North missed £140bn of transport investment during last government
The North of England would have received an extra £140 billion in transport investment under the previous government if funding levels had been the same as in London, research has claimed.
Independent analysis by think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) looked at Treasury figures between 2009/10 and 2022/23, during which time the Conservatives were in power.
It reached the figure, which it said was enough to build seven Elizabeth Lines, by considering the amount of spending per person across the different English regions over that period.
While England as a whole saw £592 spent per person each year, London received double that amount with £1,183 spent per person, the IPPR said.
The entire North region saw £486 spent per person, with the North East and North West seeing £430 and £540 spent per person respectively.
This amounted to £140 billion of missed investment for the North, more than the entire £83 billion estimate of capital spending on transport in the region since 1999/2000, according to the analysis.
The region with the lowest amount of investment over the period was the East Midlands with just £355 spent per person.
Among the most divisive transport investment projects for the previous government was the HS2 rail project, which was axed north of Birmingham in October 2023.
Then-prime minister Rishi Sunak pledged to 'reinvest every single penny, £36 billion, in hundreds of new transport projects in the North and the Midlands', including improvements to road, rail and bus schemes.
Earlier this week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a £15.6 billion package for mayoral authorities to use on public transport projects across the North and Midlands ahead of the spending review.
It is expected to include funding to extend the metros in Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, along with a renewed tram network in South Yorkshire and a new mass transit system in West Yorkshire.
Marcus Johns, senior research fellow at IPPR North, said: 'Today's figures are concrete proof that promises made to the North over the last decade were hollow. It was a decade of deceit.
'We are 124 years on from the end of Queen Victoria's reign, yet the North is still running on infrastructure built during her rein – while our transport chasm widens.
'This isn't London bashing – Londoners absolutely deserve investment. But £1,182 per person for London and £486 for northerners? The numbers don't lie – this isn't right.
'This Government have begun to restore fairness with their big bet on transport cash for city leaders.
'They should continue on this journey to close this investment gap in the upcoming spending review and decades ahead.'
Former Treasury minister Lord Jim O'Neill said: 'Good governance requires the guts to take a long-term approach, not just quick fixes. So the Chancellor is right in her focus on the UK's long-standing supply-side weaknesses – namely our woeful productivity and weak private and public investment.
'Backing major infrastructure is the right call, and this spending review is the right time for the Chancellor to place a big bet on northern growth and begin to close this investment chasm.
'But it's going to take more than commitments alone – she'll need to set out a transparent framework for delivery.'
Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, said: 'For too long, the North of England has been treated as a poor relation to the South when it comes to government spending on transport infrastructure, and this analysis makes stark reading – exposing the vast scale of underfunding over many years.
'The Chancellor's announcement of £2.5 billion funding for transport in Greater Manchester will be a game-changer for our city-region, enabling us to expand the Bee Network, and deliver the UK's first, zero emission, integrated, public transport system by 2030.
'We have also made the case for a new Liverpool-Manchester railway, which would further rebalance infrastructure investment, and could boost the UK economy by £90 billion by 2040.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Why the wrong memorial will water down the Holocaust
On Wednesday, the Holocaust Memorial Bill returns to the House of Lords. What a waste of energy over seven and more years this project has been. The motives are good. Unfortunately, the idea is not. In the great battle against growing anti-Semitism in our society, precious weapons are being mistargeted. There are strong second-order objections to the memorial and its accompanying 'learning centre'. They include the vast cost, over £200 million; the lack of room in Victoria Tower Gardens and the loss of green space; the security risk at the heart of government and Parliament which the police and parliamentary authorities increasingly fail to control; and the fact that the gardens will soon be overcrowded by the overspill for the coming 30-year project to restore the fabric of the Houses of Parliament next door. There will be parliamentary amendments tomorrow to address these last two points. Most of the Bill's opponents, many of whom are Jewish, do want a memorial, but a much smaller and more beautiful one. The present design is a grandiose hand-me-down, by the somewhat discredited architect David Adjaye, already used elsewhere. Opponents also do not want the learning centre. Tristram Hunt, the distinguished director of the V&A, thinks it could be much better managed at the Imperial War Museum. The key objection relates to what is really being commemorated. If you track the history of Holocaust Memorial Day since it was instituted a quarter of a century ago, you will find increasing pressure to water down the concept. There have been several occasions – ITV's Good Morning Britain this year, for example – in which coverage has entirely failed to mention the Jews at all, let alone the fact that the Holocaust killed six million of them. People such as the former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, unfailingly hostile to Israel and previously friendly to murderous Hamas, have thus found it possible to take part in Holocaust Memorial Day without having to confront the grim truth of history. Over time, the uniqueness of the Jewish experience thus slips away. A process begins in which the word 'Holocaust' is taken to stand for any persecution of any group by any other group. From there, it is a short step to suggesting, as pro-Gaza mobs always do, that Israel itself is committing genocide against Palestinians. This is not an isolated outbreak of a few fanatics, but a deliberate plan to strip the Jewish state – and all Jews – of their moral authority. The ultimate aim is to preach the equation 'Jews = Israel = Nazis'. This libel is so widespread as to have become one of the main tropes of anti-Semitism. The danger is that the wrong sort of commemoration will facilitate this. Delegations from anti-Israel countries and 'humanitarian' organisations emerging from Parliament will stroll into Victoria Tower Gardens, pose outside the Holocaust Memorial and deliver their piece to camera about alleged war crimes, starvation of children etc. You can just imagine the ineffable Greta Thunberg doing exactly that. Sad to say, both main political parties are putting on whips to get the memorial Bill through Parliament. This suggests an underlying uncertainty about the rightness of their cause. Traditionally, votes on matters of conscience are not whipped. Surely Holocaust commemoration is a classic conscience issue in which party considerations have no place. I fear that establishment politicians, frightened of being labelled anti-Semitic, have supported this great big project without thinking about it. Yet thought is exactly what is needed to correct the errors of Holocaust education today. By the way, there exists a splendid role model for commemoration in, of all places, Poland. The POLIN museum in Warsaw movingly and expertly relates its country's part of the full story we all need to know – how Jews lived there for a thousand years and how, in the end, and most horribly, they died. Weathering the storm Like many parishes, our village held its annual fete last Saturday. The problem, in advance, was the weather. Nowadays, weather forecasting is so much more accurate that if it says, two or three days before, that it will rain, it probably will. So event-planners must take it seriously. This avoids the occasional spectacular washouts of the past, after which everyone used to say, through gritted teeth, 'Rain failed to dampen the spirits'. Our organisers therefore did the prudent thing and announced that the fete would not be held in the public garden by the church but in the village's two interconnected halls. The trouble was that, on the day, there was virtually no rain during the fete's opening hours. We all felt slightly silly because we could have stuck with the original plan and saved ourselves a lot of trouble. Should we have followed the old way and just held the thing outdoors, rain or shine? I am not sure of the answer. But I do know that everyone enjoyed the make-do atmosphere among the crowded stalls and the noisy Punch-and-Judy show inside, finding community in adversity. Business was brisk. The splash headline in our local paper says, 'Post office to remain open'. My first reaction was to laugh at this non-news. After all, it is in the nature of shops to open. But I quickly realised I was wrong. It was indeed news. The unspoken policy of the modern Post Office is to close itself down. A decision in the opposite direction certainly deserves the front page.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
I'm NOT sorry! Reeves refuses to apologise for winter fuel shambles despite restoring payments to millions of pensioners... amid fears of tax hikes to fund U-turn
Rachel Reeves claimed she had 'listened' and refused to apologise today as she humiliatingly restored winter fuel payments to nine million pensioners. The Chancellor has announced that more than three-quarters of older people will get the allowance - worth up to £300 - this winter. But another two million on incomes of more than £35,000 in England and Wales face having the money clawed back in higher tax bills. The move is the culmination of a shambolic volte face on the hated policy, which has been blamed for the dramatic plunge in Labour's popularity. It wipes out the overwhelming bulk of the savings Ms Reeves had originally pencilled in from slashing the previously-universal allowance. Only the poorest received it last winter. The Treasury is now expected to save just £450million compared to 2023-24 - blowing another £1.25bn hole in Labour's spending plans. But Ms Reeves is dodging saying where the funding will be found, amid mounting fears taxes will have to rise again as MPs push for a further U-turn on benefits curbs. The Tories demanded Ms Reeves and Keir Starmer say sorry for making vulnerable elderly people choose between 'heating and eating'. Charities welcomed the shift, but suggested the axe should never have been wielded in the first place. Extraordinarily, Ms Reeves again argued today that she had been right to make the cut. 'It will be still means-tested, but at a higher level, we've listened to people's concerns around the level of the means test,' she said. 'Because of changes we've made and the stability we've brought back to the economy, we are able to increase that amount.' 'Targeting Winter Fuel Payments was a tough decision, but the right decision because of the inheritance we had been left by the previous government. 'It is also right that we continue to means-test this payment so that it is targeted and fair, rather than restoring eligibility to everyone including the wealthiest. 'But we have now acted to expand the eligibility of the Winter Fuel Payment so no pensioner on a lower income will miss out. 'This will mean over three quarters of pensioners receiving the payment in England and Wales later this winter.' All pensioners will automatically be paid winter fuel this season. The level will be £200 per household, or £300 if one person is aged over 80. But where both incomes are above the threshold it will be recouped later through PAYE or a Self-Assessment return. The £35,000 cap is per person, so in theory two-pensioner households where one has an income above the level will still get the cash. People who want to opt out of the payment altogether will be able to do so, with a mechanism to be confirmed. Ms Reeves will not spell out how she is funding the overhaul until the Budget in the Autumn. She told broadcasters: 'We will set out in the normal way, in the Budget, how everything is funded, but no-one should be in any doubt about my commitment to the fiscal rules to ensure that the sums always add up.' The Chancellor is due to lay out departmental spending allocations running up to 2029 - the likely timetable for the next general election - on Wednesday. But the generous fiscal envelope set at the Budget last Autumn has been put under massive pressure by the economic slowdown, calls for more defence cash, and Labour revolts on benefits. Ms Reeves has signalled she will announce real-terms increases to budgets for police as she tries to quell Home Office resistance. However, that is likely to be offset by cuts to other areas, with the NHS and defence sucking up funding. The political backdrop to the proposals this week is the Reform surge, with Labour panicking about the challenge from Nigel Farage. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'Keir Starmer has scrambled to clear up a mess of his own making. I repeatedly challenged him to reverse his callous decision to withdraw winter fuel payments, and every time Starmer arrogantly dismissed my criticisms. 'This humiliating u-turn will come as scant comfort to the pensioners forced to choose between heating and eating last winter. The Prime Minister should now apologise for his terrible judgement.' Introducing a tough means test on winter fuel allowance was one of the first announcements Ms Reeves made after entering No11, and has been blamed for triggering the headlong slump in Labour's popularity. Only those on the lowest incomes, receiving pensioner credit, have been entitled to the handout. Keir Starmer dramatically announced a U-turn last month, without saying what exactly was being proposed or when it would take effect. Last week Ms Reeves confirmed confirmed the changes would be in place 'this winter' – but was still unable to say who will qualify. She also said the Government will not set out how the reinstated payments will be funded until the Autumn Budget. Designing a cost-effective means test for the benefit - which ministers are adamant should not be paid to 'millionaires' - has been causing major headaches for officials. The idea has been condemned by unions amid fears bereaved families could be hit with unexpected demands for cash. Labour insiders have voiced alarm at the 'optics' of trying to recoup the allowance from the estates of those who died after getting it. The PM's official spokesman said: 'HMRC will not ask for repayment from a deceased PAYE (pay as you earn) customer if the only money owed was from a winter fuel payment.' Alex Clegg of the Resolution Foundation think-tank - which used to be run by pensions minister Torsten Bell - said: 'The new scheme for means-testing Winter Fuel Payments means that that the number of pensioners receiving support will rise from 1.3million last winter to around 9million this winter, and not far off the 11.6million who received Winter Fuel Payments two winters ago when they were universal. 'But this U-turn doesn't represent a return to the status quo. The new means-test will create new complexity in the tax system, including a cliff-edge for those with around £35,000 of income. 'The reported savings of £450million will be reduced further by the cost of increased pension credit take-up as a result of the original policy, and the cost of administering the new means-test.' Caroline Abrahams CBE, charity director at Age UK, said: 'The Government's winter fuel payment announcement makes this a good day for older people. 'The decision to restore the winter fuel payment to nine million pensioners – all but those on the highest incomes who should be able to pay their heating bills without it – is the right thing to do and something that will bring some much-needed reassurance for older people and their families. 'At Age UK we heard from many through the winter who were so frightened about their bills that they didn't even try to keep their homes adequately warm. 'We have always said what really matters is that the estimated 2.5 million older people who lost their winter fuel payment when they couldn't afford it get the money back, by one means or another. These 2.5 million comprise older people entitled to pension credit but not claiming it; those whose small incomes take them just above the line; and a third group who face extremely high bills because of severe ill health or disability.' The charity 'would much have preferred it had the Government taken this approach last summer', she added.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
High Street struggles as shoppers slam the brakes on spending: Retail sales see weakest growth this year
Shoppers have slammed the brakes on spending amid concerns about their finances and the health of the economy. In a blow to struggling High Street firms, retail sales last month were just 1 per cent higher than in May last year, according to trade association the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and auditor KPMG. That was the weakest performance so far this year and came as consumers stopped splashing out on 'non-essential' items. Food sales were sharply higher, rising 3.6 per cent year-on-year, as the warm weather and bank holidays encouraged people to have barbecues and picnics. But non-food sales fell 1.1 per cent. BRC chief Helen Dickinson said: 'Consumers put the brakes on spending, with the slowest growth in 2025 so far. Retailers are grappling with the £5billion in extra costs from higher National Insurance Contributions [introduced in Labour's Autumn Budget last year] and wages, which kicked in during April. 'They also face an additional £2billion later this year from new packaging taxes and remain concerned about the consequences of the Employment Rights Bill.'
