Is London really worried about Manchester having its moment?
When luxury French fashion house Chanel took over the Northern Quarter in late 2023, Manchester was said to be 'having a moment'.
Since then, the city has hosted both the Michelin awards and MTV EMAs, cementing its place on the map when it comes to culture.
This week, there was more good news. For the first time in its near-50-year history, the BRIT Awards will leave London and head north.
READ MORE: 'I see mums who can't afford to feed their children - how can they afford this?'
READ MORE: Person injured after car crashes into house as firefighters race to scene
Days later, Rachel Reeves dropped hints that she would back plans that could capitalise on this momentum with long-lasting effects.
Unveiling her long-awaited Spending Review on Wednesday (June 11), the Chancellor said she would soon be revealing plans to 'take forward' Northern Powerhouse Rail - a decade-old project for a new high-speed railway to connect cities across the north of England.
It comes after the Manchester Evening News joined forces with the Liverpool ECHO to call for a new line connecting our two cities as part of mayor Andy Burnham's plans for a 'Northern Arc' which he says could help boost the economy by £90bn over the next 15 years.
The M.E.N. understands that 'hundreds of millions' of pounds have now been set aside to develop plans for the Manchester-Liverpool railway over the next few years with details of other new lines and rail upgrades across the north set to be announced next week.
Ms Reeves has also promised to 'rewrite the rules' so that government funding no longer favours London over projects elsewhere.
But while the rest of the country welcomed the news, London's mayor Sadiq Khan complained that the capital was being left behind.
In a statement issued after the Chancellor delivered the spending review, Sir Sadiq raised concerns about insufficient funding for the Met - something police chiefs in Greater Manchester have also expressed - and a lack of investment in new infrastructure for London.
He said: "The way to level up other regions will never be to level down London. I'll continue to fight for the investment we need so that we can continue building a fairer, safer and greener London for everyone."
Local leaders have dismissed suggestions that London is being 'levelled down', highlighting the capital's superior transport network.
However, according to Rose Marley, who chairs the Manchester-based Beyond the Music, some in London are genuinely concerned.
She said: "I've been in and out of Whitehall all week and whether it's the spending review, plans for the Northern Arc or even landing the Brits, I've consistently heard that 'London' is concerned about how much is going to the regions. I find that incredulous really."
Last week, a think tank revealed a £140bn chasm between transport funding for London and the north under the last government.
Independent analysis of Treasury figures by IPPR North has found that, in the 10 years up to 2022/23, the government spent £1,183 per person in London. During the same period, the north saw just £486 per person spent on transport projects across the whole region.
Responding to claims that public investment in transport has favoured London in recent years, the mayor's office pointed to figures which show that the government spent less money on each public transport journey in the capital compared to the rest of Britain.
A spokesperson for the Mayor of London said: "The Mayor has always believed that economic growth in the UK IS not a 'zero sum game' and we should not be pitting our towns and cities against each other.
"He supports levelling up the entire country – but has been clear that this cannot be done by levelling down London.
"London is the engine of our national economy – so restricting investment to the capital doesn't just limit our power and dynamism, but risks jeopardising growth, job-creation and new opportunities across the UK.
"The Elizabeth Line created 55,000 new jobs and 1,000 apprenticeships across the country and investment in schemes like the Docklands Light Railway extension would also boost growth nationally.
"The Mayor will always stand up for London and is determined to work with all regions of the country to deliver growth and prosperity."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What time does Soccer Aid 2025 finish tonight?
Soccer Aid returns on Sunday night with millions set to watch the highly anticipated charity football match live on TV. Thousands will also be inside Manchester United's Old Trafford to see an England XI take on a World XI - with the two teams made up of celebrities and football legends. This year's England XI includes Jermain Defoe, Bear Grylls, Tom Grennan, Joe Hart, Gary Neville, and Louis Tomlinson. The opposition includes stars Tony Bellew, Nemanja Vidic, Gorka Marquez, and Martin Compston. READ MORE: A classic UK horror film not available to stream online is airing on TV tonight READ MORE: Blankety Blank viewers in shock after learning winning contestant died since filming show Meanwhile, Wayne Rooney, Tommy Fury and Vicky McClure joins Harry Redknapp on the England bench, with Peter Schmeichel managing the World XI. The game is being shown live on ITV1 with coverage starting at 6pm. The live show will be hosted by UNICEF UK Ambassador Dermot O'Leary, who will be joined by Alex Scott with Sam Matterface and Jason Manford commenting. The game will then kick off at 7.30pm, with half time at 8.15pm. While half-time in football is usually 15 minutes, it has lasted longer during Soccer Aid in previous years due to entertainment. This year, singer-songwriter Demot Kennedy, who is also playing in the game, will be performing during the break. In previous years the game has finished at around 10pm, the time when ITV's live coverage is due to end. Soccer Aid was created by music legend Robbie Williams in 2006 and since then has raised over £90m to aid UNICEF in helping support millions of children around the world to have healthy and happy childhoods. The money raised from this year's game could help UNICEF protect children from disease and malnutrition, support their mental health and respond in times of crisis. Soccer Aid takes place on Sunday June 15 at Old Trafford with coverage on ITV1 from 6pm.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Prince William Will Allegedly Make a Drastic Move Against Meghan & Harry's Children's Royal Future
It seems that the infamous royal feud is back in full swing, especially over those HRH titles. As many royal fans know, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle left the royal family years ago, and when they left, Queen Elizabeth II reportedly asked them to remove HRHs from their monikers, to no avail. And now, something else has happened, and it's allegedly got Prince William steaming. Earlier this month, the U.K. newspaper The Guardian reported: 'The Guardian understands that Prince Harry wants to keep the HRH titles for his children so that when they grow older they can decide for themselves whether they want to become working royals, or stay out of public life.' More from SheKnows 2-Year-Old Prince William Looked Just Like His Sons at His First Ever Trooping the Colour in 1984 While this seems harmless, the Daily Beast noted that the wording is often a report from PR teams, or authorized sources similar to PR teams of the person being talked about. This went under the radar for some time, royals, royal pals, and royal insiders are now talking about this nonstop. And it turns out, William will allegedly put a stop to it as soon as he can, affecting his niece and nephew's royal future. One friend of William's told The Daily Beast, 'William obviously isn't going to hire Archie and Lilibet. This is just trolling on the part of Harry and Meghan. It's actually hilarious that no one even noticed it for ten days, until the Mail did it. The idea that somehow having a vestigial HRH as a baby later entitles you to be a working royal is beyond parody, even for them.' So, Archie and Lilibet will allegedly not be any part of the royal family, if it's up to William. 'Harry and Meghan were asked by the queen to stop using their HRHs, and agreed. Obviously, any reasonable person would understand that would mean your kids don't use them either,' insiders claimed to the outlet. 'The simple fact is that Meghan has gone back on the deal by using her HRH. It's a straightforward betrayal of the deal, and if she now intends to start parading the kids as HRHs to aggrandize herself, it just adds to the case to remove them, legally, altogether. They have asked the Sussexes politely to stop using the style, to no avail, so I imagine William will simply issue new letters patent to formally remove the entire family's right to use HRH when he becomes king.' Now, Harry and Meghan losing their titles isn't a new debate. The Queen allowed Prince Harry and Meghan to keep their titles (that's His Royal Highness and Her Royal Highness, of course) after Megxit, but it was later revoked. Since then, it's been a highly debated topic, and now the Sussex kids are getting involved. Now, is William close with his niece and nephew? Allegedly, no. Royal Correspondent Cameron Walker talked to GB News' flagship podcast The Royal Record with presenter Ellie Costello and Royal Editor Svar Nanan-Sen, about how William has virtually no relationship with Lilibet and Archie. 'William and Kate don't have any relationship with Archie and Lilibet either. We know that King Charles has only met Lilibet once – the same probably goes for William and Kate,' Svar said. 'Archie and Lilibet have no relationship with George, Charlotte and Louis – and they're cousins.' Svar added, 'So this feud between Harry and William and Kate and Meghan is creating a rift down the entire family that is crossing generations.'Best of SheKnows 36 Times Prince Louis Proved That the Third Child Is a Wild Card Every Single Time Kate Middleton & Princess Charlotte Coordinated Their Colorful Looks Make Dad Melt With These Adorable Free Father's Day Printables
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'