AIBU to think his speech sounded too parochial for a leader?

Really? It's very common on here. Any time people mention affordable property prices, there's endless comments about how it must be a shit hole, with no decent jobs, culture, infrastructure etc etc.

If you have a regional accent, you must be poorly educated and insular.

How it's necessary to live in London/SE, to have any sort of life. Everything is better in London and if you don't agree, it's because you're easily pleased and not very cosmopolitan. It's endemic.

What?

I didn't really believe Southern snobbery re the north really actually existed.
But since the Burnham thing, I now realise I have bern very wrong

For starters, Manchester has the highest growth in GVA of any major UK city over the last five years, by quite a significant margin.

To take your question in good faith -

Over the past decade, Manchester city-region has had annual growth more than double the rate of the country as a whole, and has attracted more foreign investment than any other UK region outside the capital.

There is the renationalisation of bus routes across Greater Manchester, as well as support to cap fares at £2 at a time when nationally they were rising.

Andy Burnham also championed the Greater Manchester Town of Culture scheme, taking cultural capital beyond the city centre, which I think speaks to his vision for devolution as not just for the big cities: he wasn’t a city centre M.P, he grew up in and represented a small town and I do believe those places matter to him.

This article gives a good overview: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andy-burnhams-greatest-memorable-moments-33295467.amp

His tenure hasn’t been perfect, but he’s genuinely incredibly well liked and respected in the region - unusually so for a politician!!

That's incredibly interesting, given the actual policies around the levelling up push.

What evidence do you have that you think it's perceived by others largely/exclusively about the North?

Or if it's just your feeling - why do you think it's what you hear when people talk about levelling up regions or devolving power?

I ask as a Londoner who's honestly fascinated, and as someone who's experienced less centralised systems and sees the advantages.

Did you listen to the speech?! He literally said:

The whole country suffers when the regions and nations are not meeting their potential, and Londoners are left with an overheated economy and an overcrowded housing market.

And, speaking of No 10 North he explicitly said:

Its job would be to make power flow into the Midlands, into the South West, into the east of England and, yes, into London.

Its absolutely fine to have questions about both the practicalities and the principle of devolution, but it is simply factually incorrect to pretend he only mentioned the North.

If so it would be good to hear him and others mention the other parts of the country then.
I still dislike the idea of devolution to local authorities regardless of where they are.

I think most people would understand conversations around levelling up to be about the North yes.

And since posts are all about it no surprise if people mention it.

You're easily pleased then.

Honestly I think we need to look at the way we start ripping into whoever is PM or slated to become PM. I know not everyone will like or agree with a leader but it seems the minute someone is in, UK people start ripping them to shreds. So do their parties apparently. It is not good to have unstable leadership.

We are constantly switching people because no one is happy with anything and instead of being proactive and positive about making good change, it just becomes a shark tank of bitter, petty bitching.

This country (and culture) needs to have more of a long term view and we need to stop eating our own. Time and stability is needed to improve things. Nothing happens quickly but as soon as things don't immediately change, the cries come of 'off with his/her head!'.

I don't like everything about Labour (or any party) and I am not 100% on board with everything Burnham says but that is what we have and I will suck it up because we must present a strong, stable face to the world, particularly right now.

Indeed.

Fewer than half the towns invited to apply for support from the Towns Fund are in the North.

Was levelling up policy limited to the north? I must be remembering the Johnson years incorrectly.

It's interesting how one mention of "northern" in a post draws focus...

Of course, it’s not just about the North - it’s about regional inequality across the country.
Andy Burnham’s speech talked explicitly about giving mayors and local authorities across the country greater responsibility to deliver change.

I quoted the Northern Powerhouse (George Osborne’s phrase) and Levelling Up (Boris Johnson’s) as examples of previous governments airing similar ideas - it seems those ideas are only dismissed as parochial when it’s someone with a Northern accent advocating for them.

Agreed. At this point, I’m happy with anyone who isn’t Farage to be PM.

I think the original post was clear enough. It didn’t mention anything else but.

I remember.

Think American HOA

It mentioned Northern Powerhouse alongside levelling up as a way of tackling regional inequality/differences in economic performance; I don't think it was focused on the north as a whole?

Crikey. This is Mumsnet. Do not dismiss a well known fact ( corruption in LA’s) because a poster is not able to provide at the drop of a hat detailed statistical evaluation.
No. LA’s are corrupt. Well known. My original post did not mention nor imply about any corruption in Central Government. As well you know.

I replied to the post arguing about the need to level up as it is called. The post focused on the North. As inevitably much will from now on.

No, but your post implies that Local Authorities are more corrupt than Central Government, and does not provide any evidence for this.

It may or may not be the case, but surely we would need evidence before concluding that devolution creates a greatest risk of corruption?

It's interesting that you've replied to a point about lopsided government and over centralisation by focusing on the North - when a proper approach to decentralisation would get rid of the fragmented patch work we currently have and roll out stronger powers (including fiscal powers) across the country.

The sad fact is that many in the North who have not travelled around the UK do believe they are harder done by than elsewhere. When it is not so.
There is not a line drawn across the country that says below is all rich, above is all poor. It is far mashed up and no lines.
London has rich and poor.
The South ( which is not London) has rich and poor.
The Midlands has rich and poor
The North - West Central and East has rich and poor.
And the same for the West and the East.

Do parts of Chesire need ‘levelling up’? Do parts of North Yorkshire?

Sorry but don’t believe in this political rubbish. It is designed just to obtain votes. But don’t believe in it.

From the Labour manifesto:

"Economic growth across the country

Every town and city across the country has a vital contribution to make to our economy. But too many areas have been held back because decisions are often taken in Westminster, and not by local leaders who understand local ambitions and strengths. This means we fail to make the most of the contribution everyone can make, hampering economic growth. So, Labour will transfer power out of Westminster, and into our communities, with landmark devolution legislation to take back control."

So yes, we did vote for this.