The Centre for London analysis describes the impact of London-plus tourism, where London is the gateway to visitors the benefits spread far beyond.
Investigators discovered 71% of first-time stay visitors to the UK came to the city.
This London-plus tourism calculates to contribute more than £640m in spending a year, driven by the fact that these visitors spend between 24% and 64% more nights in the UK than those who visit one location, the report said.
Indeed, in 2019 before the Covid-19 pandemic, London visited nearly 22 million tourists – around 63% of the total number visited England, and more than 53% of those visiting the UK.
Together, they paid about £16bn in money, accounting for 55% of tourism spending in the UK.
Their spending supported one in seven of all jobs in London, 700,000 of them, and nearly 12% of the city’s economic output, researchers.
The information also saw London’s skills and artistic attractions were a major attraction for domestic and international visitors.
However, this is at risk, due to the recently announced cuts to Arts Council grants, which have increased suspicions about the future of institutions like the English National Opera. Under the plans, £24m of annual funds divert outside the capital.
Researchers also think many Londoners are unable to access the city’s wealth of cultural venues that, amounts to the public budget would make them less accessible still, particularly to low-income families.
According to the report, the capital kickstarts innovations in public transport at contactless cost, helping to create London essential to the UK’s productivity and creativity.
And the report said Transport for London had entered into a private-sector partnership that allowed other cities to adapt its systems for their network.
Former prime minister Boris Johnson made leveling up a key slogan of his premiership, although there was little consensus on what it meant.
With the future leveling up unclear because of the recent political chaos, the Centre for London argues the strategy should focus on increasing overall investment spending, not cutting investment in London.
Claire Harding, research director, said leveling up could help everyone in the UK, but only if done properly. It must not see as an opportunity to create divisions between places or simply reduce London’s funding, which is not a strategy that the public wants and would only threaten the economy.
London’s assistance has ever been vital to the UK, going from a hub of world-class education, research, and arts, to a place of pride representing the country on the global stage. We hope this report will convince policymakers to continue making cases for the city.
And players in the focus groups did enjoy London’s international reputation and its importance for tourism. The Centre for London analysis describes the impact of London-plus tourism, where London is the gateway to a visitor, the benefits spread far beyond.
Indeed, in 2019 before the Covid-19 pandemic, London was visited by about 22 million tourists around 63% of the total numeral who visited England and 53% of those who visited the UK. Image sources, London’s art, and cultural attractions found a major draw for both domestic and international visitors.
Tighter credit requirements have led to general warnings of a housing market collapse — particularly in the UK. Yet limited supply should keep prices supported even as activity declines, and positive implications for home builders and banks.
House building remains woefully below the Government ambition of 300,000 new homes per year, with the supply of just 216,000 in 2020/21 on Covid lockdowns and supply-chain disruption. A bounce-around is doubtful as long as credit remains tight and the outlook stays uncertain. Which, counter-intuitively, keep house costs supported into next year. The falling mortgage approvals rate bank and building societies authorized 58,997 home loans in October, the fewest since June 2020 and down from 65,967 in September seen in the chart by Liza Tetley — seems to back up the bearish argument it perhaps better seen as a signal of a lower-liquidity market than one heading for collapse.