Author | Lightnews

Rico @swabrautv.bsky.social · 15h

What is this mythical 'investment' you keep talking about? This entire conversation, you've not shown me a single fact, or graph, or any data at all. If London gives every £ it generates above running cost, back to the public purse, to fund other regions, in what way is it being 'invested' in?

1

Rico @swabrautv.bsky.social · 16h

Why on earth would they have done that? Please, tell me. Include facts, as to why that would have made sense. I'm open to learning. London is massive for reasons I've already explained. These things were amplified in 1945 by post war issues, national debt, existing infrastrure, continuity etc.

1

Rico @swabrautv.bsky.social · 16h

London isn't competing with UK cities. It's competing with HK, NY, Singapore, etc. If London was a company, sending all profit to it's parent company, in what way is the parent company investing? You keep saying 'investment', but the facts don't support that. London gives far more than it takes.

Rico @swabrautv.bsky.social · 16h

That's hypothetical. The NW received £40bn+ in funding above what it generated in 2023. And it's the 3rd best economy. Cancelling HS2 was a travesty, but that's on the Tories, not London. The country operates a deficit because the regions aren't solvent. London doesn't 'get' investment, it invests.

1 1

Rico @swabrautv.bsky.social · 17h

So for every £2 you take from London, one would actually evaporate...

2

Rico @swabrautv.bsky.social · 17h

Fair point. Invest in the North West instead and you'd lose 54p.

1

Rico @swabrautv.bsky.social · 17h

I think you've lost track of the point, mate. Below is how it started. I will say, though, privatising rail was a disaster. You mentioned Germany. Not only is their long-distance rail govt owned, they also own Arriva. UK tax £'s flooding out of the country. Don't get me started on utilities...

Rico @swabrautv.bsky.social · 17h

More balanced, and everyone would be poorer. As a %age of what it produces, London gets the lowest amount of public spending. For every £ that you take from London, you lose £1.27 in tax and £3.63 of GDP. Make London less attractive to overseas investment and see what happens to the country.

1

Rico @swabrautv.bsky.social · 17h

This is getting tedious, but I'll explain it again. For every £ of public spending in London, it contributes £1.27 back to the public purse. For every £ spent in the NW, it returns £0.73. If you compare GDP, rather than tax, the ratio becomes £3.63 vs £1.69 for every £ of public spending.

1

Rico @swabrautv.bsky.social · 20h

Thoughts & prayers.

a man in a blue shirt is asking why do bad things happen to good people ?

ALT: a man in a blue shirt is asking why do bad things happen to good people ?

media.tenor.com

Rico @swabrautv.bsky.social · 20h

Port Vale could never be the size of City. There's a reason why the biggest clubs are in the biggest cities. London grew big because of geography. Flat land, excellent trade routes by sea, proximity to Europe, climate and a load of other factors which meant that it, and not Barnsley, is the capital.

1

Rico @swabrautv.bsky.social · 20h

Have you read the rest of the thread? London gets more investment because it generates more money. As a %age, London keeps much less of what it generates than any other region. London & the SE are the only regions that have a surplus. Everywhere else runs a deficit. London funds the rest of England.