Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

A little story I found interesting.

https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/02/05/must-leeds-always-lose#selection-1195.0-1317.14

Why Must Leeds Always lose?

Attendees heading to Leeds Dock for the "Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum" in May are in for a treat. Infrastructure-lovers arriving in the northern city by train should go down into the bowels of the station, ignoring the whiff of damp from its position on arches above the River Aire. Cut through the quayside new-builds towards a crumbling stone jetty. A tram was supposed to link the dock to the station. It was never built. Leeds remains the biggest city in Europe without a mass-transit system. Instead, the Twee, a bright-yellow second-hand taxi boat from Amsterdam, has to do.
What Leeds wants, Leeds does not get. Whenever a major infrastructure decision has been made, England's third-biggest city has invariably been on the wrong end of it. The Leeds limb of hs2, the blighted high-speed rail network, was the first to be cut. Northern Powerhouse Rail, a plan to improve links between Leeds and Manchester, was curtailed. After the city approved an expansion to Leeds Bradford Airport in 2021, the then Conservative government blocked it. The Twee is a bright-yellow reminder of the city's tramlessness; it runs every 15 minutes at £3 ($3.75) each way.
If ever there was a moment for Leeds to enjoy a shift in fortunes it is now. Sir Keir Starmer, the prime minister, attended university there. Even better, the member for Leeds West and Pudsey is the chancellor, Rachel Reeves. Yet Labour has announced a slew of measures to improve growth in Britain's thriving south-east. Heathrow is to benefit from a new runway, while a rail route connecting Oxford and Cambridge is to be dotted with new towns. Leeds lost out again. Why?
It is not NIMBYism. At the moment, Leeds is a city of architectural renderings plastered on the side of building sites. Its population grew by 8.1% between 2011 and 2021, the highest rate of any big city bar Bristol. It built 4,441 houses in 2023-24. If every local authority matched it on a per-person basis, Labour would meet its stretching target to build 1.5m homes by 2029. Most do not.
Instead, Leeds has become the laboratory for a dominant strand of thinking in Britain's Treasury: that infrastructure does not much matter. In this world the relative failure of England's main cities is the result of a lack of skills, rather than a lack of capital investment. Leeds is an unwilling lab rat. Standing near a ring road where a gleaming high-speed-rail terminus should be is the Asda Centre for Merchandising Excellence. There is no finer place to learn the best way to sell a sausage; there is no worse place to try to catch a train.
The result is economic purgatory, with the city unable to either truly thrive or wither. Take Temple Works, a bizarre warehouse that combines Egyptian-style hieroglyphs and experimental Victorian engineering. It is the heart of a redevelopment to the south of the main station in Leeds and was to be the site of the British Library's northern branch. At the last budget, Ms Reeves chopped its funding of £10m. The building is Grade I-listed, meaning it must be cherished. The British state enforces the obligations of a rich country with the means of an increasingly poor one. If the area is to grow, it will have to do so around a rotting hulk.
When investment is greeted with technocratic scepticism, only politics can loosen the purse-strings. It is a game Leeds has played badly. Greater Manchester has long managed to pull together. It is a coherent whole, politically and economically. By contrast, "West Yorkshire", the newish combined authority of which Leeds is the most important part, is an awkward compromise. "We just thought people in Yorkshire hated everyone else," said David Cameron, a former prime minister, during one row in the region. "We didn't realise they hated each other so much." It is still the neatest summary of intra-Yorkshire politics.
A paranoid style shapes the city's politics. The current government insists it is committed to a tram in Leeds, just as the government was committed to a tram under the Conservatives in 1993 and under Labour in the 2000s. There will be shovels in the ground by 2028, insist local politicians. Those in the city will believe it when they see it; local investors are unwilling to place money on it either. Yet more economic stasis is the result.
Some fall from paranoia into conspiracy and the idea that politicians and civil servants in the south-east actively want the region to fail. The reality is more depressing: government is institutionally incapable of caring about a middling city, doing fine but not well. Leeds was never a post-industrial wasteland. It did not require the fiscal cpr applied to Liverpool or Teesside. An official from the Treasury visiting for the day will see cranes in the sky and the city centre's curious mix of Greggs, a baker, and stores selling Gucci and assume all is peachy.
Yet the government looks past places like Leeds when it comes to growth. Ms Reeves and the Treasury focus on the south because it pays Britain's bills. Only two regions are net contributors to Britain's coffers: London and the south-east. Leeds is caught in a trap: too prosperous to pity, but still too poor to pay its own way.
Can't spell Leeds without an L
If Britain has a growth problem, it is not just that it has hobbled high-potential stars such as Oxford and Cambridge in the south, but also in part because cities like Leeds underperform. And if Leeds has a problem it is because a place like Leeds Dock is almost empty. Local businesses rule out moving there because it is poorly connected. No amount of signs declaring it "LEEDS CREATIVE DISTRICT" in a tasteful sans-serif font changes that. On a fine recent winter's afternoon the place is dead. The only noise comes from the builders ripping down flammable cladding from the surrounding buildings and the Twee blasting its horn as it rounds a bend on the Aire.

It is indeed weird Leeds still has no transit.

[Gups]

I'll be going to that forum (conference really) in May. It's so massively popular and Leeds is so underserved in hotels rooms etc that lost of people have to stay in York, Wakefield etc for the duration. Sadly, I think it will end up being moved to Manchester or Birmingham as Leeds simply isn't big enough for it - which proves the writer's point.

It also demonstrates the difference a powerful Mayor can have. Manchester and Birmingham (despite a dysfunctional Council) have benefitted in securing infra and regen - Liverpool, Bristol, Leeds and Newcastle have not.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I really like Tom Forth who is very big on Leeds-posting (I think 90% of this article is from a chat in a pub with him)

I agree on the strong mayor point. I also think it is an area of where we should be looking for more metro areas. With good public transport links with Bradford and Wakefield, it could be the centre of a big conurbation - if the road and rail links over the Pennines were in any way fit for purpose tie it into Greater Manchester too.

On good Yorkshire news, nice to see South Yorkshire taking buses back into public control. It's mad how long and difficult the fight was for Andy Burnham but I think the precedent he's establishing with the Bee Network is really important.

[Sheilbh]

Separately but maybe semi-related from the ONS on change of first time buyers basically being pushed out of London (and I suspect most of the other red is also other big city council areas):


London used to be the location with most first time buyers but isn't anymore as they've been priced out - I suspect covid working pattern shifts is also a factor but less important than just price. All London local authorities declined.

Biggest positive changes - and the areas with most first-time buyer mortgages are now basically suburbs: Dartford, Harlow, Medway, Milton Keynes.

[Tamas]

This summary of the changes related to disabled benefit payments don't sound that unreasonable to me:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/18/key-changes-uk-benefits-cuts-disability-pip-labour

[Sheilbh]

A lot will depend on how they're implemented - and the purpose is to cut spending. So far the DWP doesn't have a great record on cutting benefits for the disabled.

I also find it morally problematic that the government is simultaneously pushing ahead with an assisted dying bill opposed by every disabilities group in the country and cutting billions from benefits for the disabled. Make it more difficult for people to live decent, dignified lives in a society that values everyone - while making it easier for people to just die instead.

Broadly saw someone summarise which I broadly agree with - the good stuff is the right to try work (which I think could be really transformative for some people), increased funding for back to work schemes and no PIP reassessments for people with severe lifelong assessment. It also seems the actual numbers on universal credit and the health top up rate are fine for existing claimants - not great but not bad. The cut to the health top up for future clamants from £97 pw to £50 pw (with a base universal credit rise of £7 pw) is going to be a big cut for any future claimants - a crueler system.

More negatively, more regular reassessments of PIP eligibility for people with less severe conditions is not good - not sure more regular interaction with the DWP is to the benefit of anyone.

And then really bad is the increase in the eligibility criteria. It's complex but, for example someone whose highest level of daily living disability is not being able to wash themselves unaided below the waist or unable to get into a bath/shower unaided will not qualify anymore. Basically in order to get the PIP you will need to show that there is literally no aid that can help you absent another person to help.

All of this cut is going to be carried by a small group of people - roughly 1 million people (excluding future claimants), mainly people living with arthritis, cancer, cardiovascular disease, COPD and schizophrenia.

There's a lot Starmer's doing right now that I like  lot (in fact a lot of stuff I've been banging on about here for years ) - but also delivering cuts to benefits for people with disabilities that are more severe and stringent than anything proposed the Tories is shameful for a Labour PM.

[Tamas]

I also find it morally problematic that the government is simultaneously pushing ahead with an assisted dying bill opposed by every disabilities group in the country and cutting billions from benefits for the disabled. Make it more difficult for people to live decent, dignified lives in a society that values everyone - while making it easier for people to just die instead.

 

[Josquius]

I agree the main problem is touching the system at all based on past experience will harm people. Many of the tory reforms on paper sounded fine, in practice the say the right word on the phone or you lose everything setup was a mess.

[Gups]

Yeah I really like Tom Forth who is very big on Leeds-posting (I think 90% of this article is from a chat in a pub with him)

I agree on the strong mayor point. I also think it is an area of where we should be looking for more metro areas. With good public transport links with Bradford and Wakefield, it could be the centre of a big conurbation - if the road and rail links over the Pennines were in any way fit for purpose tie it into Greater Manchester too.

On good Yorkshire news, nice to see South Yorkshire taking buses back into public control. It's mad how long and difficult the fight was for Andy Burnham but I think the precedent he's establishing with the Bee Network is really important.

Sheffield Council is also very well run, ambitious and attracting a lot of developer investment.

[Sheilbh]

I'm always a bit dubious of the Create Streets lot because I hate a lot of their designs (but have been won over to pastiche by Poland).

But I saw comment from one of them that the West Yorkshire Mayor has promised to start construction on a tram in Leeds in the next four years. But - which ties to my devolution point - if you look at French mayors, or other city level governments across Europe they broadly have powers to approve projects, raise taxes to fund them and (within an accepted standard) vary things like environmental assessment requirements. UK mayors or city councils very often don't have those powers - especially on funding or varying standards.

I've flagged before but in the OECD local government in the UK raises the lowest share of its overall budget - I think it's something like 5%, with 95% coming from taxes either controlled by central government or grants from central government. Which means a promise on public transport - like a new metro or a tram - normally involves lots of passing back and forth between central and local government, often approvals and assessments also need central and local government to work together.

It's also an issue when central government has been imposing more and more statutory duties on homeless (social care for children, adult social care, homelessness, bins mandates, road maintenance etc) - and especially with an ageing population. There was a great piece in the FT recently on the challenges for true blue Hampshire County Council facing a huge budget black hole. They are currently spending 83% of their budget on social care (up from about 50% of their budget 10 years ago) - everything else has to be paid for out of the remaining 17%. On average local government is now devoting about two thirds of their budgets to social care, up from 50% 10 years ago. I think especially the children's funding is because it's downstream of austerity (which we'll see happen again when disabled parents lose benefits and local councils have to pick up the slack), but on the adult social care I think it's that we're getting older and there are far more people with complex needs, for example with forms of dementia.

But I also think it plays into a deeper problem. Because local government don't actually recoup many fiscal benefits from growth, there's not much of an incentive for it - especially if you end up like Leeds: too poor to be successful, too rich to be heavily subsidised. Additionally because it goes to central government the Treasury get involved and do cost/benefit analyses and often, I think, they basically report back that there is a higher benefit or return to improving connectivity in areas that are already doing well than areas that aren't. So we end up with a situation where areas of the country that want to grow aren't able to because they're not able to self-fund and need to do the projects in order to grow, while areas of the country that are doing very well already and don't really want any more development are having it more heavily backed by central government because there's a more solid return.

As a start I think it's been posted about before but a fantastic example would be the French versement transport which is basically a cut of payroll tax going to local mayors specifically for local transport projects. I think it's the main funding source for most of the many French public transport projects in its cities over the last 50 years. But also because it's to do with payroll of organisations with more than 10 employees it does help orient the local government to supporting growth.

But I think it also plays into why everything just feels a bit shit everywhere. Councils have had to slash funding on things like maintaining the public realm, or housing the homeless because so much funding has to go on social care (why I think reform of social care is so crucial). And they've not got the power or ability to deliver public transport projects that make people feel like a community is functioning.

[Norgy]

How much do the councils influence the local governance in Britain?

From experience, in Norway they have about 5-10 percent influence on how money is spent locally and almost zero on taxation except on property. I am paying a whopping 650 quid a year on a home, so let's say their mitts are ratter soft.

But the takeback of democracy starts with local democracy.

The zoning and planning is unfortunately one of the exciting issues I cover. This is where the councils actually can do some serious inroads into development, and also the absolute bitch to write about. Nobody reads. Even if it is actually influencing people's lives.

I see Sheilbh writing about how local councils don't need to run a net positive in spending in the UK. Welcome to shitshow of overspending that is Norway, I'd say!  Where budgets and goals rarely are aligned.

[Syt]

So, that fire that shuts down Heathrow - accident or the work of tourists on their way to Salisbury Cathedral?

[Richard Hakluyt]

There was also the mysterious ship collision in the North Sea a few days ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_North_Sea_ship_collision ; "part of the US Government Tanker Security Program and was transporting 220,000 barrels (35,000,000 L; 9,200,000 US gal)[23] of Jet A-1 aviation fuel[12] "   

[Josquius]

This was not too long ago.
If at first you don't succeed....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/16/russia-suspected-of-planting-device-on-plane-that-caused-uk-warehouse-fire

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Assume Russians I guess