Chris

While the southeast is the driest and almost the warmest, there really isn’t enough of a difference between there and most other places in the UK to make an appreciable difference. It’s hardly like choosing Florida over Rhode Island.

And most people don’t need to be near to the capital just because it’s the capital. Washington DC or Canberra don’t attract vast numbers of people, because those cities exist in capital territories, designed for those administrative functions and little else.

The problem we have in the UK is that since we shifted from an industrial economy to one led by services, especially financial services, the greater part of our economic activity is in the city that has the lead in that area. That is London. I once had a long chat with someone high up in Boots plc who was bemoaning the fact that despite being a Nottingham headquartered company, they had to maintain significant operations in London and ensure the London stores were always the most up to date because the investment analysts were all in London and were notoriously lazy about making research trips outside the city. If you wanted their good opinion, and the best investment at the best rates, you have little choice but to go where the money is.

While I argue that it’s its dominance as a financial centre rather than it being the capital city that gives London such a major advantage, there are things governments can do to decentralise and create centres of activity around which other businesses can accumulate, but the problem is that successive governments have done little or nothing to promote decentralisation, though where it is pushed it’s possible to see what a difference it can make - Media City in Salford would be a good example, as it’s the BBC’s presence there that provides the stability for everything else to grow around it.