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.

It's a tough life for MPs! Having to work 13 Fridays - can you imagine?

Mumsnetters aren't don't have a single view point! The North has been getting investment for years - the whole leveling up agenda under Johnson was pumping money into Northern England. The idea of London subsididing the regions is nothing new.

Yes exactly.

What I don’t get is the resentment from southerners. I live in Manchester and have benefited from the recent success of the city, but I am still aware of areas in city that are really poor. If AB was from Newcastle I’d cheer on a Jordie No 10. I want Leeds and (even) Liverpool to do well. I’m concerned about the South West and how it is ignored and patronised. I want Cardiff to have a thriving TV industry. Coastal towns are ignored and we need to have focused action to help them.

I want wealth spread far across the U.K. the attitude of some southerners seems to be anything that isn’t about them is a waste of time, any jobs moving away is foolish any attempt to level up anywhere is nonsense.

The post earlier explained most MPs do constituency work on Fridays, this was meant to be a gotcha point about parliamentary working patterns.

Most other PMs managed to do their constituency work from their constituency offices - its a good hour into central Manchester for Makerfield with Manchester trafffic. Is he really expecting his constituents to trek into the city for the honour of meeting him?

The North has been ignored for too long. Ironic that those in the south hate it when it becomes the focus.

I think the main concern comes form knowing how the Labour party operates. The Tories focused on how to bring up the North to match the South. Labour will focus on how to bring the South down to match the North. ]

Just look at education example rather than trying make state schools as good as private school they have attacked the funding of private schools to bring them down.

London generates nearly a quarter (23 per cent) of Britain’s GDP.
Greater Manchester, at four per cent, is the next largest regional contributor. It is no wonder London gets the investment! But to play off one against the other is crazy. It shouldn’t be either or, it should be both or many regions getting expertise, investment and infrastructure.

It's been the focus for years - Northern Powerhouse, Leveling up, The number 10 of the North is just the next in a long line of rebrands.

Many PMs have their constituency work triaged, also security is a major issue. Recent PMs have used online meetings to hold meetings with constituents. It may be cheaper to have meetings in Manchester, I don’t know, and I wouldn’t comment any further either way on something I don’t know anything about - you should try that sometime.

Flawed statistics because it is based on location of head offices etc rather than where the customers are, where the staff work, etc. Tesco's contribution will go down as London/SE, so the profits/staff in, say, Hartlepool will get put down as London/SE and not including in fiances/economy reporting of Hartlepool/ Likewise the banks, pension firms, etc etc - no regard for where their staff and customers are located.

No, it's not been "focus", it's been lip-service, smoke and mirrors. Look at HS2 - it won't even reach Manchester anymore, but at the time, it was hailed as the saviour of Manchester, Leeds, etc. Politicians have talked the talk for a couple of decades but not walked the walk. Likewise Northern Powerhouse, lots of talk, not much action. The Transpennine rail route is another thing that's been talked about for decades but very little has been achieved to improve the rail service.

Exactly.

You misunderstand. Flawed or not, it’s the statistic. I’m pointing out that it’s why London gets the lion’s share ( and of course nearly a quarter of the English population lives there). Anyway, a lot of banks and finance institutions have moved outside, have they not?

Some might say that the introduction of Metro Mayors to drive the Northern Powerhouse and investment made available is what enable Burnham to take credit for making Manchester what it is today.

The EU supported all regions based on deprivation which is why areas like Cornwall benefited - but they voted to leave! Biggest error ever.

Andy has announced a tour of the UK Britain to reconnect with the public.

Let's see if he wants to reconnect with the good citizens of NI as well as GB.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/aug/09/andy-burham-tour-britain-reconnect-government-public-cost-of-living-high-street

Hyper fixation on the North South divide is nothing new. In the 90s, the EU identified Cornwall as one of the most deprived parts of the UK and Europe. It was granted Objective One Funding in 1999. This was because the GDP was less than 75% of the EU average.

Between 2000 and 2020 Cornwall received over 1 billion euros in structural and regional funds.

Why was this funding needed? Because Cornwall had faced chronic underinvestment from the UK Government for decades, if not longer. Nothing has changed.

Other areas which qualified for funding from the EU included Merseyside, West Wales and the Valleys, South Yorkshire, Northern Ireland and the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

Many would say that - including Andy Burnham himself who has praised George Osborne frequently for recognising the need for the Northern Powerhouse. (One example of the place before party politics that served him so well in Manchester).

Andy Burnham’s criticism was always about the way the Northern Powerhouse was underfunded and badly administered by a centralised government that didn’t understand the places it was making decisions for. His success in Manchester was because he fought for more fiscal and political decision making power to stay within the city region itself.

He now wants to extend those fiscal and decision making powers to more regions - so that local leaders don’t have to go cap in hand to Whitehall for funding, or wait for Westminster politicians to make decisions about a place they may not ever even have been to.

As Andy Burnham has said - repeatedly - it’s not about North and South, it’s about more regional control everywhere.

I was on a course . It was mainly safeguarding but one of the ponts that came up was poverty. One of the course leaders said " If you are poor in Surrey you are poorer than anywhere else in the country".
It holds alot of truth . This is such a horrendously expensive area that everything is more expensive including food in shops.
Every county has its problems.

But at least there are jobs in Surrey!

I can very well believe this to be true.

But surely, this is another argument in favour of the kind of regional devolution Andy Burnham is arguing for? Under his proposals, regional leaders in Surrey who understand the nuances of their county would be making more key decisions about what local people actually need.

At the moment we can all read what we like into his plans as they are very vague. He spoke about devolving a share of income tax but then got upset one a mayor said they would use it offer rebates to attract more business to their area. It appears to be I'll devolve power as long as you do what I say with it.

Ultimately the problem with devolution is I doubt we as a country have the appetite to really devolve responsibility. If an area elects a Reform Mayor and they mess up their economy will we really be prepared to sit and watch an area starve? It is bound to end up with bailouts for failure.

IMO it is a legitimate choice for a metro mayor to offer the option of a tax refund rather than "investment". Not everyone thinks that local (or national) government spends money better than Joe Public. My plan for public spending might look different to Andy Burnham's.

That’s a completely fair point - there isn’t alot of detail yet, and we’ll know much more when the devolution white paper is published alongside the budget in October.

I suppose what I find frustrating though, is - while you’re right the announcements are vague and very open to interpretation - Andy Burnham has never once said his devolution proposals are only for deprived regions in the North. In fact, he’s talked consistently about good growth in every postcode. Yet somehow because he speaks with a Northern accent, alot of people seem unable or unwilling to hear that.