Visionary or more of the same? Levelling Up plans arrive

By Emily Chen

Yesterday saw the arrival of the long-awaited Levelling Up White Paper, presented to Parliament by Secretary of State for Levelling Up Michael Gove. The contents of the 332-page document outlined what will become legally binding plans to attempt to transform the parts of the UK that have fallen behind economically.  

The wide-ranging proposals identified 12 goals, which the government promised it would use billions of public money to help deliver.  

The goals, which covered everything from boosting pay and productivity and improving transport and mobile connectivity to tackling poor quality housing and rolling out new devolution deals, all linked back to the central theme of addressing long-standing and stubborn regional inequalities. 

Much of the criticism that met the proposals focused on whether new money would really be made available and how exactly the lofty ambitions would be met in practice. Sir Adrian Smith, President of the Royal Society argued that there needs to be “‘new investment and not just a repackaging of old money” because “we cannot afford to rob Peter to pay Paul”.  

Despite Gove declaring that the intention of the White Paper is to address regional disparities, particularly between the North and South, analysis by the Guardian identified that many of the wealthiest parts of England have been allocated ten times more money per capita to date from levelling up funding than the poorest. Ministers have previously been accused of allocating spending under the Levelling Up Fund and Towns Fund towards Conservative constituencies, drawing accusations of ‘pork barrel politics’. A National Audit Office report found that funding decisions were not “based on evidence”, criticising ministers for failing to provide a business case for their decisions. 

Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Lisa Nandy, , lambasted Gove in her response in the Commons, arguing that the White Paper represented “more of the same.” Nandy cast the twelve missions within the paper as “twelve admissions of failure” across twelve years of Conservative government, describing Gove’s plans as a “series of rehashed announcements” that amounted to regenerating “on the cheap”.  

She was not alone on the Labour benches. Chi Onwurah, MP for Newcastle upon Tyne, pointed to the pledge that local transport will be closer to London standards by 2030, questioning why it should take, eight years simply to reach the same standard of buses.  

On the Conservative side of the House, Damian Green MP said that he welcomed the White Paper and particularly commended Gove on the commitments to improve public health, arguing that tackling health inequalities will help the older generation. Green argued: ”We can have all the transport infrastructure you like, if people in middle-age are too unhealthy to lead full lives and to stay in work, then they cannot benefit from this”. However, Saffron Cordery, Deputy Chief Executive of NHS Providers  the membership organisation for NHS trusts - said that she was disappointed by the focus on individual behaviour and healthy lifestyle choices, arguing that there are “deeply entrenched and complex factors influencing poor health” and that the White Paper failed to make the connection between socioeconomic and health inequality. Jo Bibby, director of the Health Foundation, echoed this by suggesting that the government had “failed to grasp the enormity of the challenge” of closing the gap in life expectancies.  

And while the government was keen to emphasise the commitment to push more Research and Development funding away from London, Oxford and Cambridge, some expressed concerns that the move could risk harming research into vital areas such as disease prevention and identifying cures. 

Making a more traditionally small state argument, the Telegraph leader column argued that government intervention is the incorrect way to level up, arguing that the relative success of the South East is due to the decline of manufacturing and rise of services and that competitive tax policies, freeports, and deregulation were the real answer. 

While Gove will be prepared to face more questions from both sides about the deliverability or ambition of his plans, however, the government – and the Prime Minister himself – will be pleased to have finally set out the clear objectives that might enable levelling up to move from a slogan to a real set of outcomes that – it hopes – voters might start to see the fruit of before next general election.