I once gave a talk to business leaders in Northern England and pointed out that one reason London got the lions share of infrastructure spending, was because it spoke with one voice. Only to be told that was what they were trying to do but they were having trouble getting Scunthorpe on board. Says it all really.
The PM breaking his word on an HS2 link. with Leeds illustrated the point as Mr. Johnson tried to cover up his abject U-turn by claiming the link would only serve a small part of Yorkshire.
Playing Northern cities off against each other is almost a sport for politicians.
The fact is once again HM Treasury have pulled the rug from under a nationally important infrastructure project. Leaving second hand “upgrades” and delays and poor links for people outside London.
The PM was happy to go along with that and break his word; still his promises are so devalued now that they are starting to remind people of the Turkish lira.
The Northern Powerhouse and levelling up turned out to be nice slogans and nothing more. Who knew?
Economics, trade and Brexit, not necessarily in that order but the dog always comes first.
When you say London speaks with one voice, what are you referring to? I can't imagine the residents of Lewisham, Golder's Green and Bexleyheath would be unanimous about many infrastructure project (Heathrow runways, for example). They'd all want Tube stops, but given that some areas are already adequately served, would they be willing to accede to higher fares to enable the areas that aren't? The Garden Bridge would be another (albeit vanity) example.
My supposition was always that capitals get a larger proportion of infrastructure expenditure because the politicians (ie the decision makers) all work there, and moving the capital (for example, to Birmingham) would compel those decision makers to level up the new place where they work.