Regional Government spending as proportion of GDP
Discussion
Fascinating article in today's Telegraph that breaks down government spending by region and analysis what proportion it is of the regions GDP.
In some regions the proportion of state spending is comparable with communist countries during the cold war.
In the North East the proportion is 59% of GDP
Wales 58.6%
and Scotland 52%
By contrast the proportion in London and the South East is 33%.
Full article
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/10/nelec410.xml
In some regions the proportion of state spending is comparable with communist countries during the cold war.
In the North East the proportion is 59% of GDP
Wales 58.6%
and Scotland 52%
By contrast the proportion in London and the South East is 33%.
Full article
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/10/nelec410.xml
JagLover said:
Fascinating article in today's Telegraph that breaks down government spending by region and analysis what proportion it is of the regions GDP.
In some regions the proportion of state spending is comparable with communist countries during the cold war.
In the North East the proportion is 59% of GDP
Wales 58.6%
and Scotland 52%
By contrast the proportion in London and the South East is 33%.
Full article
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/10/nelec410.xml
I suppose it's a form of typical Labour social engineering, but on a big scale.
Just look at a colour voting map of the UK and you will see that the blue bits have the least spent on them, while the red bits, surprise surprise, have the most spent on them.
Add to this the fact that the (usually no-hope) Labour candidates in the blue areas rant on about the lack of spending (by the Conservatives) on certain things, a lack of spending caused largely by the Labour government starving the Conservative counciols of money - well, it's enough to get one a bit p155ed off.
james_j said:
Add to this the fact that the (usually no-hope) Labour candidates in the blue areas rant on about the lack of spending (by the Conservatives) on certain things, a lack of spending caused largely by the Labour government starving the Conservative counciols of money - well, it's enough to get one a bit p155ed off.
Indeed it is interesting to see that the biggest swing to the Tories in the election took place in the surburbs of London.
Those who are paying for the whole system are those receiving the poorest public services.
Yep. The South is being ripped off to pay for Northern public services. The "Hands Off Hampshire" campaign was all about this.
Disgraceful.
Yes I know its "redistribution".
Well I didn't vote for it and I don't want it.
They can all fnurk right off.
>> Edited by Don on Tuesday 10th May 18:27
Disgraceful.
Yes I know its "redistribution".
Well I didn't vote for it and I don't want it.
They can all fnurk right off.
>> Edited by Don on Tuesday 10th May 18:27
JagLover said:
Fascinating article in today's Telegraph that breaks down government spending by region and analysis what proportion it is of the regions GDP.
In some regions the proportion of state spending is comparable with communist countries during the cold war.
In the North East the proportion is 59% of GDP
Wales 58.6%
and Scotland 52%
By contrast the proportion in London and the South East is 33%.
Full article
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/10/nelec410.xml
Jesus, what a load of complete cobblers. Slow news day or something? Let's just stop for one second and consider. Average income in London >> average income in Sunderland. Unemployment rate in London << unemployment in Sunderland. It doesn't exactly take a genius to work out that spending as a proportion of regional GDP is going to be much higher in the latter than the former.
Still, the Torygraph is only the Mail for people who are too embarrassed to buy it, so what can you expect.
deckster said:
Jesus, what a load of complete cobblers. Slow news day or something? Let's just stop for one second and consider. Average income in London >> average income in Sunderland. Unemployment rate in London << unemployment in Sunderland. It doesn't exactly take a genius to work out that spending as a proportion of regional GDP is going to be much higher in the latter than the former.
Still, the Torygraph is only the Mail for people who are too embarrassed to buy it, so what can you expect.
That is indeed a large part of the explanation, what is true (and mentioned in the article) is the deliberate penalisation of Tory controlled councils in local government financing.
Also these figures illustarte an important point-the reason for the high Labour support in the North and Wales, and it's low support in the South.
>> Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 11th May 08:41
I think the biggest part of it is population density. Generally in the South East and particularly in London there are more people per square mile than in the North West for instance. As an example, council tax around Bracknell is much lower than around Blackpool because there are more people to contribute. So although some areas my appear to do better going by GDP, they are may actually paying more per person.
Is developing the regions a bad thing?
Is encouraging investment outside the south bad?
Is the value of taxation only based on what "we get out of it" as individuals?
These are serious questions about the whole nature of the way the UK is administered.
If we are not supportive of the less well off regions, many of which are only slowly recovering from the devastation wrought on them by the closing of traditional industries in the 80s, then how can people claim they are members of a United Kingdom?
Is encouraging investment outside the south bad?
Is the value of taxation only based on what "we get out of it" as individuals?
These are serious questions about the whole nature of the way the UK is administered.
If we are not supportive of the less well off regions, many of which are only slowly recovering from the devastation wrought on them by the closing of traditional industries in the 80s, then how can people claim they are members of a United Kingdom?
Eric Mc said:
Is developing the regions a bad thing?
Is encouraging investment outside the south bad?
Is the value of taxation only based on what "we get out of it" as individuals?
No to all three questions Eric, but...
Despite the London weighting, salaries of public employees are below the average in the South, and above in the North-this is inefficient.
Generous benefits mean people stay where there is no prospect of finding work.
Give business an incentive to collonise the wastelands of the North; i.e. big medium-term tax breaks to help offset the short-term costs of relocation (plus translation services and subsidised washing products).
Given the distances we're talking about are a couple of hundred miles tops, it is daft to think there are any fundamental barriers to relocating large chunks of the service industry out of the South East.
Sure, there is feeble-minded prestige attached to having a London address, and decision-makers get away with awarding themselves bigger salaries if they are based in the capitol (this certainly seems to drive a lot of European banks and investment houses to operate out of London rather than there native countries) ... but eventually that has got to give way to a clear economic incentive.
Given the distances we're talking about are a couple of hundred miles tops, it is daft to think there are any fundamental barriers to relocating large chunks of the service industry out of the South East.
Sure, there is feeble-minded prestige attached to having a London address, and decision-makers get away with awarding themselves bigger salaries if they are based in the capitol (this certainly seems to drive a lot of European banks and investment houses to operate out of London rather than there native countries) ... but eventually that has got to give way to a clear economic incentive.
In a total market driven economy, yes. But that would lead to a totally unbalanced shift of population with excessive demands on the infrastructure of the areas where people want to be. In many ways, this has already happened with the south already overburdened with traffic problems, water supply problems, housing problems etc etc. In order to fix these problems, government money still has to be spent, either in the areas where facilities are already under strain or elsewhere so that the strained areas might be relieved.
Plotloss said:
Fair points one and all Eric but should regions with no employment prospects be propped up?
Given that the size of this country is paltry when compared with many others, it seems ridiculous that one region should be deemed to be so far away from another that homogenisation shouldn't occur naturally. The UK is a limited resource, so it makes sense to me to want to spread our usage out. You would have thought that the high costs and poorer quality of life associated with high population density would encourage people to spread, but clearly the south has a huge pull at present.
To me, the response to a problem is to want to fix it - why can't we get the most out of the whole of the uk? If we equate this to a city slum, the response is to work to regenerate it, not just ignore it and leave it to fester.
Plotloss said:
Should people not migrate to where they can find work?
Or... should not work migrate to where it can find cheaper labour?
Plotloss said:
Homogenising the populous and the money required to fund them across the nation seems limiting to me.
In principle I think it could be beneficial - areas of low prosperity are going to become social and economic drains on the country. In practise, it's not something you can magically manipulate as regional economics and social migration are influenced by many factors outside of our control.
These types of problems are not unique to Britain. The Republic of Ireland has had a "Dublin" problem for almost 200 years. Out of a population of 3.5 million, over 1 million live in and around Dublin.
Italy has had a north south divide for a long time as well.
Both of these countries have tried all sorts of incentive schemes to artificially entice business (and the related workforces) to the economically "less attractive" regions.
Some incentives have been successful and some have not.
Italy has had a north south divide for a long time as well.
Both of these countries have tried all sorts of incentive schemes to artificially entice business (and the related workforces) to the economically "less attractive" regions.
Some incentives have been successful and some have not.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff