Prime Minister Rishi Sunak approaches the podium to address one of the proudest cities in England. George OrwellReal name Eric Arthur Blair, a world-renowned 20th-century novelist, most famous for his political novels Animal Farm and 1984. described it as the "belly and guts of the nation". Elizabeth GaskellAn English novelist of the Victorian era. called it "ugly, smoky Manchester; dear, busy, earnest, noble-working Manchester". Benjamin DisraeliA 19th-Century politician who was Britain's first and only prime minister of Jewish origin. dubbed it "as great a human exploit as Athens".

What does Sunak have to say to this great and renowned city, the hub of the industrial revolutionA period of sudden, rapid industrialisation that transforms a country from an agricultural to an industrial economy., England's historic powerhouse?

Sorry, he says, but no trains for you! The long-awaited HS2 high speed rail line to Manchester, which has already attracted billions in investment, will not be built. Instead, the line will end in Birmingham.

It has been branded a "betrayal of the North". It is not just about railway routes. The line was supposed to be an investment in the North, creating jobs, boosting infrastructure and reducing rail congestionOvercrowding or blocked. . Those who object to Sunak's plans call it a typical act of prioritising the needs of the South East over the rest of the country.

HS2 had sparked controversy since its conception, with environmental groups protesting against its destruction of ancient woodlands and drilling. Costs have rapidly escalated as it transpired that ground conditions were unsuitable, with the expected cost of £37.5bn projected in 2008 rising to over £70bn in 2019.

Whilst Britain had over 32,000km of track a century ago, it currently has under 16,000km. But this is in an inverseOpposite to something else. relationship with the general popularity of rail travel in Britain: track use is supposedly 60% higher than the EU average, and train journeys doubled between the 1990s and 2019.

England's North-South divide is hard to pin down to any single moment. When the staple industries of the industrial revolution - manufacturing and textiles, for example - began to die out at the beginning of the 20th Century, areas in the North suffered. Meanwhile, as the financial and commercial services of modernity grew, the economy in London and the South East ballooned.

Successive governments have promised to find a solution to regional inequalities, but recent studies show that the divide has been growing, not shrinking.

Earlier this year, a think tank found that regional inequality in the UK is "without parallel in the developed world", noting that a stunning half of net job growth in the UK since 2010 has gone to London and the South East alone.

A report from 2021 found that Londoners had received the equivalent of £12,147 per person in public investment in the years leading up to 2020, with Northerners receiving just £8,125 per person. This has entrenchedHas existed for a long time and will be hard to change. an already gaping divide: the south-east is home to just one third of the UK population, but accounts for 42% of its wealth.

Some say that Britain should look to Germany for a solution to the North-South divide. After reunification in October 1990, post-SovietRelating to the Soviet Union, a powerful group of communist republics, the biggest being Russia, that existed from 1922 to 1991. eastern Germany was far poorer and less developed than the western regions. And though that divide still persists, after more than £2 trillion in investments to narrow East-West inequalities, significant successes have been seen.

Others argue that it is only natural for different regions to have different economies. From the US rust beltA region of the USA, known for manufacturing, steelmaking and coal, that saw economic decline from the 1950s. It includes a large part of the Midwest. to Italy's vast North-South divide, there will always be richer and poorer cities and areas.

Yes: The growth of regional inequality between the North and the South is a scandal, driven by a huge failure to invest in northern jobs and infrastructure.

No: The divide is not widening: every region of the UK is suffering from lower investment due to economic insecurity and cuts. There are simply more important economic priorities than the North-South divide at the moment.

Or... A North-South divide is not inherently bad, so long as there is mobility between different areas. And it is natural that the capital should attract more investment than anywhere else.