We need to be wary of this line of thinking. This argument is used extensively by those who argue that London and the SE deserve far more resources spent on them because it is they who generate a much higher proportion of the tax raised. But this very conveniently overlooks the fact that many corporate entities declare nationally-derived (or globally-derived) profits from a London HQ address and are taxed accordingly. This concentration of business HQ's in London skews the understanding of distribution of economic activity around the UK.
Also, it is a myth that London has a monopoly on overcrowded public transport. A recent survey published in Rail magazine showed that four of the country's top ten overcrowded scheduled rail services were operated by the Transpennine franchise.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it councils across the country collect tax from businesses in the area then send most? all? to central government. What I was suggesting was that councils send less money to central government (e.g. if a council currently collects say £100m in taxes and sends £80m to central government thereby keeping £20m themselves, changing it so that they only send £50m to central government and keep £50m to spend as they so choose). Surely this way the amount of spending in certain regions would be more or less in line with how big the economy is in that region.
Your second point - I wasn't suggesting that London did have that monopoly. In reality commuter trains across the country are overcrowded. I wouldn't exactly say that it is a myth that London has a monopoly on overcrowded public transport - its more that there are more lines in London and the SE, hence more will naturally feature on "overcrowded rankings".
LHR is a good example of this, where it is clearly not sensible to spend £25bn plus on a runway in the most expensive part of the country. It would be far cheaper to increase capacity in a cheaper part of the country (even LGW is substantially cheaper).
I'm afraid I'm quite particular when it comes to LHR. Yes airports across the country should be given the chance to expand and connect their regions to the rest of the world, but in my opinion, none of them can come close to emulating what Heathrow does. Certainly not on that scale anyway.
I've said it before on various forums but I'll say it again. Germany has their main hub at Frankfurt - which they have expanded with a 4th runway and now a 3rd terminal, and a secondary hub at Munich - where they've just opened a new satellite pier and have plans for a 3rd runway. The national carrier Lufthansa operates an extensive network from both. Why can't the same happen here with Heathrow and Manchester? I don't want to get into a BA/Regions argument as well, but just focus on the main hub and secondary hub model.
Your point about it not being sensible spending £25bn on a runway at LHR - slots at LHR are exchanged for huge sums of money (often 10's of millions of £) - surely that indicates its attractiveness to airlines? The fact is there is already significant spare capacity across the country (as well as at other London airports). If that capacity exists now and the airlines are still spending 10's of millions on slots at Heathrow, how would investing in regional airports change things? I'm not saying airlines don't want to serve the regions - but if an airline wants to serve London, why would the opt for an expanded Manchester or Birmingham over Heathrow (or any other London airport for that matter)?
Rant over - I'll try not to start another one...
