Not quite the drivel I expected it to be

But, unfortunately, I still think it's basically drivel. At least Hodders describe it as a polemic rather than an analysis. It's impossible to give a detailed, objective, critique of the book as it takes too much of a scatter gun approach, presenting a large number of facts & statistics, most of which lack detailed context and analysis. (Any statistician will tell you that even a simple 'x%' needs a context and an explanation of methodology and it's limitations before it can convey anything meaningful.)

Herein lies the book's biggest flaw. Each chapter could be a complete book in itself, where the arguments Sam raises could be given a full objective treatment. Instead, we're treated to 'this contributes to inequality between London and the regions', 'this is what Germany/France did', 'if we did that, it would help solve the problem', without seriously considering any counterarguments. He's far too eloquent for me to describe the book as a mere rant, but it amounts to very little more than that.

Maybe I'm being unfair to Sam, but my impression is that the book is born of personal grievances (being looked down upon at university, the exorbitant cost of living in London) onto which he's attached various complaints about the problems associated with the capital. My own history is far more working class than Sam's: comprehensive education in a northern town, university in a metropolitan city, moved to the north-of-London commuter belt, into central London, then back to my home town. In all that, I don't recognise the picture he paints. Yes there are deep, crippling inequalities in society, getting worse by the year, but in my opinion Sam has identified both the wrong cause and the wrong solutions.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!