The way to resolve that is surely not to throw away the bit that's doing well but to have a government that puts in place an environment that encourages the growth of the other areas of the economy.
If only the Government leading us into this brave new world also believed in doing the things you describe. Sadly they do not and see national debt reduction as the number one priority.I don't know this, but I seem to recall reading that we have quite a lot of EU investment in this country comparatively? I'm not sure, is probably the best answer.
However the overall point that you can't grow an economy without investing in it and that's going to require moving into more national debt is pretty much sound. This is why these international institutions exist to lend money out and get over the "not enough money to invest, too small to stand still" problem
It would be good if when we get a government whose priorities are to do this, there will still be funding sources available either from the treasury or from financial institutions that also pay tax to the UK treasury rather than into the coffers of a competitor nation.That requires massive investment and time - entities would rather have offices and do business with other entities that are in the same albeit gridlocked city that has a half decent public transport system than scattered around the country - just look at how the weather - too cold, too hot or too wet, fucks rail travel. Gridlocked motorways and arguments over just one new runway that drag on and on..............
When you break down GDP by industry sector, the "Business and Finance" sector in London which is admittedly bigger than just the Financial Services industry, contributes more to GDP than the next 4 cities combined (their total GDP, not broken into sector). Our economy is unbelievably slanted geographically in comparison to other comparable countries.
Should the taxpayer underwrite losses on taxpayer funded projects managed by the Government they elected in order to stimulate the economy and financial wealth of the taxpayers?
Yes? I mean we could ask the Germans to do it but they might be a bit hesitant.
on Brexit, we lose access to the European Investment Bank which provided £31bn of funding for U.K. infrastructure projects between 2012 to 2016. There must be a case for setting up something in the U.K. to try and fill that hole.If only there was a system for this. Perhaps some sort of person or maybe a collection of them who could give us money that we would invest into infrastructure that would stimulate the economy, leading to greater tax revenues but much more importantly greater consumer spending and we could use some of the proceeds of that growth to give them their initial bit of funding back?
Man what a world that would be.
You might find this interesting. I did.I don't know this, but I seem to recall reading that we have quite a lot of EU investment in this country comparatively? I'm not sure, is probably the best answer.
However the overall point that you can't grow an economy without investing in it and that's going to require moving into more national debt is pretty much sound. This is why these international institutions exist to lend money out and get over the "not enough money to invest, too small to stand still" problem
Obviously not at the moment.If only the Government leading us into this brave new world also believed in doing the things you describe. Sadly they do not and see national debt reduction as the number one priority.
The way to resolve that is surely not to throw away the bit that's doing well but to have a government that puts in place an environment that encourages the growth of the other areas of the economy.
Isn't this connected to the priviliges held by the "city of London"? Priviliges which in truth arguably should be cancelled?
I think the City's status as a financial centre is separate to what WD is getting at here, which is a reference to the comparative ignoring of other regions in favour of the South East when it comes to investment.
I'm not sure what you're referring to.Isn't this connected to the priviliges held by the "city of London"? Priviliges which in truth arguably should be cancelled?
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
In answer to your earlier question - No.
Companies in the City operate under the same tax regime as companies elsewhere.