Tim Montgomerie’s response to Danny Finkelstein’s column is, as was expected, interesting and challenging. For now, however, let’s focus on just one line:
Emphasis added. One hears this sort of thing quite frequently. Which is fine. But three points: first, over time Barnett is designed to actually reduce differences in spending allocations. It may do so more slowly than some would like but that’s a different argument. Secondly, identifiable government spending in London is almost as high, per capita, as it is in Scotland (roughly 115% of the UK average) and this, self-evidently, does not include vast amounts of unidentified spending, a good deal of which is London-based. Thirdly, and most importantly, the answer to Tim’s complaint lies in letting local government raise a much greater percentage of its revenue itself.Mainstream Conservatism is also more pro-poor because it’s the poorest Britons who suffer most from crime, uncontrolled immigration and the unfair deal that London’s lowest income boroughs get from the Barnet [sic] formula.
Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in