Yes, but not in the south

It's easy to titter at the unfunded promises of candidates in the French presidential election, but the UK has its own trouble politicians.

Cuddly Cameron has been spreading cotton wool again, arguing that the well-being of families and children is now more important than economic competitiveness. Companies must come to terms with their significant social responsibilities, presumably code for protecting employment and gradually making the economy more sclerotic, though at the same time the fork-tongued one says he recognises that a "dynamic" economy is essential, not least "in order to eradicate poverty".

This must set some sort of record for cramming contradictions and wooliness into one speech. One question is, does he think poverty can be eradicated? In other words, is he naive and stupid, or merely hugely cynical?

If the choice is to be between Cameron and Brown, no wonder abstentions are rising.

Mr Cameron is not the only one who affects to favour a dynamic economy. Peter Hain suggested a few days ago that a high proportion of City bonuses should be given to charity. Lo on Friday he ate a large portion of humble pie in a letter to the Financial Times saying that The City is, and must remain, pre-eminent. How we laughed, especially at his hubristic claim that

Indeed, because of this, in Northern Ireland and in Wales I have successfully encouraged global financial companies - especially from from India, China and the US - to invest in the UK's financial sector, creating thousands of high-quality jobs.

The man's self-regard seems unlimited.

This is almost as amusing as the effort of the speak-your-loyalty machine Hazel Blears to recast herself as a champion of middle England in preparation for a tilt at the deputy leadership herself. Brown and Hain, Brown and Blears ... what a ticket either of them would be.

They all represent parts of the UK subsidised by the South.

Londoners on average pay £1,700 more to the Treasury than they receive in public expenditure, while people in Northern Ireland, Wales and the north-east of England get over £2,500 more on average from the exchequer than they contribute.

The total subsidy Londoners paid to the rest of the country in 2004-05 was £13.1bn - the equivalent of the capital running a budget surplus of 8 per cent of economic activity, even higher than Singapore, often regarded as a paragon of public finances.

In contrast, if the north-east was an independent country, it would have had a crippling budget deficit of almost 20 per cent of economic activity in 2004-05, worse than any emerging or advanced market economy. The deficits in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland were also very high at 27 per cent, 21 per cent and 13 per cent respectively.

As the FT comments -

The figures will fuel the debate on the future of public expenditure as the government makes its allocations in the current comprehensive spending review.

They go some way to explaining increasing discontent with Labour in the south in recent local elections and will add fire to the campaigns of southern regions for more public infrastructure money.

Labour is popular in the subsidised regions - but not in the south.