Poverty isn’t just a Northern issue Andy.

[SummerSummerSummertime]

Caught the Prime Minister on a podcast this week and he’s really stuck on a constant, hyper-focus on the North. Ok we get it, things are bad up there (former industrial heartlands etc) but as PM for the whole country, he needs to remember that hardship doesn't stop at a regional border if he wants to maintain national support.
Severe deprivation is happening right across the country, not just in northern heartlands:

London: The capital holds some of the highest actual poverty rates once astronomical housing costs are factored in.

Coastal Communities: Southern seaside towns face deep, hidden deprivation, low wages, and crumbling infrastructure.

The South & Midlands: High living expenses, struggling high streets, and insecure work hit low-income families everywhere.

He also claimed on the podcast that past governments just saw the North as "different" and forgot about it. But by constantly banging on about the North, isn't he just fuelling that exact same fire?
If he keeps treating the North as a special case, he's actively reinforcing a regional divide. Moving focus or power from Whitehall to Manchester might sound great on a podcast, but it does absolutely nothing for a struggling family in a southern coastal town who feel just as invisible to this new government as they did to the last one.
Poverty is a national crisis, not a regional identity.

If Andy wants to keep broad support, his messaging needs to acknowledge and support struggling communities everywhere.

Mine don’t align themselves with anywhere in England. They’re South - north is Gwynedd.

So interesting. We aren't talking about England but the UK, as this is about the UK PM. Yet some people keep trying to split it up.

The link I posted was clearly the UK.

Very true.

All these posters who think road signs to The North turn around and point south once you get past Manchester.,,

So he is not talking about all postcodes then? Just Manchester. And any references he makes to The North does not actually mean The North but just Manchester. That is exactly why people are objecting to him calling Manchester The North as he ignoring half the UK that he is PM of that is the north of the UK. What does he call the actual north? The Far North?

They do! There are the same style road signs which say the south. It's particularly at points where you could go either way, like the M1 or A1. Go one way and it says The North, another way says The South.

Have a day off! Honestly. Maybe it’s called Downing Street North because it is north of London’s Downing Street? There is actually a Downing Street in Manchester, maybe London’s Downing Street should be Downing Street South instead and then you can argue to your heart’s content about the poor people of Crawley being left behind.

When the pm actually says that if you live north of Manchester then you don’t exist then you’ll have a point. I live north of Manchester btw I don’t feel shunned or threatened by the concept that some of government will be run in Manchester at all. Finally I believe there are parliaments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - what are they not doing for the people they are meant to be representing that you think a Downing Street slightly more North would be able to do better?

Most capital cities in the world are not in the geographical centre of countries. London has been the centre culturally politically and financially for centuries and it will take more than a No 10 in the north to change that. But there are 650 MPs who are supposed to advocate for their constituencies and every area has a council which has money to spend on housing, roads, job creation etc. The problem is that there is simply not enough money through decades of underfunding and a political obsession in all parties with cutting taxes. For eg, What people don’t seem to get is that if the roads are potholed through lack of cash the impact on poorer people through car maintenance, tyres etc is far greater than the company boss whose top tax is lower than it was in the 1970s.

I’m from south Wales and I’ve lived in Sheffield, Manchester and London. The worst served by far in terms of infrastructure and government help is South Wales. Yes there’s huge wealth in London but there are hundreds of thousands of people willing to commute 3hours a day for work while paying eye watering mortgages. I genuinely did not see that in Sheffield and Manchester.

Confirmed Southerner here, could never live far from London...also poor, and living in a deprived area, but I absolutely agree with him. The government really needs to be helping all the country.

Perhaps the post Roman regions are still relevant in considering naming of areas.
Mercia was a large kingdom from the Ridgeway or Thames Valley up to the Trent - Mersey line. neither of those borders were fixed, they moved. It depended on the strengths of the Saxons to the South and Northumbria to the north.
Therefore Manchester is on the Mercian border.

I wonder if any other nation is as fucking pathetic as us when it comes to the geography of their land. This thread is embarrassing now

Surely these figures are similar across the world though? Most countries'capital cities are expensive to live in compared to the rest of the country and highly sought after schools, etc? Every country has areas that were industrial and rural vs finance hubs. Where you live usually reflects your area of work and lifestyle choices. I very much doubt people in the rural areas want finance hub style cities popping up on their doorsteps. Why does everywhere have to be the same?

You miss the point, they seem to think the sign pointing to the North still say The North but point South when you pass Manchester as they seem to think they point to Manchester rather than The North. In reality they continue to point to The North after Manchester on the M6 and there are signs point to The South from north of Manchester. So if you are relying on road signs then Manchester falls into The South when driving down from Carlisle or Scotland.

But there are 650 MPs who are supposed to advocate for their constituencies

And the place they do that is Parliament - based in London. By setting a PMs office up in Manchester he is snubbing parliament and MPs who represent their constituents by debating and voting there. The current huge majority of Labour MPs (despite receiving just 20% of the potential vote) means parliament has been sidelined which is a incredibly undemocratic.

I think your reading too much into it. No 10 North is gimmick so that Andy Burnham can give his Manchester mates like the sniveling Josh Simmons a place to work. It won't actually do anything.

Utter nonsense. Most MPs spend Fridays in their constituencies. Parliament sits between 30-34 weeks a year. If AB spends Fridays and those weeks in No10 North he is snubbing no one.

You’re just making stuff up now. I’m beginning to think you live in the south under a big bridge.

Why does everywhere have to be the same?

Interesting question. Nobody would think they have to be the same, but surely it's not fair to continuously make policies to the benefit of London and the home counties and ignore parts of the country that are stuck? I presume by asking this question you don't mean you would be happy to leave some places in poverty?

Word salad. You're just making up what you think people are thinking due to your prejudice.

Parliament sits at least 13 Fridays per year.

I take it you have never driven on the M6 North of Manchester?

I didn’t say it didn’t. I’m beginning to believe that people who live under bridges in the south have significant comprehension issues. Perhaps we do need to spend more on education in the South if this is the level of argument.

🤣🤣🤣

The point of this whole thread is whether Burnham should stop saying he wants to boost the north (as part of his every postcode statement) and all these obtuse comments about the north are just a distraction.

Nothing gives me the rage quite like people who think everyone in London is rich. Or at the least far better off than the average family up north.

I used to work in a primary school in SE London, and the school did a home visit for every child joining Reception. The living conditions and sheer poverty of some children was heartbreaking, and it was not just one or two, it was several families in every single year group. Think whole families in one bedroom flats, belongings in bags piled up to the ceiling as nowhere to put stuff. One mum actually cried when the school managed to get her some beds from a charity, because her kids could stop sleeping on the floor (she still had to).

Yes I'm sure there are situations like this up and down the country but those who are constantly bitching about Londoners like everyone has a mews in Holland Park can honestly sod right off.

Mumsnetters hate Northerners. The crocodile tears for people living with poverty in London only come out when you think that the northerners may finally get a little investment.

Who thinks everyone in London is rich? No one has said that have they. What people have patiently explained is that as hard as it is to make it when you live in or close to the city paved with gold, it is infinitely harder to do that when you don’t and some millionaires in Cheshire aren’t redressing that balance. And yes it might be that having more political representation in (what is commonly accepted to be) the north of England doesn’t overly help the people of Dumfries or Plymouth but it does help the millions of people that do live in or near Manchester and surely that is a start? Imagine if we have two hubs of wealth generation in the country instead of one? Maybe we could have more!