Quote:
|
Only if you don't include indirect spending such as salaries for the civil service etc. And only if you include the companies based in London which declare profits for the whole country as being from London (ie Marks & Spencer are based in London so their profits would be declared there).
Actually I will need to find where I seen the figures for this, now I think about it it might have been the South East including London, and not just London itself. Can't mind where I seen it though, but I'll see if I can mind.
One thing to bear in mind though. The cost of Portcullis House which is nothing but a glorified office block next to the Houses Of Parliament cost more than the Scottish Parliament. Funnily enough that's not something which is screamed about when subsidy junkies are mentioned...
No idea on the precept thing. Took it from Up My Street.
|
You take the public sector out of most regions and the effect will be far greater.
The areas of the UK that are subsidised are the North, Wales and Nrn Irn. You can't ignore the tax levied on the city.
There is a strong lobby the extend the boundaries of the GLA into the Southeast so it properly reflects the city-region in planning terms. Londons direct economic influence is estimated to extend 80 miles from its core.
But back to the point London weighting - where it still exists - is laughable.