I was just watching Politics London on the Beeb. To be honest I’d just had a much needed shower, so my glasses were still off and it didn’t have my full attention, but nonetheless one thing stuck in my ear. One of the politicians on the programme was saying how London is effectively the financial powerhouse of the country, and as such should get more money devolved to it to use how the Mayor chooses. It could then use it to fund all sorts of new infrastructure projects. I must admit that struck me as fairly bizarre: the contribution the capital makes to the UK economy is obviously beyond parallel, not just through tourism but also the financial sector and all kinds of things. But to argue that London isn’t getting it’s fair dues really takes the biscuit: I only have to take a short trundle out of my flat to come across all kinds of lavish, expensive building projects. More to the point, just four years ago the Elisabeth Line opened, the biggest, most expensive infrastructure project in Europe.

Contrast that with the neglect I see being reported from places outside of the capital, especially in the North-West of the country, and it really seems like the guy was taking the piss. Now, I haven’t personally been there in some time, but the reports of degradation and neglect I see coming from places like Stoke on Trent really are becoming alarming. Empty shops are being left to rot; high streets are barren and deserted. There is no transport infrastructure to speak of. In reality, London is still getting the lion’s share of investment, and the notion of levelling up is looking more and more like a perverse joke. Thus for any politician to moan that London doesn’t get enough money really strikes me as a piss-take.