Dave Hill‘s latest piece for OnLondon tackles one of the most entrenched fault lines in contemporary British politics: the supposed tug‑of‑war between “the North” and London. As national debate hardens into caricature – a pampered, globalised capital versus a neglected, authentic hinterland – Hill argues that this binary does more to obscure problems than solve them. In examining how politicians, commentators and campaigners weaponise regional identities, he suggests that framing policy around a North‑versus‑London narrative not only distorts the realities of inequality across the country, but actively hinders constructive solutions. His article sets out to disentangle myth from material conditions, questioning who really benefits from this political shorthand, and what a more honest, joined‑up conversation about place, power and prosperity might look like.
Exposing the false divide between The North and London in national politics
Listen closely to the language of Westminster and you can hear a scriptwriter’s fantasy geography: a plucky, monolithic “North” pitted against an arrogant, overfed “London”.It is indeed a story that fits neatly into headlines and hustings speeches but falls apart on contact with reality. Communities in Manchester, Newcastle or Hull share at least as much with outer London boroughs such as Barking & Dagenham or Hounslow as they do with the prosperous enclaves of Cheshire or North Yorkshire. The fault lines of power and opportunity in modern Britain run less along motorway signs and more along class, housing tenure and access to reliable public transport. Yet the myth of two rival blocs has become so embedded that it shapes both party messaging and media framing, distorting who gets heard and whose problems are treated as exceptional.
This binary also serves a convenient political purpose: it invites voters to believe that every win for London must be a loss for “the rest”, and vice versa. In practice, under-investment in one region weakens the whole country’s economic and social fabric. London’s overcrowded,overpriced housing market pushes lower-paid workers outwards,just as underfunded northern bus routes trap people in low-wage local economies. Instead of a fabricated turf war, the real debate should focus on shared structural issues and joint leverage.
- Under-investment in transport and housing afflicts cities north and south.
- Precarious work and low pay bind many London renters to northern ex-industrial towns.
- Local government cuts have hit councils from Haringey to Hartlepool with similar force.
- Centralised power in Whitehall sidelines both regional mayors and the capital’s City Hall.
| Issue | Typical “North vs London” Claim | Reality Check |
|---|---|---|
| Transport | “London gets all the trains.” | Both regions face overcrowding, delays and stalled projects. |
| Housing | “Only London has a crisis.” | Affordability and poor quality housing plague northern towns too. |
| Jobs | “The good work is in the capital.” | Low-paid, insecure work is entrenched in London and northern cities alike. |
| Voice in Westminster | “The North is ignored, London is indulged.” | Marginal seats and media narratives, not geography, decide who gets attention. |
How media narratives fuel regional resentment and distort policy priorities
Turn on a nightly news bulletin or scroll through the usual comment pages and you’re met with a familiar script: a beleaguered, monolithic “North” pitted against a swaggering, complacent “London”. This framing is neat, emotive and televisual – but it is also lazy, flattening complex social and economic realities into a crude morality play. Localised problems become caricatures, while shared national challenges are rebranded as regional grievances. The result is a feedback loop in which the loudest, most polarising narratives set the agenda, rewarding politicians who speak in clichés and punishing those who acknowledge nuance. Instead of examining why towns, suburbs and city districts across the country face similar struggles with housing, transport and low-paid work, coverage leans on an easy dichotomy that suggests every policy is a zero-sum tug-of-war between Euston and everything beyond it.
This distorting lens inevitably seeps into decision-making. Ministers and mayors alike feel compelled to “prove” they are backing one side of the imagined divide, which often leads to symbolic gestures rather than coherent investment strategies. Media framing encourages policies that look good in headlines but do little to change outcomes,such as:
- Over-selling flagship projects while under-funding everyday services.
- Announcing rival funding pots that pit regions against each other for small grants.
- Reducing London’s needs to a question of “too much money already”.
- Reducing northern demands to compensation rather than modernisation.
| Media Frame | Policy Effect |
|---|---|
| “North versus London” | Competitive bidding and short-term fixes |
| “Levelling up as a contest” | Headline grants, little structural reform |
| “London always wins” | Reluctance to fund national-scale infrastructure |
| “The forgotten North” | Focus on resentment, not regional collaboration |
Reframing levelling up as a shared national project not a zero sum regional battle
Turning investment and opportunity into a tug-of-war between post-industrial towns and the capital obscures a more useful question: what would it take for every part of the country to thrive together? A genuinely modern approach would accept that places are interdependent, not rivals. London’s transport networks, universities and global businesses are national assets, just as advanced manufacturing in the North, green energy in the North East and logistics hubs in the Midlands underpin prosperity far beyond their boundaries. Rather than competing for a fixed pot of money, the political conversation needs to move towards co-investment that knits these strengths into a coherent whole.
That shift in mindset can be summarised as building a shared project with clear, mutual gains:
- Connected economies – faster, more reliable rail and digital links between major cities and smaller towns, not just to London.
- Complementary specialisms – backing regional clusters that reinforce, rather than duplicate, the capital’s strengths.
- Fair fiscal tools – tax and spending rules that reward local growth everywhere, instead of pitting one area’s “win” against another’s “loss”.
- Co-authored policy – mayors, councils and communities shaping national strategies together, not lobbying from the sidelines.
| Old framing | New framing |
|---|---|
| London vs The North | London and The North |
| Fight over slices | Grow the whole pie |
| Short-term bids | Long-term missions |
| Symbolic gestures | Measurable outcomes |
Practical steps for policymakers to bridge regional divides through collaboration
Instead of fuelling a binary contest between “the capital” and “the regions”, national and local leaders can co-produce policies that recognize mutual dependence. That means aligning transport, housing and skills strategies across city-regions and Whitehall, with joint delivery boards that include mayors, council leaders and community organisations. Cross-regional taskforces, funded over multiple spending cycles, can focus on shared priorities such as clean energy or digital infrastructure, while data-sharing agreements help all sides track what is working and where investment is actually landing. To keep this from becoming yet another talking shop, ministers should link departmental targets and civil service performance measures directly to outcomes agreed with local partners, rather than to headline announcements made in Westminster.
Practical collaboration also needs a culture shift inside government, where power is still hoarded in London. Policymakers can institutionalise place-based experimentation by allowing combined authorities and councils to pilot different funding models and service designs, with a clear route to scale up successes nationally. Regular, publicly accessible forums can bring together businesses, trade unions, universities and civic groups from both the North and the South to develop joint bids and investment plans, not competing ones. Some key levers include:
- Multi-year devolution deals with flexible budgets tied to locally defined outcomes.
- Shared investment funds where London and other regions co-invest in ports, rail hubs and innovation clusters.
- Common performance dashboards displaying regional progress on jobs, wages and connectivity.
| Policy Tool | Lead Partner | Main Benefit |
|---|---|---|
| Joint transport board | City mayors | Integrated ticketing |
| Skills compact | Colleges & employers | Local talent pipelines |
| Innovation corridor | Universities | Shared R&D growth |
Insights and Conclusions
Hill’s argument is less about denying regional imbalance and more about challenging the lazy narrative that sets “the North” and “London” at permanent odds. Levelling up cannot be achieved through a zero‑sum game in which one part of the country must lose so another can win. If anything, the evidence suggests that when the capital thrives in a fair and properly structured system, its success can and should reinforce prosperity elsewhere.
What is needed, Hill implies, is political honesty: an admission that deep‑rooted economic and social divides will not be bridged by pitting one geography against another, nor by caricaturing London as the problem rather than part of the solution. Until policy‑makers abandon that rhetoric and focus instead on serious investment, smarter devolution and joined‑up planning, the promise of a more equal country will remain just that – a promise, endlessly recycled, rarely fulfilled.
