‘We feel absolutely aggrieved’: Northern leaders say region has been left behind as they condemn Brexiteers over broken promises

Northern leaders have accused Brexit leaders of breaking promises after new figures revealed London receives more money than any other part of the UK.

A key part of the campaign to leave the EU has been the spread of wealth across the UK, with Boris Johnson signing the withdrawal agreement six years ago and promising increased investment, better transport and improved living standards as part of the Conservative Party’s post-Brexit policy.

But despite billions of pounds being shared in “Level Up” grants, HM Treasury data Independent It shows those in the capital enjoy 26 per cent more spending than the average UK resident in 2024/25.

Now northern leaders say promises have not been fulfilled and are criticizing how the “Level Up” money was distributed. One academic said the money was often used on “social and cultural issues” rather than stimulating growth.

Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce Chairman Wayne Jones said: “We are absolutely aggrieved by what has happened.

“I think a lot of people have been misled about what will happen post-Brexit and also about what the EU is actually funding at grassroots level across all sectors of industry.”

The “Level Up” programme, which was at the heart of Mr Johnson’s election-winning mandate in 2019, has been developed to set out 12 missions, including closing the gap in living standards, increasing spending on research and development outside London and the South East, and bringing local transport significantly closer to standards in London.

The government said the core of this fund is a massive funding total of £4.8bn, distributed in three waves and focused on capital investment in areas “in greatest need of levelling”. There was also the £3.2 billion Towns Fund for areas with limited regional economic opportunities and the £3.5 billion Joint Prosperity Fund to reduce inequalities and replace EU support.

However, shortly after their launch the National Audit Office (NAO) published: a damn report He noted that the delay in agreeing funding for projects after departments were initially unable to handle funding led to many delays and the need for adjustments. Later, the NAO said the government’s grant management process had improved.

Despite the rise in public spending across the UK, the latest figures from HM Treasury show that the amount spent on Londoners is still more than the rest of the country.

Although it has narrowed somewhat in most regions since the UK left the EU in 2020, the gap shows that excluding money for social protection such as benefits and pensions, per capita spending in London is £10,079 in 2024/25, compared to the UK average of £8,029.

The region with the lowest per capita spend was the East Midlands, where spend was £6,909 in 2024/25, followed by the South West at £7,015, the South East at £7,074 and Yorkshire and the Humber at £7,305.

There is a similar picture for capital expenditure, which is often seen as a catalyst for growth; Despite money increases in regions outside London, spending in the capital still dwarfs every region at £2,100 per head in 2024/25; The North West comes in second with £1,613 per person.

When examined in detail, the data also shows that London will receive more public money per capita for transport, health, public order and safety than any other region in 2024-25.

Although there are many major transport services in the capital, including the London Underground, a person living in the East Midlands receives less public spending on transport than a Londoner.

HM Treasury said spending in London was higher because it was more expensive to provide public services in the capital due to higher staff and infrastructure costs. The expenditure recorded specifically benefits each region and includes money from central and local government, public companies and the Bank of England.

Henri Murison, CEO of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, said: Independent that wrong decisions are often made by the government about where infrastructure funding for research and development goes. He said: “People who voted Leave in large numbers in places like Lancashire and Teeside are among the biggest losers. This is the responsibility of those in those communities who made promises and then broke promises.”

He added: “As we left the European Union, regional funding for economic development was cut. New competitive funding competitions introduced separately prioritized electoral advantage over long-term productivity growth. This meant that even capital that did manage to be spent was not always put to its best use.”

“Ultimately, investing more public capital budgets outside the Greater South East should not just be about fairness or closing gaps, but about taking advantage of opportunities. We must ensure that areas such as Greater Manchester, where productivity is already growing fastest, are further developed with major infrastructure such as Northern Powerhouse Rail running from Liverpool and Manchester to Bradford, Leeds and Hull, as well as Rotherham and Sheffield.”

Mr Jones added: “We’re lucky in Manchester to have the devolution agreement that gives us some authority over our own spending, but again when you look at London, when you look at the South East it’s completely disproportionate and the ‘Level Up’ hasn’t actually happened.”

Criticizing the way money was distributed as part of the Level Up programme, he said: “The concept of giving small chunks to many people or regions is a flaw in the process and should have been replaced by a regional approach for greater combined economic growth.

“I think a lot of people have been misled about what will happen post-Brexit and also what the EU is funding at grassroots level across all sectors of industry.”

A report by the University of Liverpool last year raised concerns that decisions on funding bids were being politically influenced. Author Dr., a senior lecturer in urban planning. Alex Nurse said: Independent Too much money had been spent on “a mixture of social and cultural things” rather than major infrastructure to stimulate economies.

Last year, think tank Center for Cities suggested that cities in the UK had caught up with London in productivity growth since Brexit, with Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester leading the list. But chief executive Andrew Carter said this still did not mask the “negative economic shock” to the country from Brexit.

He said: “Venues were already struggling to respond to changes in the economy, changes in consumer preferences. I think so [Brexit] Added to this was the fact that it did not help spread prosperity, pain spread everywhere, and the poor places that were already struggling continued to struggle, if not struggle even more.”

A spokesperson for the UK Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government said more money would be made available to areas through the government’s Pride in Place scheme and a deal for the local council would provide an extra £440 million for areas hardest hit by austerity cuts.

They said: “We are tackling regional economic inequality through long-term, targeted funding to the areas that need it most.

“Our £5.8bn Pride in Place program is a break from past approaches, instead empowering local people to decide how they invest that money in their communities. We have also reformed the way local government is funded so we can target money to areas where it is needed most to help tackle deprivation.”