I've taken a simplistic view. As a southerner I see it less as the north subsidizing the city, as the south and city not sharing more with the North. Same thing I suppose. But the south has for many years been more attractive to business investment,which often requires incentives to go elsewhere. If local workers are no longer willing to accept lower wages, premises are no longer cheaper etc,it requires tax payer funded incentives for them to relocate somewhere they might not otherwise chose.
Also the city generates lot of wealth, much of it dirty money.Greedy snouts at the trough, sharing with no one, not even us southerners, and certainly not paying their fair share of tax into the common fund.
Yes this needs changing.
A government more willing to tax the billionaires and a policy not so much 'get on your bike' as ' Here is a grant to help you manufacture the best bikes in the world '. Yeah right.Good luck with that.
Countryside living with local investment and jobs can be problematic. If a 'silicon valley' type enterprise suitable for a rural location is the only major employer of skilled workers for miles , it can be devastating if it goes bust. As many will. Worse in some ways than a large town losing its coal mines, steel mills etc. And a different attitude to countryside living, with improvements not directly related to new local enterprises is a big ask.
