Northern leaders have accused Brexit leaders of breaking promises after new figures revealed London is receiving more money than any other UK region.
A key part of the campaign to leave the EU was to spread wealth across the UK with Boris Johnson, who signed the withdrawal agreement six years ago, promising increased investment, better transport and raised living standards as part of the Tories’ post-Brexit policy.
But despite billions of pounds shared out in “Levelling Up” grants, HM Treasury data analysed by The Independent shows that those in the capital benefited from 26 per cent more expenditure than the average person living in the UK in 2024/25.
Now northern leaders say pledges were not fulfilled and have criticised how the “Levelling Up” cash was shared out. One academic said the money was too often used on “social and cultural stuff” instead of kickstarting growth.
Wayne Jones, chairman of Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, said: “We absolutely feel aggrieved by what’s happened.
“I think a lot of people were misled in terms of what would happen post-Brexit and also what the EU was actually funding in grassroot levels across all sectors of industry.”
The “Levelling Up” programme, central to Mr Johnson’s election-winning mandate in 2019, evolved to set 12 missions, which included closing the gap in living standards, increasing research and development spending outside London and the South East and taking local transport significantly closer to the standards in London.
At its core was a huge pot of funding - totalling £4.8bn, which was distributed in three waves and focused on capital investment in areas “most in need of levelling up”, said the government. There was also a £3.2bn Towns Fund to address areas with a limited regional economic opportunities and a £3.5bn UK Shared Prosperity Fund to reduce inequalities and replace EU support.
But soon after their launch, the National Audit Office (NAO) issued a damning report on an initial inability by departments to handle the funding, stating that a delay in agreeing funding for projects had led to many being delayed and needing adjusting. Later, the NAO said the government’s grant management process had improved.
Yet despite an increased rate in public spend across the UK, the latest HM Treasury figures still show the amount spent on Londoners outweighs the rest of the country.
The gap, although closing slightly for most regions since the UK left the EU in 2020, shows that spend per head in London was £10,079 in 2024/25, when excluding money for social protection such as benefits and pensions, while the UK average was £8,029.
The region with the lowest spend per head was East Midlands, where spend was £6,909 in 2024/25, followed by the South West with £7,015, the South East with £7,074 and Yorkshire and the Humber with £7,305.
It is a similar picture for capital expenditure - often seen as the catalyst for growth - where despite increases in money for areas outside London, spend in the capital still dwarfed every region at £2,100 per head in 2024/25, with the North West second at £1,613 per head.
Broken down, the data also shows London received more public money per head than any region for transport, health and public order and safety in 2024-25.
For transport, someone living in the East Midlands got less than a third public spend than a Londoner – although the capital has many major transport services including the London Underground.
HM Treasury said spending in London was higher because it is more expensive to provide public services in the capital due to high staff and infrastructure costs. The recorded spend is specifically for the benefit of each region and includes money from central and local government, public corporations and the Bank of England.
Henri Murison, chief executive of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, told The Independent that the wrong decisions were often made by the government on where funding for infrastructure to research & development went. He said: “People who voted Leave in large numbers in places like Lancashire and Teeside are among those who have lost the most. That is the responsibility of those that made promises in those communities they then failed to keep.”
He added: “As we left the European Union regional funding for economic development was slashed. The new competitive funding competitions that were introduced separately prioritised electoral advantage over long term productivity growth. This meant even the capital which was managed to be spent wasn’t always best used.
“In the end, investing public capital budgets more outside the Greater South East shouldn’t just be about fairness or closing gaps but about capitalising on opportunity. We must enable areas like Greater Manchester where productivity is already growing the fastest to improve further with major infrastructure like Northern Powerhouse Rail which stretches across from Liverpool and Manchester to Bradford, Leeds and Hull as well as down towards Rotherham and Sheffield.”
Mr Jones added: “We’re lucky in Manchester to have got the devolution deal which gives us some authority of our own spend, but still, you look at London, and if you look at the South East, it’s completely disproportionate and “Levelling Up” has not really materialised.”
Criticising the way money was issued as part of the Levelling Up programme, he said: “The concept of giving little pieces to lots of individuals or areas is a flaw in the process, and should have instead been replaced with a regional approach for greater joined-up economic growth.
“I think a lot of people were misled in terms of what would happen post-Brexit and also what actually the EU were funding in grassroot levels across all sectors of industry.”
A report by the University of Liverpool last year voiced concerns that decisions on funding bids had been influenced politically. Author Dr Alex Nurse, senior lecturer in urban planning, told The Independent that too much money had been spent on a “mixture of social and cultural stuff” instead of big infrastructure to kickstart economies.
Last year, think tank Centre for Cities suggested that the UK’s cities were catching up with London in productivity growth since Brexit, with Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester leading the pack. But chief executive Andrew Carter said it still did not mask Brexit’s “negative economic shock” to the country.
He said: “Places were already struggling to respond to changes in the economy, changes in consumer preferences. I think it [Brexit] was an addition to that, so it didn't help to spread prosperity, the pain was spread all over the place and poorer places already struggling continued to struggle, if not struggled even more.”
For exclusive analysis on how Britain can rebuild its relationship with Europe, sign up for our weekly Europe: The Way Back newsletter here.
A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government of the United Kingdom spokesperson said more money was to be provided for regions through the government’s Pride in Place scheme, and that a settlement for local council was delivering an extra £440m for areas hit hardest by austerity cuts.
They said: “We’re tackling regional economic inequality through long-term, targeted funding to areas that need it most.
“ Our £5.8 billion Pride in Place programme is a break from past approaches and instead gives the power to local people to decide how to invest this money in their communities. And we’ve reformed the way local government is funded so that we target money on the areas where it is most needed to help tackle deprivation.”
Read MoreWatch: From referendum night to resignations — How Brexit unfolded
Brexit vote live results: Cameron resigns as Britain votes to leave
Almost two thirds say immigration has worsened since Brexit, poll shows
Schools set to close amid impending rare red warnings for extreme heat
Andy Burnham prepares for a UK Labour leadership contest that may be a coronation
What Andy Burnham as prime minister might mean for your money
