The UK system heavily centralised in tax-and-spend powers, but heavily decentralised in veto powers. Secondary cities have used their veto powers to either stop development or make it so expensive that very little gets developed.
City centres are not being built up to concentrate talent, and I wouldn't blame London or lack of public money. Housing and rents are high enough to justify private spending on concentrated development if not for the regulatory burdens and delays.
The author points out Leeds and Manchester having no metro system that exists in other similarly sized cities. But how much of a useful metro system could Leeds build given the same money spent by Toulouse or Lyon? My guess is none, the money would be consumed by lawsuits and addressing local veto owner concerns.
HS2 is cut short because of money that people outside of London demand be spent on making it so expensive on a per-mile basis. If the line were developed similar to other lines in Europe there would be money available for the full length.
I'm somewhat bullish on Manchester in the long run, they may emerge as a second city that tolerates growth. If they develop enough to become an affordable and large city then they will attract a lot of businesses who would otherwise be in London.
In my city we have a "housing crisis" while the city council owns large empty lots in the city centre from torn down or empty buildings. They have been waiting 8 years on handouts from London to afford to develop it themselves, spending £15m so far without a single unit built. It could be sold to developers and fixed council finances, but there is such a strong aversion to allowing a private company make a profit. The council actually has assets to develop the sites, but has preferred to pursue handouts instead of spending their own money.