Some thoughts on "Why North England is Poor"...

(From Tom Forth: Why North England is Poor)

I've just spent a very enjoyable hour reading Thomas Forth’s delightfully unfiltered essay on “Why North England is Poor”, and Paul Swinney’s almost-but-not-quite supportive response on the Centre for Cities blog.

I really am in no position to add anything substantive and evidenced to their analysis, and I highly recommend you read them both if you have even a passing interest in the socio-economic future of Britain, however a couple of things did stand out to me, which I think are worth raising, particularly around Paul’s response to Tom’s policy recommendations regarding density and inter-city transport connectivity.

Tom contends that the North is a very dense part of the world, with around 20 million people living within a 100 kilometre radius, (albeit one centred somewhere in the Peak District - see the map in the heading). Paul argues that this greography only appears dense because it includes so many population centres, none of which in itself is particularly dense when compared with other european cities, especially when factoring local travel times, and this is what really matters for commuting.

Tom also argues that the northern cities are extremely poorly connected with each other, citing among many data points that the connection betweeen Sheffield and Manchester is "unique among such a large pair of cities in the developed world in being a single lane in each direction." (which is true of both road and rail, by the way).

Paul responds that, firstly, "both cities are well linked to London. If intercity connections are important, then this link to one of Europe’s most successful agglomerations must surely be more important than between two underperforming ones." and secondly that "it doesn’t seem that plausible that exporter firms of any significant number have opted not to locate in one because they can’t get to the other."

Both of their arguments are much more nuanced than these cherry-picked snippets suggest, and you should definitely read them in full. Also, Paul is by no means suggesting that transport is not a serious issue that needs to be addressed for the North to break out of its alarming stagnation.

However, I think there are a few things missing from both of these analyses. Firstly, neither of them mention the Pennines or the Peak District. True, a modern developed country should hardly be limited by a relatively small ridge of hills (and, as I've said for years, the Swiss would, decades ago, have punched through them ten times over). However, a barrier it still is, forcing people and goods to circulate around it.

Secondly, I don't think connectivity between cities is only about commuting or the relocation choices of incoming firms. Especially not in high value knowledge industries. Yes, in some sectors its important that employees can travel to work, and the larger a pool of skilled workers the better, of course. Also, commuting between the Northern cities would probably increase if the experience was improved - about 10,000 people commute between Manchester and Sheffield, and vice versa, every day, and everyone I know who's ever done it has pretty quickly looked for alternative employment. This can't be good for business.

But.

I think a far more important reason that connectivity between cities is a crucial component to growth is that it facilitates ideas and relationships. The reason Sheffield's connection to London hasn't resulted in statistically identifyable growth is because it's still too far and too expensive for a significant number of people to just nip down there for an evening event and come back again. I have done it many times - years ago I used to go at least once a month to attend an Innovation Reading Circle meeting, for instance - but it's hardly convenient. And while the train prices might seem reasonable looking north from London, they now look pretty extortionate looking South from up here. And while it's cheaper to visit Manchester, Liverpool or Leeds from Sheffield, of an evening, it's nowhere near as convenient as it should be, whether by rail or by car, and as a result there are many times when an exchange of ideas and LinkedIn details are passed up because people just can't justify the hassle of the journey.

This, to me, is the real problem with connectivity in the North. The tech industry operates on knowledge, new ideas and relationships. Those exporting companies that we fail to generate, as Paul and his CfC colleagues consistently point out, are most often created when people with specific skills and ideas meet each other: An entrepreneur with business connections and the skill to get funding. An ideas person with experience and domain knowledge in a market vertical. And a CTO or techncial co-founder who can build the necessary team to convert vision into reality. How do these people find each other? We have them here, in our surprisingly-large-despite-economically-underperforning city, but often not all at exactly the right time. They need to find each other by moving around and attending meetups and small conferences - many of them - until they have just the right conversation with just the right person.

This is why I think travel between the great cities of the north is so important for growth - it's not just innovation 'spillover effects' from clustering, but the ability to share knowledge and build relationships across a larger pool of cities, people and resources - increased commuting is just a happy side effect.