Deyan Sudjic says of the city of London that it is a place without an apparent structure. It would appear that Dujic is suggesting that the city of London does not have an overarching narrative. But maybe no place has an essential narrative, but that places do have self-sustaining, self-propelling logics, that tend to reproduce themselves, albeit differently, throughout history. And maybe the city of London does have an overarching narrative in this sense, a historically dependent and contingent one, a non-essential one. That narrative is one of who has the most money wins, it is one of free markets. It is Margaret Thatcher.
And arguably it it is the city of London, this specially protected political entity, the favoured child, the interests of this city, which have influenced and affected how all the other children get treated, have influenced how the rest of London has developed and evolved, and have influenced the rise or decline of the rest of the British Isles. After all it has long been said about Margaret Thatcher, that she put in place a number of policies, which favoured and boosted the financial sector, at the expense of the manufacturing base in the northern parts of the country. So much so, that when Gordon Brown gave his now infamous speech to the CBI congratulating the financial sector on creating growth, which he rather patronizingly suggested the rest of the country could be inspired by and emulate, most people, who had experienced the decline of manufacturing, were gritting their teeth like a whipping boy.