The poor are not as poor elsewhere, this should be borne in mind when discussing where funds are allocated.
And, perhaps more pertinently, the economic structure of the UK viz London/Regions has been the same for the last 1000 years. This has little to do with anything any government can fix.
That's not what I understood - I thought that during the industrial revolution the north of England (also the belt of Scotland) was the powerhouse of the economy? I also understood that in medieval times East Anglia was the center of wealth in the UK?
It's been "preferential" to "attach" to London since Roman times, ie., if your ROI is proportional to your output, then london has been "the place to spend" for 2000 years.
The industrial revolution "levelled up" parts of the north which had advantageous geography and resources, but that was a period of "growth redistribution" which acted against the tidal forces of preferential attachment.
Absent something outside the basic logic of ROI-tomorrow prop-to ROI-today (eg., ports, coal, etc.), that is what dominates.
Gov. policy here is pretty hopeless; you can make marginal improvements, but it is strictly, and quite literally, a waste of money.
Both for each £1 of gov spending, and each £1 of private spending, more impact on your goals are achieved in London (et al.).
Eg., one has to argue £10mil on some local transport for a <few hundred to use a week is worthwhile, whilst £10mil in london would enable 1000s/week.
It isnt, and in any case, makes little difference to the overall picture. "Levelling up" then means that the gov redistributes money from economically productive areas, to unproductive ones, to make marginal improvements.
There's a limited amount any gov can actually do that; too much and there's nothing left to redistribute.
FWIW I think that the large towns in the north of England are a huge opportunity for the UK; they have extensive infrastructures and could provide excellent standards of living for their inhabitants. Many friends have relocated there as soon as they have secured a solid remote role - or on retirement. Access to countryside, a better local infrastructure and cheaper housing are very attractive. If economic activity could be boosted there I think it would create a lot of hidden value.
For reference, London does not have the poorest towns/area in the UK. They tend to be seaside towns or towns in the northeast.
Of course, London is most poor when factoring in housing costs, but it is also massive compared to any other town [1]. The poorest area in the UK are the poorest in Europe [2].
1. https://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/data/poverty-rates-by-regi... (data focused on London highlights that London is the worst.)
2. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jun/28/england-poor...
I agree with your general point. There are some very poor areas in London but the index of multiple deprivation lowest ranked places are elsewhere. And if you are able to work, you have more options in London than in a small town with limited public transport.
The infographic that I wanted to link [1] also has a link to the original data.
[1]: http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_region...