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...

How London became the rest of the world’s startup capital