To solve Britain’s problems, we must solve the north’s problems

The same narrow economic focus that created our over-dependence on finance and the property bubble is also responsible for the north/south divide. We need a new strategy for regeneration.

Jubilant jeers from the government benches and bold growth forecasts thinly disguised an inconvenient truth in last week's Autumn Statement: this apparent recovery too often isn’t being felt far beyond the Square Mile of the City.

In places like Hull, which I represent, there isn’t any recovery at all for families seeing their budgets being squeezed ever tighter. For them, prices are rising faster than wages month after month, leaving people an average of £1,600 a year worse off in real terms. Unemployment is still higher now than it was in March 2010. People forget that by 2005, under Labour, unemployment in the north was the same as the national average of 5% - it’s now 9.6%, set against a national average of 8%.

These are headline statistics for a much broader regional disparity: there is a bias in favour of the south when it comes to council funding cuts, transport and infrastructure spending and even – in spite of Hull’s recent winning bid for City of Culture – arts funding. Cities like Hull still haven’t recovered from abandonment under Thatcher: fewer northerners go to university; more are in low-skilled, lower-paid jobs; and northern graduates, unable to find work at home, move south in vast numbers. Others have to work in part-time or temporary work despite longing for full-time, permanent labour – Yorkshire and Humber, where nearly half the workforce reports this problem, is the worst region in the country for this.  

But this is more than just a parochial, regional issue. The north’s problems are Britain’s problems: the same narrow economic focus that created our over-dependence on city finance and the property bubble is also responsible for the north/south divide, and we all lose out from leaving one vast swathe of the country behind like this. Last year, a study of over 150 European cities of various sizes found that continued over-investment in capital cities, coupled with under-investment in second tier cities, was linked with broader economic underperformance on a national scale. Common sense tells us why: a recent Observer article reported that London, too expensive for young interns to live in, was losing the race to become Europe’s digital hub. It is to Germany – all 14 of her second-tier cities recording higher productivity growth rates than Berlin – that these new opportunities risk going if Britain doesn’t wean herself off the noxious toxin of a southern-focused strategy for growth.

Britain’s salvation won’t lie in following the Economist’s recently-stated mantra and pushing further migration into a capital city whose quality of life satisfaction, as the IPPR noted, is already "significantly and consistently lower than anywhere else in the country" thanks to years of large scale internal migration. A broad-based strategy for growth, building the institutions for northern regeneration and giving localities the breathing space to build on their own natural economic advantages, is the surer route to success. Below are just three policies that could help make this happen.

First, we need a skills and education policy that works for northerners. The north’s competitive advantage compared to other regions of the UK still, to some extent, lies in manufacturing and exports, with northerners 70% more likely to take apprenticeships than the rest of the UK. But Britain’s skills policy, often decided from the centre, fails to leave room for local flexibility in gearing their populations to meet local labour market needs, and only 7% of year ten pupils name apprenticeships as a post-GCSE option. A broad devolution of skills policy away from the centre is needed that gives employers more control over apprenticeships funding, but also more responsibility to drive up the numbers of high quality apprenticeships. That is the idea at the heart of Labour’s forgotten 50% agenda. It’s about bringing employers, educationalists and job centres together in drawing up plans to meet local needs.  We need greater local involvement in getting the right back to work schemes delivered in each area and to ensure increased linking of schools with the employment options available. It’s an approach that has worked on the continent and would pay dividends here.

Second, we need to address the north’s transport divide. Just four of the 50 best-connected local authorities in England are in the north, with 35 in London and the south east. HS2 is the exception that proves the rule, with 84% of the government’s £5bn infrastructure spending going south. The Treasury’s decision process for infrastructure projects inherently benefits richer areas and, indeed, the whole planning system is biased in favour of south-eastern over-development rather than regional rebalancing. This needs to change. We also need to explore the greater devolution of transport spending, so northerners can decide what spending would best drive forward their own areas development.  

Finally, it’s time to end northerners’ deficit in access to finance. The south east, where 32% of Britain’s businesses reside, takes up to 41% of all business investment. Northern firms are suffering hugely now the coalition has pulled the plug on projects like Sheffield Forgemasters. A British Investment Bank would help redress this imbalance, but we need to consider bolder measures. That’s why Labour is developing plans for a regional network of banks, each with a clear remit to serve their local businesses rather than the City. In Germany, regional and local banks or Sparkassen, provide 70% of all bank lending and are legally obliged to concentrate their investments in the local economy. By default, the German banking system is thus built to redress regional imbalances. In Britain, where 80% of our lending comes from the big six London banks, this just isn’t possible. Improving access to finance for northern individuals and firms is thus a vital tool for addressing the north/south divide.

Britain wasn’t always this divided. International comparisons with other OECD countries show the UK has had the worst rate of regional divergence since 1985. But turn the timescale around and a different picture emerges: Britain had the highest rate of regional convergence from 1950-1985. In the nineteenth century, the whole country – north and south – fired on all cylinders as Britain enjoyed unprecedented economic success. All that’s needed to revive this lost diversity is an alternative, One Nation approach to tackling the cost of living crisis. Rather than hoping for growth to trickle down from the top, that approach understands that sustainable growth for the many comes from all levels. Labour is the party to deliver it.

The Humber Bridge is seen after the City of Hull was announced as the 2017 UK City of Culture on November 21, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

Diana Johnson is the Labour MP for Hull North.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'll vote against bombing Isis - but my conscience is far from clear

Chi Onwurah lays out why she'll be voting against British airstrikes in Syria.

I have spent much of the weekend considering how I will vote on the question of whether the UK should extend airstrikes against Daesh/Isis from Iraq to Syria, seeking out and weighing the evidence and the risks.

My constituents have written, emailed, tweeted, facebooked or stopped me in the street to share their thoughts. Most recognised what a difficult and complex decision it is. When I was selected to be the Labour candidate for Newcastle Central I was asked what I thought would be the hardest part of being an MP.

I said it would be this.

I am not a pacifist, I believe our country is worth defending and our values worth fighting for. But the decision to send British Armed Forces into action is, rightly, a heavy responsibility.

For me it comes down to two key questions. The security of British citizens, and the avoidance of civilian casualties. These are separate operational and moral questions but they are linked in that it is civilian casualties which help fuel the Daesh ideology that we cannot respect and value the lives of those who do not believe as we do. There is also the important question of solidarity with the French in the wake of their grievous and devastating loss; I shall come to that later.

I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister as he set out the case for airstrikes on Thursday and I share his view that Daesh represents a real threat to UK citizens. However he did not convince me that UK airstrikes at this time would materially reduce that threat. The Prime Minister was clear that Daesh cannot be defeated from the air. The situation in Syria is complex and factionalised, with many state and non-state actors who may be enemies of our enemy and yet not our friend. The Prime Minister claimed there were 70,000 ground troops in the moderate Free Syrian Army but many experts dispute that number and the evidence does not convince me that they are in a position to lead an effective ground campaign. Bombs alone will not prevent Daesh obtaining money, arms and more recruits or launching attacks on the UK. The Prime Minister did not set out how we would do that, his was not a plan for security and peace in Syria with airstrikes a necessary support to it, but a plan to bomb Syria, with peace and security cited in support of it. That is not good enough for me.

Daesh are using civilian population as human shields. Syrians in exile speak of the impossibility of targeting the terrorists without hitting innocent bystanders. I fear that bombing Raqqa to eliminate Daesh may be like bombing Gaza to eliminate Hamas – hugely costly in terms of the civilian population and ultimately ineffectual.

Yet the evil that Daesh perpetrate demands a response. President Hollande has called on us to join with French forces. I lived in Paris for three years, I spent time in just about every location that was attacked two weeks ago, I have many friends living in Paris now, I believe the French are our friends and allies and we should stand and act in solidarity with them, and all those who have suffered in Mali, Kenya, Nigeria, Lebanon, Tunisia and around the world.

But there are other ways to act as well as airstrikes. Britain is the only G7 country to meet its international development commitments, we are already one of the biggest humanitarian contributors to stemming the Syrian crisis, we can do more not only in terms of supporting refugees but helping those still in Syria, whether living in fear of Daesh or Assad. We can show the world that our response is to build rather than bomb. The Prime Minister argues that without taking part in the bombing we will not have a place at the table for the reconstruction. I would think our allies would be reluctant to overlook our financial commitment.

We can also do more to cut off Daesh funding, targeting their oil wells, their revenues, their customers and their suppliers. This may not be as immediately satisfying as bombing the terrorists but it is a more effective means of strangling them.

The vast majority of the constituents who contacted me were against airstrikes. I agree with them for the reasons I set out above. I should say that I have had no experience of bullying or attempts at intimidation in reaching this decision, Newcastle Central is too friendly, frank, comradely and Geordie a constituency for that. But some have suggested that I should vote against airstrikes to ensure a “clear conscience” ’. This is not the case. There will be more killings and innocent deaths whether there are UK airstrikes or not, and we will all bear a portion of responsibility for them.

A version of this article was originally sent to Chi Onwurah's constituents, and can be read here