And am I in any worse position to diagnose berkitis in someone who insists that 'much of the provinces don't have the same attractions as the south-east', as you are to claim that I suffer from a rare orthopaedic condition causing conjunction of shoulder with fried potatoes?
I have no idea what you are trying to say. If Stanley Unwin was around, maybe could help you put it more simply.
Have you ever given any thought to the numbers of people forced to move away from the provinces to worj in London by the lack of jobs in the places they come from? Why does the disruption to their lives, and the wider social disruption economic migration has caused to those parts of the country, not figure in your calculations? The poor oppressed mortgage-holders of the south east (a diminishing share of the population thanks to ludicrous housing costs) can at least sell their houses.
If you force migration from established organisational bases, the operational functions move, - we've already seen call centres of banks, communications organisations, technical support and of course National Rail firstly move to cheaper areas in the UK, and then offshore where even greater savings occur. The real issue is that control stays in the base locations, management, strategic planning and the market facing parts of the organisation, then there's the BBC, national/international news presented from Media City has more of a regional feel to it than when it(and London local news) is from New Broadcasting House. This is in part undermining the BBC's long held reputation for quality.
Employers based in the South-East always welcome those willing to go to where the work is, so there will always be considerable churn. Those who don't make the big-time are more likely to take the opportunities when operational activities are moved away, so the higher paid roles are more likely to stay at head offices in the South-East. Of course there are a few organisations that buck this trend, but in terms of a proportion of the overall jobs market, they don't affect overall numbers by much.
And no, I don't expect them all to stay put. As shown following the limited public sector relocations which have taken place so far, many will head to the provinces, despite their 'limited attractions', where they will compete for the jobs with at least some people now given the chance to remain somewhere vaguely near where they come from but still have the chance of getting a decent job.
But you have still missed the point, if jobs are forced away from the (expensive) South-East, that money will force prices up wherever they move to. It is expensive to move jobs with employment law as it is in the EU (and rightly so) which means a majority of current employees will be offered the chance to move with their job. So there will be no big handout of good jobs in the new location just because candidates live near the office. The support activities might get a look in but they would be outsourced to local firms where some of the employer's costs of relocation will be defrayed by driving outsourcing deals to the lowest bid which has the obvious effect on the locals that those winning contractors take on (at the same time as house prices start to rise faster).
Bear in mind that:
a) a government enforced shift of jobs doesn't necessarily provide an equal number of
new jobs in a new location. The only effective way to increase jobs in an area is to create genuinely new ones.
b) any move to rapidly increase jobs in an area pushes house prices up faster than locals can afford, therefore travelling distances increase for all (which increases living costs for all), - just look at London
c) any transport improvement because of population increases lags by years, even decades. Just look at Crossrail - first mooted in the 1940s, then the 1970s then 1989, finally getting approval in 2009. The M25 was the last major motorway to be completed in the UK despite roads across the south-east almost siezing frequently for years before it was completed.
So as I have said before, be very careful of what you wish for.