Comment by dijit

Comment by dijit 3 days ago

This is demonstrably false. The data shows the exact opposite.

Transport spending in London was £1,313 per capita in 2023/24, compared with just £368 per head in the East Midlands[0] - nearly 4x the investment. Over the decade to 2022/23, if the North had received the same per person transport spending as London, it would have received £140 billion more[1]. The East Midlands got just £355 per person, the lowest of every nation and region[1].

Yes, London generates a fiscal surplus, but that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. London receives the highest investment spending for both economic and non-economic areas, relative to population size[2]. In 2022, infrastructure construction spend in London was £8.8 billion, whilst Scotland came second with £3.6 billion[3].

It's circular logic:

* invest heavily in London

-> infrastructure drives productivity

-> higher productivity generates more tax revenue

-> claim London 'subsidises' other regions

-> use this to justify more London investment.

Infrastructure investment enhances productive potential[4], but all other regions are systematically denied it.

London has returns on investment because it's the only place that actually gets proper investment. You can't starve regions of infrastructure for decades, watch their productivity stagnate, then point to London's tax surplus as proof they are subsidising others, that's fucking stupid.

---

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1134495/transport-spendi...

[1] https://www.ippr.org/media-office/ippr-north-and-ippr-reveal...

[2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06...

[3] https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity...

[4] https://www.bennettschool.cam.ac.uk/blog/what-role-infrastru...

direwolf20 3 days ago

You're describing economies of scale — they inevitably happen. London has high returns not only because of investment but also because it's a huge city and big cities generate good returns. If you built the Elizabeth line in the middle of nowhere, you wouldn't get a return. The return is enabled by the fact it's a big city.

Reply View 0 replies

matt-p 3 days ago

Elizabeth line will pay for itself very very quickly. It's entirely possible that investment in say a tram network in the east midlands will never pay for itself. Left with business cases like that it's not really a shock what the goverment choses. I agree it's unfair and self fulfilling, but this is what life is like, success breeds success and failure, well.

I think north of 62% of elizibeth line spending was spent with companies outside the M25, for example building the trains kept a chunk of Derby in work when the factory would have otherwise closed (more than once!) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cew407745jko

Reply View 0 replies

blibble 3 days ago

> This is demonstrably false. The data shows the exact opposite.

it is not

> Yes, London generates a fiscal surplus

thank you

the only regions of the UK that generate a net return to the treasury are London, the South East and East of England

(the East of England certainly has reasons to be upset, they have naff all infrastructure AND are a net payer)

> You can't starve regions of infrastructure for decades, watch their productivity stagnate, then point to London's tax surplus as proof the system works, that's fucking stupid.

fortunately I didn't claim that

please put the strawman down

Reply View 2 replies

dijit 3 days ago

You're confusing cause and effect.
London's surplus exists because the entire country funded its infrastructure for decades. You've just admitted London got massively more investment - then you point at the returns from that investment as proof London subsidises everyone else. That's absurd.
Where did the £140 billion extra that London received come from? National taxation. Including taxes from the regions that got a fraction of the spending. They funded your infrastructure, then you claim the resulting productivity is you being generous.
You're not subsidising the UK. You're taking credit for returns on investment the entire country paid for, but only London received. That's not generosity, that's just spending other people's money on yourself then acting smug about the results.
The 'net return to the treasury' you're celebrating was built with everyone's taxes concentrated in one place. London isn't the benefactor, it's the beneficiary masquerading as an altruistic donor.

Reply View | 1 reply
- blibble 3 days ago
  
  > You're confusing cause and effect.
  you are arguing against a point I never made
  (and no, I don't live in London, I live in an underfunded region too)
  
  Reply View | 0 replies