London is funding the rest of the UK, and other things we just learned about the nation's taxes

A generic stock image to represent the concept of taxes. Image: Pixabay.

The latest instalment of our weekly series, in which we use the Centre for Cities’ data tools to crunch some of the numbers on Britain’s cities. 

So those nice people at the Centre For Cities have just published a new report crunching the numbers on economy taxes – those relating to labour and property, basically – for 62 British cities, in the years from 2004-05 to 2014-15.

It’s packed full of interesting maps and charts and (spoilers) massively depressing statistics. Here's what we learnt.

In nearly a third of British cities, the tax take has fallen

The national picture on economy taxes is pretty encouraging. In 2004-05, they stood at £283bn; by 2014-15, they’d increased by 12 percent £317bn in 2014-5 (all figures in 2014-15 prices to make sure they're comparable). The decade in between those two stats included the worst recession in decades, so that doesn’t seem like bad going.

Look at individual cities, though, and the news is less good.

Click to expand.

In 20 out of 62 cities featured, the tax take has fallen. And those 20 include some biggies: Birmingham, Glasgow and Leeds.

There's a regional pattern to the figures

Well, two regional differences, really. Here’s a map:

Click to expand.

In an entirely shocking development, in England, the fastest growing tax bases are mostly in the south; the fastest shrinking ones mostly in the north. Up in Scotland, the divide is prosperous Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and shrinking Dundee and Glasgow.

I know, we were surprised too.

Tax per job seems to be falling is most cities

Click to expand.

In other words, an increase in employment is not necessarily leading to an increase in tax take. That might be a recession thing – or it might point to the rise of relatively low value jobs.

Britain is a freak country

Urban theorists like Geoffrey West like to talk about the agglomeration effect: larger cities mean more connections, which means more productivity, which means more growth.

Except, for some reason, in Britain. Over the last 10 years, much of the biggest growth in tax take has come in smaller cities. Larger cities – with the single exception of London – don't make the list:

Click to expand.

The Treasury is increasingly dependent on fewer, more productive cities

Although British cities are contributing almost the same share of taxes to the national pot as they did a decade ago, these tax revenues are being generated by fewer cities.

In 2004/05 the top 10 largest cities generated 66 per cent of all urban economy taxes, in 2014/15 this had risen to 68 per cent.

Which doesn't sound great if you want a resilient economy, but okay. More concerningly:

The Treasury is terrifyingly dependent on London

You know all that silly talk of London going independent to retain its EU membership? And you know the way much of the rest of the country's opinion seems to be "good riddance"?

Well:

In 2004/05, London generated as much economy tax as the next 24 largest cities combined (40 per cent of all economy taxes generated in cities). In 2014/15 the capital created almost as much tax as the next 37 cities (45 per cent of the urban total). This shift is even more staggering when looking specifically at labour taxes.

To make the same point another way: in 2004-05, London generated 25.3 per cent of the national tax take. Which was bad. In 2014-15, it generated 28.6 per cent of the national tax take. Which is worse.

Even the most expansive definitions of London, which cover the entire commuter belt, give the city a metropolitan population of around 13m. It is, at most, 20 per cent of the UK population. It's punching way above its weight

To hammer that home for a moment:

Click to expand.

Or, just in case you’re still not getting it:

There's a lot more in the report. There's even a whole new data tool to play with. This, for example, is an interactive map of percentage change in economy taxes generated in 62 British cities between 2004 and 2014.

You can check the new data tool out here.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @jonnelledge

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.


 
 
 
 

Barnet council has decided a name for its new mainline station. Exciting!

Artist's impression of the new Brent Cross. Image: Hammerson.

I’ve ranted before about the horror of naming stations after the lines that they’re served by (screw you, City Thameslink). So, keeping things in perspective as ever, I’ve been quietly dreading the opening of the proposed new station in north London which has been going by the name of Brent Cross Thameslink.

I’ve been cheered, then, by the news that station wouldn’t be called that at all, but will instead go by the much better name Brent Cross West. It’s hardly the cancellation of Brexit, I’ll grant, but in 2017 I’ll take my relief wherever I can find it.

Some background on this. When the Brent Cross shopping centre opened besides the A406 North Circular Road in 1976, it was only the third large shopping mall to arrive in Britain, and the first in London. (The Elephant & Castle one was earlier, but smaller.) Four decades later, though, it’s decidedly titchy compared to newer, shinier malls such as those thrown up by Westfield – so for some years now, its owners, Hammerson, have wanted to extend the place.

That, through the vagaries of the planning process, got folded into a much bigger regeneration scheme, known as Brent Cross Cricklewood (because, basically, it extends that far). A new bigger shopping centre will be connected, via a green bridge over the A406, to another site to the south. There you’ll find a whole new town centre, 200 more shops, four parks, 4m square feet of offices space and 7,500 homes.

This is all obviously tremendously exciting, if you’re into shops and homes and offices and not into depressing, car-based industrial wastelands, which is what the area largely consists of at the moment.

The Brent Cross site. Image: Google.

One element of the new development is the new station, which’ll sit between Hendon and Cricklewood on the Thameslink route. New stations are almost as exciting as new shops/homes/offices, so on balance I'm pro.

What I’ve not been pro is the name. For a long time, the proposed station has been colloquially referred to as Brent Cross Thameslink, which annoys me for two reasons:

1) Route names make rubbish modifiers because what if the route name changes? And:

2) It’s confusing, because it’s nearly a mile from Brent Cross tube station. West Hampstead Thameslink (euch), by contrast, is right next to West Hampstead tube.

Various other names have been proposed for the station. In one newsletter, it was Brent Cross Parkway; on Wikipedia, it’s currently Brent Cross South, apparently through confusion about the name of the new town centre development.

This week, though, Barnet council quietly confirmed it’d be Brent Cross West:

Whilst the marketing and branding of BXS needs to be developed further, all parties agree that the station name should build upon the Brent Cross identity already established. Given the station is located to the west of Brent Cross, it is considered that the station should be named Brent Cross West. Network Rail have confirmed that this name is acceptable for operational purposes. Consequently, the Committee is asked to approve that the new station be named Brent Cross West.

Where the new station will appear on the map, marked by a silly red arrow. Image: TfL.

That will introduce another irritating anomaly to the map, giving the impression that the existing Brent Cross station is somehow more central than the new one, when in fact they’re either side of the development. And so:

Consideration has also been given as to whether to pursue a name change for the tube station from “Brent Cross” to “Brent Cross East”.

Which would sort of make sense, wouldn’t it? But alas:

However owing to the very high cost of changing maps and signage London-wide this is not currently being pursued.

This is probably for the best. Only a handful of tube stations have been renamed since 1950: the last was Shepherd’s Bush Market, which was until 2008 was simply Shepherd's Bush, despite being quite a long way from the Shepherd's Bush station on the Central line. That, to me, suggests that one of the two Bethnal Green stations might be a more plausible candidate for an early rename.


At any rate: it seems unlikely that TfL will be renaming its Brent Cross station to encourage more people to use the new national rail one any time soon. But at least it won’t be Brent Cross Thameslink.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook