Rishi Sunak denies favouring the South with levelling up funding allocations

Published

3 years ago

January 19, 2023

admin

Rishi Sunak has said northern England will “disproportionately benefit” from levelling up funding as he rejected suggestions schemes have been picked to shore up support in Tory areas.

Levelling up was a key policy under former PM Boris Johnson, who said he wanted to reduce the economic imbalance between the North and South.

But as part of the latest £2.1bn of support for local projects, almost £362m will be spent in London and the South East, while £354m will go to the North West.

Politics hub: Labour hits out at Rishi Sunak using plane for levelling up funding trip

On a visit to Lancashire to promote the funding announcements, Mr Sunak insisted there was a “huge” difference in funding on a per capita basis, with the North West coming out on top.

“We are completely committed to levelling up across the United Kingdom,” he said.

“If you look at how we are spending this money it is disproportionately benefiting people in the North East, the North West, and that’s great.”

Mr Sunak denied the funding allocations were motivated by an attempt to shore up support in Tory seats.

It was put to him that his cabinet has more members representing Surrey than the north of England, and if this has impacted the decision-making process.

“I think around half the funding we have announced over the course of today, or both funds, has actually gone to places that are not controlled by Conservative MPs or councils,” he said.

“I don’t think anyone can say it’s being done on that basis, there’s a completely objective, transparent criteria.”

Mr Sunak also faced criticism that many deprived areas missed out on the funding, while his own Richmond constituency in North Yorkshire was awarded £19m.

The PM defended the regeneration of the Catterick Garrison high street, saying the funding would deliver the amenities needed by troops living there.

Centralised system of decision making flawed’

Speaking in the Commons earlier, Communities Minister Lucy Frazer said £8bn of bids were made for the funding, with around £2bn approved to 100 projects.

The £2bn allocated comes from the overall £4.8bn levelling up fund announced in 2020.

Some Conservative MPs expressed dissatisfaction at their local communities not having made the cut.

Robert Largan said he was “bitterly disappointed” that High Peak Borough Council had once again failed to secure £20m in investment.

While Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands Andy Street questioned why the majority of his region’s bids had been rejected.

“Fundamentally, this episode is just another example as to why Whitehall’s bidding and begging bowl culture is broken, and the sooner we can decentralise and move to proper fiscal devolution the better,” he said in a statement.

“The centralised system of London civil servants making local decisions is flawed and I cannot understand why the levelling up funding money was not devolved for local decision makers to decide what is best for their areas.”

Other investments granted include:

£20m to Gateshead Quays and the Sage
£5.1m to build female changing rooms in 20 rugby clubs across Northern Ireland
£50m to create a direct train service linking Newquay, St Austell, Truro and Falmouth/Penryn in Cornwall
£40m for a new Multiversity – a carbon-neutral education campus in Blackpool’s Talbot Gateway central business district

And a regional breakdown of the funding shows:

Yorkshire and the Humber: £120,619,162
West Midlands: £155,579,834
Wales: £208,175,566
South West: £186,663,673
South East: £210,467,526
Scotland: £177,206,114
Northern Ireland: £71,072,373
North West: £354,027,146
North East: £108,548,482
London: £151,266,674
East Midlands: £176,870,348
East: £165,903,400

Analysis in The Times indicated 52 Tory constituencies in England benefit – more than twice as many as those represented by Labour MPs.

Mr Sunak said the money allocated would boost growth, local pride and allow people to stay closer to where they grew up without feeling the need to move to the capital.

The PM has previously faced accusations of favouritism after leaked footage emerged of him telling Tory members in Kent how as chancellor he had channelled funding away from “deprived urban areas” to “make sure areas like this are getting the funding they deserve”.

The Q&A came amid criticism for using a jet to get to Lancashire rather than relying on the train.

Mr Sunak toured Accrington market on Thursday before heading to Morecambe, where £50m will support the Eden Project North attraction.

During a walkabout on the site of the project, one passer-by shouted: “Lend us 20 quid for my heating bill, Rishi.”

Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove also defended the funding allocations, telling Sky News the government had “objective criteria that govern where money is going”.

‘Rock-bottom’ allocation of funding

But shadow communities minister Alex Norris questioned “what on earth” that criteria was.

Speaking in the Commons, he told MPs: “There’s a rock-bottom allocation for Yorkshire and the Humber, nothing for the cities of Birmingham, Nottingham and Stoke, nothing for Stonehouse in Plymouth, a community in the bottom 0.2% for economic activity.

“But money for the prime minister’s constituency, money for areas in the top quartile economically. What on earth were the objective criteria used to make these decisions?”

Shadow levelling up secretary Lisa Nandy said the fund was a “Hunger Games-style contest” which only offered a partial refund for resources stripped out of communities through austerity measures.

World

Lifting sanctions on Putin for Trump meeting is a massive victory for Moscow

Published

6 hours ago

August 9, 2025

admin

Lifting sanctions on Putin for Trump meeting is a massive victory for Moscow

The location of Alaska is unexpected.

Although close to Russia geographically – less than three miles away at the narrowest point – it’s a very long way from neutral ground.

The expectation was they would meet somewhere in the middle. Saudi Arabia perhaps, or the United Arab Emirates. But no, Vladimir Putin will be travelling to Donald Trump’s backyard.

Follow latest: Zelenskyy says Ukraine will not give up land

It’ll be the first time the Russian president has visited the US since September 2015, when he spoke at the UN General Assembly. Barack Obama was in the White House. How times have changed a decade on.

The US is not a member of the International Criminal Court, so there’s no threat of arrest for Vladimir Putin.

But to allow his visit to happen, the US Treasury Department will presumably have to lift sanctions on the Kremlin leader, as it did when his investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev flew to Washington in April.

And I think that points to one reason why Putin would agree to a summit in Alaska.

Instead of imposing sanctions on Russia, as Trump had threatened in recent days, the US would be removing one. Even if only temporary, it would be hugely symbolic and a massive victory for Moscow.

The American leader might think he owns the optics – the peace-making president ordering a belligerent aggressor to travel to his home turf – but the visuals more than work for Putin too.

Shunned by the West since his invasion, this would signal an emphatic end to his international isolation.

Donald Trump has said a ceasefire deal is close. The details are still unclear but there are reports it could involve Ukraine surrendering territory, something Volodymyr Zelenskyy has always adamantly opposed.

Either way, Putin will have what he wants – the chance to carve up his neighbour without Kyiv being at the table.

And that’s another reason why Putin would agree to a summit, regardless of location. Because it represents a real possibility of achieving his goals.

It’s not just about territory for Russia. It also wants permanent neutrality for Ukraine and limits to its armed forces – part of a geopolitical strategy to prevent NATO expansion.

In recent months, despite building US pressure, Moscow has shown no intention of stopping the war until those demands are met.

It may be that Vladimir Putin thinks a summit with Donald Trump offers the best chance of securing them.

World

It’s been four years since a US president met Putin – and Trump will have a lot of ice to break

Published

9 hours ago

August 9, 2025

admin

It's been four years since a US president met Putin - and Trump will have a lot of ice to break

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will meet where their countries brush shoulders.

But why Alaska and why now?

A US-Russia summit in Alaska is geography as metaphor and message.

Alaska physically bridges both countries across the polar expanse.

Follow latest: Ukraine war live updates

Choosing this location signals strategic parity – the US and Russian leaders face to face in a place where their interests literally meet.

Alaska has surged in geopolitical importance due to its untapped fossil fuels.

Trump has aggressively pushed for more control in the Arctic, plans for Greenland and oil access.

Holding talks there centres the conversation where global energy and territorial stakes are high, and the US president thrives on spectacle.

A dramatic summit in the rugged frontier of Alaska plays into his flair for the theatrical.

It is brand Trump – a stage that frames him as bold, unorthodox and in command.

It was 2021 when a US president last came face-to-face with a Russian president.

The leaders of the two countries haven’t met since Russia invaded Ukraine.

But Trump is in touch with all sides – Russia, Ukraine and European leaders – and says they all, including Putin, want “to see peace”.

He’s even talking up the potential shape of any deal and how it might involve the “swapping of territory”.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly insisted he will not concede territory annexed by Russia.

Moscow has sent the White House a list of demands in return for a ceasefire.

Trump is attempting to secure buy-in from Zelenskyy and other European leaders.

He styles himself as “peacemaker-in-chief” and claims credit for ending six wars since he returned to office 200 days ago.

There’s much ice to break if he’s to secure a coveted seventh one in Alaska.

World

UK joins four countries in condemning Israel’s plan for new operation in Gaza

Published

9 hours ago

August 9, 2025

admin

UK joins four countries in condemning Israel's plan for new operation in Gaza

The UK and four allies have criticised Israel’s decision to launch a new large-scale military operation in Gaza – warning it will “aggravate the catastrophic humanitarian situation” in the territory.

The foreign ministers of Britain, Australia, Germany, Italy and New Zealand said in a joint statement that the offensive will “endanger the lives of hostages” and “risk violating international humanitarian law”.

It comes a day after Israel’s security cabinet approved an operation to take military control of Gaza City – and concluded a full takeover of the enclave is required to end the conflict.

It marks another escalation in the war in Gaza, sparked by the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023.

In their joint statement, the UK and its allies said they “strongly reject” the decision, adding: “It will endanger the lives of the hostages and further risk the mass displacement of civilians.

“The plans that the government of Israel has announced risk violating international humanitarian law. Any attempts at annexation or of settlement extension violate international law.”

The countries also called for a permanent ceasefire as “the worst-case scenario of famine is unfolding in Gaza”.

It comes as Sky News analysis has found that airdrops of aid are making little difference to Gaza’s hunger crisis, and pose serious risks to the population – with a father-of-two killed by a falling package.

Meanwhile, France, Canada, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and the United Nations all criticised Israel’s plan for a full occupation of Gaza.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “expressed his disappointment” with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s in phone call on Friday after Berlin decided it would stop selling arms to Israel.

In a post on X, the Israeli prime minister’s office added: “Instead of supporting Israel’s just war against Hamas, which carried out the most horrific attack against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, Germany is rewarding Hamas terrorism by embargoing arms to Israel.”

US ambassador hits out at Starmer

Earlier on Friday, the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, criticised Sir Keir Starmer after he said Israel’s decision to “escalate its offensive” in Gaza is “wrong”.

Mr Huckabee wrote on X: “So Israel is expected to surrender to Hamas & feed them even though Israeli hostages are being starved? Did UK surrender to Nazis and drop food to them? Ever heard of Dresden, PM Starmer? That wasn’t food you dropped. If you had been PM then UK would be speaking German!”

In another post around an hour later Mr Huckabee wrote: “How much food has Starmer and the UK sent to Gaza?

“@IsraeliPM has already sent 2 MILLION TONS into Gaza & none of it even getting to hostages.”

Sir Keir has pledged to recognise a Palestinian state in September unless the Israeli government meets a series of conditions towards ending the war in Gaza.

The UK and its allies criticised Israel as US President JD Vance and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy met at Chevening House in Kent on Friday.

Mr Vance described a “disagreement” about how the US and UK could achieve their “common objectives” in the Middle East, and said the Trump administration had “no plans to recognise a Palestinian state”.

He said: “I don’t know what it would mean to really recognise a Palestinian state given the lack of functional government there.”

Mr Vance added: “There’s a lot of common objectives here. There is some, I think, disagreement about how exactly to accomplish those common objectives, but look, it’s a tough situation.”

The UN Security Council will meet on Saturday to discuss the situation in the Middle East.

Ambassador Riyad Mansour, permanent observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations, said earlier on Friday that a number of countries would be requesting a meeting of the UN Security Council on Israel’s plans.