew 15:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh sorry, I skimmed your post quickly obviously misreading it. This maybe more controversial. Maybe something should be raised with other UK Wikipedians to decide upon this and put it into the MoS. - Erebus555 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - I've raised this question at Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians%27_notice_board Matthew 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Units of measure

message: When was this decided and who decided this? Also, whoever did this hasn't moved the talk page! Not too happy about it being moved and if this has been moved without a decision then I think we should make a decision to move it back or not. - Erebus555 15:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do it using a tool created by User:Lupin but I still think we should get a wider view before we make any moves as this could prove controversial still. - Erebus555 17:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should this then be listed under WP:RM? Simply south 17:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but I consider this more as a revert than a move. What do you other guys think? - Erebus555 17:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've reverted the sloppy copy-and-paste move. It should not have been moved at all, by any method. The move caused a huge number of inbound links to go to a disambig page. Also, xxx, England was the wrong form for places in England that require disambig. It would have been (should a move have been warranted) Birmingham, West Midlands. MRSC 18:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birmingham moved to Birmingham, England. 

message: Some headings on the article need to be removed or merged to shorten the table of contents. I have already done this to the Transport section but other section such as the Culture and Arts section are proving difficult. How can we do this and therefore turn Birmingham into a featured article? - Erebus555 12:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about putting the subsection which are under Culture: Film, newspapers, television and radio under one big sub section called Media? Comments? - Erebus555 16:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings on article 

message: I think the article should be moved to Birmingham, West Midlands. Birmingham could serve as an effective disambiguation page, and having the UK city located at Birmingham seems to be sort of unfair (at least to me), when you take into account the city in Alabama, which is quite large and notable as well. I moved everything around a bit ago, but it was reverted as something that might be controversial. I had no intention of inciting anything, but since it might be taken that way, what is everyone else's opinion? Voretus the Benevolent 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is fine as it is with Birmingham, England being the topic of this page, but with dab links to Birmingham, Alabama and other Birminghams. --Portnadler 17:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I've moved this here because I don't understand much of it and because there are no citations at all for any of this stuff.
:The Birmingham transport is basically a transport hub other than the 12 hour bus service. In the 2005 elections the political parties mentioned that they would construct an underground metro system (light rail system) with upto 12 different lines running through the West Midlands. However this has not been heard of since then. If built this would include over 300 stations all around the Midlands including Tamworth, Wolverhampton, Kidderminster, Solihull, Walsall, Sutton Coldfield, Redditch, Bickenhill, Cannock, Bromsgrove, Dudley, Wombourne, Halesowen, Sandwell, Stratford, Dorridge, Coleshill, Birmingham international airport and Drayton Manor theme park. 98% of these stations would need to be underground to decrease the traffic on roads. It would run 24 hours. This would have to reopen the Curzon street railway station which would make the Eastside a more frequently visited place and a hub for most of the trains coming in to Birmingham city centre along 30 other new stations that would have to be built in order for the transport system to be easy accessible in the city centre. The lowest station would have to be around 50 metres deep in to the city centre and allowing people with disabilities to go there without any help.
If anybody knows where this came from and what the first sentence is supposed to be saying, please clean up and drop back into the article! Matthew 19:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from the Transport section of the main article

message: I, and I think most Americans don't think of Birmingham, England when we hear "Birmingham". The most common usage in the US is Brimingham, Alabama. I think that "Birmingham" should be a disambiguation page instead. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 04:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a clear link to Birmingham AL at the top of the page, so I don't see how anyone should have trouble finding there way to that article. G-Man * 20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Portnadler. Birmingham, England is much larger than Birmingham, Alabama, and so should be the primary meaning. 'Birmingham' should therefore be about the city in England, not a disambiguation. Atomic1609 22:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that Birmingham in England is clearly the most important Birmingham. Gem 23:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: Suggest the page has an extra section about waste management and recycling in the city. Snowman 17:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This would be a good section and Birmingham.gov.uk has many pages which could help. However, there are enough sections as it is and I think we need to find a better place to put it than a section - Erebus555 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waste Management 

message: What's going on with the figures between these dates? Matthew 20:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have searched lots of websites and none of them contain these dates. One website, which I believe maybe there as a source, notes that the records were destroyed for this period. I have continued searched to get these two but I have discovered nothing. - Erebus555 20:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about going old school and going to the library? :-)  Surely this information can't have been in one place only! Matthew 00:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1912-1967 Census Figures 

message: The city website has a vested interest in promoting a positive image of Birmingham and may be a POV source.  An effort should be made to introduce better sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DarwinPeacock (talk • contribs) 11:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I went through the article sourcing statements, I did look at the websites I was adding in the reference tags. I am sure that 90% of what I added is factual and NPOV. I understand how the council website can try to present a positive image for those looking into Birmingham but at the same time it is providing factual information. It is difficult finding other sources because the majority that will provide information on these detailed points are on websites which are providing tourist information for Birmingham. - Erebus555 13:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many references to Birmingham.gov.uk 

message: As I have said earliar, I believe there are too many headings in the Culture and Atrs in Birmingham section and some sections need to be merged. This comes as I have recently read the guidelines for featured article status and one of these was that the table of contents must not be long. When comparing the table of contents to other articles, it is probably the largest I have seen. If this was cut down, and I already have commenced this with the transport section, then we could be well on our way to getting Birmingham featured article status.
I believe that two sections need to be created to merge the majority of the sections under Culture and Arts.
The Music section will merge together the Popular Music and Classical Music sections together. The Media section will merge Radio, Television, Newspapers and Film.
I am undecided over the Literature and subsection of Libraries.
Are there any queries or suggestions? - Erebus555 19:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a split by the way the culture and art is appreciated?  Something like reading, seeing, and hearing? Matthew 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed cut down of headings in Culture and Arts in Birmingham 

message: I'm considering putting in a request for WikiProject Birmingham however I don't want to go this alone. I see there are some other contributors to many other Birmingham articles so I just wanted to see who out of these would be willing to participate.
The Birmingham category is very big and detailed and I think the scope of the topic is broad enough for a WikiProject. There are articles on everything and everyone has done a sterling job on them but the beauty of the project is that we can maintain these better and improve upon them. 
So please say here if you would participate in this Wikiproject, if created. If you want more information on WikiProjects yourself, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject. Thanks! - Erebus555 17:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go on, then - why not? Matthew 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better under the title WikiProject West Midlands. Simply south 21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - this would give a much greater scope, and it would be more constructive too as the non-Birmingham parts of the West Midlands generally have fewer articles and of less-polished quality. Matthew 21:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK then, I will put in a request for Wikiproject West Midlands either today or tomorrow depending what's happening. - Erebus555 16:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject:Birmingham, is the time right? 

message: This article  suggests that this is no longer true - a BBC poll suggests that nearly half of the population think Manchester is now England's second city (Scots cities are usually ignored higher up the list - if Manchester is England's second city, it would be assumed to be the UK's), compared to only 40% of people who think that Birmingham is. The only age group who consider Birmingham as "more important" is 65s and over. Therefore I will remove this sentence from the introductory section. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 14:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just beaten you to it!  I've changed the 'generally considered' to 'considered by some'.  Opinion polls (especially those that don't detail their methodology, like this most recent one) are by no means definitive and 'a bubble doesn't mean a boil', but with this and the 2002 poll there's certainly good indication that the question of second city is becoming closer.  I've implied earlier today on Talk:United_Kingdom that the people responsible for marketing Manchester and Manchester's council are doing a far better job at raising awareness of the place than their Birmingham equivalents, and in the eyes of the wider population at least this seems to be being listened to! That said, find me a reputable, non-partisan media source that uses 'second city' in a UK context to describe anywhere other than Birmingham. Matthew 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the way the second city status is decided is now completely different to how it was done back in the past. It used to be done officially but now it is all down to public decision. Back when Birmingham was 'officially' declared second city, it was all down to the population of the city. Now so many other factors are being introduced such as culture, arts, media, sport and even the buildings it has. I'm more aware of the buildings side of things as I regularly take part in such discussion on internet forums and the amount of times such an issue is raised, buildings are quick to be introduced. As a result, this poll proves nothing. There is only a gap of 8% between the two and if a wider poll was carried out, that could change. No government or council website can prove that either Manchester or Birmingham is the second city. - Erebus555 15:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No dissent from me, though I do think that the newer measure is better, albeit far harder to quantify or define because of its more holistic nature. Matthew 15:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I totally agree that it would be impossible to definitively state that Manchester has usurped Birmingham's position, I just thought that it can no longer be "generally considered" to be the second city any more. I have to admit being biased towards Manchester, however, and this latest report did fill me with a little bit of glee! Besides which, if there is no longer (and I didn't know there ever was, excuse my ignorance) an "official" second city status, it is obviously extremely difficult to assign this title to any particular city, and define all of the criteria by which it is judged. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 16:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The article already says that, but also mentions that Birmingham is widely considered to be the second city. This should be acceptable by all, I'd have thought. Matthew 16:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed about the "largest" being Birmingham (although it's very, very close on conurbia comparisons, so close that it is within error margins) but isn't that the problem though Matthew - that it isn't "widely considered" to be "second city" (whatever exactly second city means). I grew up in the North of England and I think everyone there just assumed Manchester was second city. I was very surprised that people in Birmingham thought differently. I worked a long time in local government in London, and pretty much everyone I discussed it with there thought it was Manchester - this view appears to be shared in central government. I personally believe that the "second city is Birmingham" view is mainly a West Mids phenomenon although granted that on population grounds it is (narrowly) true. MarkThomas 17:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh - I can tell a similar story, but from the other side of the fence, having been born in the East Midlands and grown up in Tyne & Wear and Northamptonshire, and being at university in Yorkshire; and at the same time seeing all media references to 'second city' being descriptions of Birmingham.  So when there was the 2002 poll after the Commonwealth Games I was understandably taken aback by something I'd previously attributed to particularly parochial Mancunians.  Naturally, the current government courts Manchester because it's a Labour heartland; Birmingham is much more politically diverse, especially at a local level.  It will be very interesting to see what happens come a different ruling party (be that by general election or Scottish seccession - either way I expect the current government to be shafted)! ;-) Matthew 17:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting to hear about it from another perspective. Didn't it always used to be the case supposedly that the government focused politically on the West Midlands because it was a key battleground in the elections with many marginals? I believe this was stated on TV coverage of at least the last ten general elections and probably further back. I actually don't think it's anything to do with current governments - it's a long running cultural belief especially I think in London. When business people or government officials in London think where to have a "second office" Manchester usually is the first thought. I'm not saying they are right to think that way, just observing. Personally I have to say I think central Manchester is a bit of a dump compared to central Birmingham, but each have their good and bad points. MarkThomas 17:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but there's certainly a body of feeling locally that the current government has something against Birmingham and the rest of the West Midlands county - a good example being the decision to locate the new Wembley in London rather than back Birmingham's bid, which seemed to have more popular support.  (Personally I'd have thought somewhere just off the M1, slightly north of Northampton, would be a decent central location for the English national stadium.  This is because the geographic centre of the UK's population is, I understand, somewhere around Stoke-on-Trent and gradually slipping south east - so shift it east and south a bit to account for the removal of the non-English countries.)  Matthew 17:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem that way, with the Millennium Dome and that was the biggest flop ever. As you said it would have made more sense for the National Stadium to be located centrally. --86.140.8.93 09:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Such things like this are nothing new. Such claims were raised a long time ago and there is a sense that the government are favouring Manchester and the generally northwest area over the Midlands. There are so many points that could be made, even the BBC decision to move to Salford is believed to be a politically spurred move. Transport in Birmingham is the main problem. Birmingham has been shafted so many times. New Street Station is one example as the government have left it in the dark for years and now that people such as Richard Branson are calling for change, they are finally waking up - only problem is, they are only proposing a cosmetic change to the station (obviously to reduce costs). Next is the Midland Metro, Birmingham is being ignored over and over again by the government. Birmingham is probably the biggest city in Western Europe to not have a significant Metro system. I personally believe in this anti-Birmingham conspiracy. - Erebus555 13:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: One could consider the amusing mental map of a North Londoner as an example of how different people visualise Britain. I don't think personally it's a clear-cut case of London favouring the North-West or some such. I do think there is a cultural bias against the West Midlands in Britain, along with other similar ones against for example the Welsh. It's partly denegration of the Brummie as having a poor accent, working-class and stupid. This was admirably well discussed on Radio WM recently by Carl Chinn who probed the history of the accent and it's role in Britain. I believe he thinks the roots of this attitude go back to before the industrial revolution and include catholic/protestant bitterness and even inter-regional feuds from Anglo-Saxon times. So it's not something that will shift in a hurry! My general impression of the "London view" is that Birmingham (and the Midlands as a whole) is almost invisible. It's not that they are down on it, just unaware. They have heard of Manchester and Scotland. MarkThomas 15:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being ignored is as bad as being disfavoured, if not worse.  With regard to the accent, it would help if when an accent was on television it wasn't some overblown stereotype, as Benny from Crossroads was, but was more like most people actually speak.  Additionally, there's a study out there somewhere that indicates that there is some UK-based snobbery at play, because foreigners who aren't aware of the connotations tend to quite like the Birmingham accent.  Anyway, from the above I surmise that Midlanders have either got to incessantly harp on about how fantastic the place is, so much so that everyone else starts to believe it, or threaten to declare independence! :-)  I'm for the latter - it would be interesting to see how the north and south managed with a whole new country separating them by land. ;-) Matthew 17:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There would have to be a connecting Euro-tunnel, "trans-Brummie-link" or some such. I presume the new country would be called Mercal or Brummo or something similar? Would it be a republic? If so, I propose Ed Doolan as first president. Never mind that he's Australian. MarkThomas 18:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercia would be the natural name for such a country, and the capital would best be at Tamworth! Matthew 18:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You might get UDI from Nottingham. Plus the tank barriers snaking across country would cause traffic problems on the A417. And god only know what would happen to Oxford. MarkThomas 18:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plebiscite! :-) Matthew 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "and is generally considered to be the United Kingdom's second city."