For decades, many across Britain have denounced a north-south divide, claiming too many decisions have been made in Westminster and too much money invested in London and the south east.
And the figures, by and large, support their argument.
People living south of Birmingham generally live longer than their northern counterparts, the proportion of working-age people in employment is also higher, and disposable household income is almost twice as high in London and Birmingham.
Devolution under previous governments has made a difference, say groups like Centre for Cities. But the think-tank now wants Labour leaders to go further, while pointing out 95 per cent of tax revenue still goes straight to central government in Whitehall.
So when Andy Burnham, likely to replace Sir Keir Starmer as prime minister next month, unveiled his plan on Monday for a “rewired Britain” through devolution driven by a “No10 North” based in Manchester, northern leaders were quick to show their support.
“Imagine good growth in every postcode and hope in every heart,” the “King of the North” said not once, but twice, as he promised a radical devolution of power away from Westminster and into the UK’s nations and regions, with living standards equalised across the whole country.
But what is the north-south divide, and is it as clear-cut as suggested? Here, The Independent looks at disposable income, employment, education and life expectancy across the regions to show the full picture.
Unlike salary income, the gross disposable household income (GDHI) is the amount of money people have for spending or saving, and is a key metric in determining how wealthy people feel. GDHI grew across the UK by 9.5 per cent in 2023, but the figures show a clear regional divide.
While the average GDHI per head across UK regions was £24,836, London (£35,361), the South East (£28,187), the East of England (£25,732) and the South West (£24,854) were the top for regions, while the North East (£19,977) was the lowest.
It’s a similar picture when looking at a local level, with the top 10 places for GDHI all in London or the South East. The bottom 10 features five places in the West Midlands, two in Yorkshire and The Humber and one in the North West.
Six years ago, the Equality Trust called the gap in disposable income as “a damning indictment of the glaring inequalities between London and the rest of the country and between north and south, rich and poor”.
But looking more closely at the regional breakdown, there are clear outliers.
In Solihull, just outside Birmingham and in the West Midlands, and North Yorkshire disposable income per head (£26,815 and £26,697) is well above the average.
While in Luton, disposable income per head (£19,338) is well below the average.
Another key metric to an area’s economic activity is its employment rate, which shows the proportion of people aged between 16 and 64 who are in work.
The average across Great Britain is 75.1 per cent, but like with gross disposable income, there are strong variations across the regions, with the highest rate in the East of England and the South East (both 78.2 per cent), and the lowest in the North East (71.1 per cent).
Looking at the north-south so-called divide, the East of England, South East and South West (77.8 per cent) have the top three highest rates, however London (74.2 per cent) is below the country average.
And looking at the local areas, Kensington & Chelsea and Hammersmith & Fulham (65.9 per cent) has the fifth lowest rate, and Luton (69.4 per cent) has the 16th lowest. East Kent (70.2 per cent), Barnet (70.9 per cent) and Hackney and Newham (72.1 per cent) are all also toward the bottom of the table.
In the north, Chorley and West Lancashire (81.6 per cent) and Cheshire West and Cheshire (81.2 per cent) are well above the national average.
Why is it that cities like London, despite being in the south, has a lower employment rate, despite having better opportunities? In a paper published last year by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the body suggested it could be a poor quality of education in big cities in the 1990s and early 2000s.
The paper also identified a “notable penalty” for young people growing up in cities outside of London - but found many were still not accesssing opportunities available.
Last year, the Institute for Government (IfG) warned that educational inequalities in England have “grown wider and more pronounced” across the country and among various demographic groups since the Covid pandemic.
And latest figures for Key Stage 4 attainment rate, meaning pupils who pass English and Maths GCSE, reveal the regional imbalance remains huge. In the Merseyside village of Knowsley, the rate is lowest (52.3 per cent), followed by Blackpool (55 per cent ) and Middlesbrough (63.6 per cent).
At the other end of the spectrum, the affluent London boroughs of Kingston upon Thames (85.8 per cent), Richmond upon Thames (85.1 per cent) and Sutton (84.5 per cent).
Last year, Caroline Voaden, the Liberal Democrat MP for South Devon who sits on the Commons education select committee, urged the government to go further by addressing funding disparities across the country.
She said: “Frankly, it’s a scandal that children across the country are being let down by a focus of consecutive governments on London and it has to change. Our children deserve better.”
However, the local figures contain some outliers.
Trafford in Greater Manchester (83.6 per cent), Warrington (78.9 per cent) and York (77.8 per cent) were among the top performing areas, while the bottom of the list contained the the Isle of Wight (65.2 per cent) and Portsmouth (66.2 per cent).
In his speech on Monday, Mr Burnham said his government would provide young people with “a clear path into a reindustrialised Britain” as part of “complete rethink of how we support the next generation to succeed”.
So often seen as a key indicator for the standard of living, the life expectancy of people from birth has for years shown huge variations at a regional level across the UK.
Last year, research from the Centre for Aging Better found a clear north-south divide in average life expectancy.
Chief executive Dr Carole Easton OBE said: “Living in a part of the country where good quality jobs and opportunity is scarce, and where financial insecurity and poverty is rife, is robbing people of their health in later life and depriving them of years spent with loved ones. This is the true human cost of our very unequal society.”
She said urgent action was needed across government, society, and communities “to put us back on the road to recovery”.
But a year on, and figures from the Office for National Statistics still show a similar story.
While average life expectancy for men was 79.2 and for women 83 in 2022 to 2024, in the North East it is 77.7 for men and 81.6 for women. Meanwhile, in the South East, a man isexpected to leave to 80.7 and a woman to 84.4.
It’s a similar picture at a local level, with the 10 areas with highest life expectancy for men and women all located in the south of England. However, some areas in the south have below-average life expectancy, like Gloucester for women (82.1) and Dover and Slough for men (77.2 and 77.9).
Speaking after Mr Burnham’s speech, Henri Murison, chief executive of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, said spreading wealth was not just about the north, which he welcomed, but also about benefiting other areas.
He said: "We should all want a more united country. The Greater South East will benefit from greater freedom to raise the investment it needs, while, over time, having a reduced responsibility to subsidise other parts of the country as other regional economies become stronger.
"'No.10 North' will help ensure that the relocation of civil servants to places such as Darlington, York and Manchester delivers its full potential. These new government offices are helping regenerate those places, but ministers themselves have not yet made effective use of them. A regular ministerial presence outside Whitehall would strengthen decision-making and bring government closer to the communities it serves."
