alt Hacker News"London obviously continues to be heavily subsidised by the rest of the UK"
This is a farcical comment. Were you being sarcastic? The tax revenue from London massively subsidises the rest of the UK. The investment happens in London because you can guarantee it will make a return, and quickly.
Replies
Let me put this another way. If I got given a very well paid civil service job, I would end up paying a lot of tax in return. And if someone paid for my house to be renovated and build the best utility and transport connections, then the value of it would go up.
And if mass media continued to promote my area continually then the value of my home would also go up. I would get given higher wages to cope with the increased cost of living there. We would get more tourists visiting my area, and firms and non-doms would set up there because of the positive image.
Much like London.
The real reason London is rich at all is because it was a trading depot with the continent. It made money from goods leaving England, and entering England. Later on, like Paris, it became wealthy off running an overseas empire, and when that empire vanished it turned to nearer territories.
London has centuries worth of investment from everywhere else based on that. That money has stayed there, and money is spent constantly on infrastructure which helps it make more money. Contrast this with Liverpool, Cardiff or Belfast which suffered decades of decline for various reasons and a fraction of the investment.
If the capital had been moved to Liverpool back at some point in the Middle Ages, then that would have remained a wealthy city instead of becoming a basket case in the eighties. The presence of the civil service and government alone would have kept Merseyside wealthy, and would have made it a huge tourist centre. Bigger than now, and even that was mostly to do with the Beatles.
By the way, the state funded Wembley refit cost more than the construction of the Scottish Parliament. Guess which one got all the negative press?