It will take more than infrastructure spending to create a "northern global powerhouse". Photo: Oli Scarff, Getty
Show Hide image

Infrastructure spending isn’t enough, we need a radical shift of power away from London

City regions should be at the heart of future economic and social development, with powers and responsibilities devolved from Westminster.

There is an awakening interest in the regional economies and cities at present. After four years of austerity which have reinforced all of the inequalities that divide the south-east and the other English regions, it looks as though some spending on infra-structure may be heading north but it will take more than infrastructure spending alone to create a “northern global powerhouse”.

A major initiative to improve rail transport across the five key northern cities was announced last week in The One North Report, which, proposes a 125mph trans-pennine rail link and a faster link to Newcastle and Manchester airport. It is part of a 15 year plan for improving east-west transport links across the north. The cost of the rail improvements are around £15bn - roughly the same as Crossrail in London and George Osborne is likely to make this a “centrepiece” of his autumn statement which in turn forms part of the government’s proposals for a “northern global powerhouse”.

This may be cynical electioneering ahead of next year’s and it will take a much more comprehensive approach to regional economic planning to address the imbalances in in the English and the UK economies, let alone tackling the continued growth of inequality across society. Yes, we need economic development across the regions but we need strategies that can genuinely address inequality by moving power and economic investment away from Westminster and delivering economic development that meets aspirations for a fairer society that is concerned with equality and sustainability. For more on this see my essay in ‘Building Blocks for a New Economy’, out today.

It is interesting to look north to Scotland and the debate on Scottish Independence as a solution to the regional problems of England. In Scotland, the debate on Scottish Independence has brought forward a strong economic case for independence, arguing the importance of greater natural resources and strengths in education, innovation and ingenuity. They clearly, argue that a one-size fits all policy for economic development in the UK deprives Scotland of the economic levers that are necessary to set the economy on the right path to recovery. In England the patterns of centralised policy making continually reinforce the economic pull of the London and the South East and this deprives the regions of the necessary levers to deliver the economic and social aspirations of people in the regions. The case for different economic policies is a strong one but also is the argument for greater self-determination in social policy, developing economic policies that reflect the values of a fairer society in terms of education, health and equality.

In developing a new strategy for economic development we need to look to city regions as a main focus for economic development with powers and responsibilities devolved from Westminster that require them to place economic justice and sustainability at the heart of economic activity. This cannot be achieved without radical shift in power away from London and the creation of a new banking and investment infrastructure to support this shift.

Cities should be at the heart of future economic and social development. It is here that innovation and creativity thrive and where ideas will develop to create economic and social change.

Stuart Speeden is an independent equalities consultant. His essay on radical decentralisation is published by Compass today in Building blocks: for a new political economy and can be downloaded at  

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.