What numbers are those then? Because none of the numbers he's listed as quoting actually back up his proposition very much at all. There are some fairly obvious questions to ask, and the statistics to answer them would shed great light on the validity of his position. Yet strangely he fails to mention any of them, instead concentrating purely on government expenditure. He presents little argument as to why London should get more, mainly complaining about the amounts everyone else gets.
He sees only self-interest and can't form a convincing argument. Yet somehow he has an expectation that his argument will be accepted on the basis of some authority I seem to be unable to discern. There are far too many people like him in positions of (greater or lesser) power in the UK, all suffering from a major case of Dunning-Kruger.
