Each year, billions of pounds and euros and dollars are spent by towns and cities trying to entice big businesses to establish headquarters or factories or warehouses within their boundaries. It is hardly surprising. The benefits to the selected community are obvious: jobs, tax receipts, enhanced infrastructure, consumer spending, economic uplift, status, the possibility of attracting further companies, of becoming a business centre or hub.

Hence, when any behemoth announces it is looking for a location, councillors across the land dangle as large a carrot as they can afford. Invariably, this consists of a mix of tax breaks and grants, low-interest loans, planning short-cuts, the prospect of new infrastructure. Inevitably, commercially and sensibly, the company vacillates; offers are nudged upwards. Finally, a shortlist is announced, allowing another opportunity for bid ‘repositioning’.

Overlooking issues of politicians never being chary of spending taxpayers’ money, there is no doubt attracting a major corporation is a godsend for a mayor keen to improve their city or political standing. In many places it is imperative. Countless towns and cities are wrestling with the fall-out from the collapse of manufacturing, structural unemployment, zero-hours contracts, the challenges of the gig economy.

Unfortunately, big business is not known for its charity, at least not when conducting business. Every councillor knows any deal he or she strikes could prove a chimera. As the bids rise, the staggered auction sets one town against another, a race to the bottom.

Councillors are in a no-win situation. Either they pay up – a euphemism for overpay – to attract the big-name firms that create jobs where before there were none, or they accept any deal may be uneconomic. If the latter, they stand back, watching their city rust and communities die while another town upriver readies itself for a brighter future.