Have southern English cities grown faster than northern ones? The answer may surprise you

Watford Gap Services, 1961: the symbolic boundary between north and south. Image: Ben Brooksbank/Wikimedia Commons.

The latest instalment of our weekly series, in which we use the Centre for Cities’ data tools to crunch some of the numbers on Britain’s cities. 

Last week, as all dedicated CityMetric readers will recall, we looked at how the 62 largest cities on the British mainland* had grown – or not – between 1981 and 2014. After crunching the numbers on offer from our trusty Centre for Cities (CfC) data tool, and producing a whole slew of graphs, we came to two important conclusions:

  • There’s a mysterious curse of the dockyard, in which cities which grew around shipbuilding industries have picked up a terrifying habit of shrinking;
  • The smaller the city is, the more likely it is to have grown faster than the UK average.

But surely, a few of you wrote in to say, we were ignoring a big variable. Surely where a city is a factor here.

Well, yes, almost certainly. The north-south divide is never far from these pages. But we like to do things by the book around here, so let’s look at the same data by region.

First up, let’s check out what the CfC refers to as the “Greater South East”: London, the South East and the East of England. This is basically a broad interpretation of the London commuter belt, the richest bit of the country. When people at the other end of England are hating on "the south", this is the bit they mean.

Click to expand.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, a majority of the cities here have grown faster than the UK average (shown as a thick black line). Milton Keynes, the 21st century boomtown par excellence, has grown so fast that it breaks the graph, so here's a version without it:

Click to expand.

What's more, only a couple of cities ever dropped below their 1981 population. From a modern perspective, they're not the ones you'd expect either: London, Oxford, Ipswich, Brighton.

Let’s move on. This graph does the same, but for the Midlands:

Click to expand.

This time, Telford – like Milton Keynes, one of the third and final waves of new towns – is way out ahead of the pack, and would be in the fastest growing group even if it was in the south.

The other Midlands cities, though, have been relatively slow growing. Three of them – Coventry, Birmingham, Stoke – spent over a quarter of a century with populations smaller than they had in 1981 (though they've all caught up with themselves now). And, of the eight cities shown here, five – slightly over half – have grown slower than the UK as a whole.

So, in the South East, most cities have grown faster than the UK as a whole. In the Midlands it’s about half and half. And in the north...

Click to expand.

Well, would you look at that.

Only two cities shown here have grown faster than the UK as a whole: Warrington, another new town; and York, which for statistical purposes often looks a lot like the more famous collegiate university towns in the south. (Preston, yet another new town, comes close but was overtaken in 2004. Huddersfield and Bradford are only slightly behind the UK average.)

In this group, indeed, there are a whole slew of cities that were smaller in 2014 than they were in 1981: Blackpool, Burnley, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Birkenhead, Hull, Sunderland, Liverpool... Most of those places were built around heavy industries which just aren't there any more.

So. Yes, once again, the north-south divide obviously is a factor here. Population growth and economic strength aren't perfectly correlated, for all sorts of reasons. But booming southern cities are clearly more likely to have grown than struggling northern ones.

This may go some way to explain last week's results. Many of the smaller cities that have grown quickly are London commuter towns; many of the larger ones that haven't are depressed northern towns.

There are the other regions, of course. I'm reluctant to draw too many conclusions from these just because the sample sizes are small, but, for the sake of completism, here are the graphs.

Click to expand.

The South West looks a lot like the South East (perhaps because it’s, y’know, the south). It might be significant that the cities which are most commutable to London (Bournemouth, Swindon) have grown most. Then again, it might not be.

Click to expand.

As ever, Scotland is beset by its own divide: Edinburgh and Aberdoon boom, while Glasgow and Dundee don’t. All four of them, though, have grown less than the UK as a whole.

Click to expand.

Last but not least, in Wales, Cardiff has grown a lot faster than the other two.

Anyway, the point is: the north-south divide is clearly a big factor in how England’s cities have developed over the last 30 years. I am shocked, shocked, I tell you.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @jonnelledge.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

*The only Northern Irish city included in the Centre for Cities’ database is Belfast, and for various boring reasons of changing boundaries it’s not included in the population data. Ah, well.



What's actually in the UK government’s bailout package for Transport for London?

Wood Green Underground station, north London. Image: Getty.

On 14 May, hours before London’s transport authority ran out of money, the British government agreed to a financial rescue package. Many details of that bailout – its size, the fact it was roughly two-thirds cash and one-third loan, many conditions attached – have been known about for weeks. 

But the information was filtered through spokespeople, because the exact terms of the deal had not been published. This was clearly a source of frustration for London’s mayor Sadiq Khan, who stood to take the political heat for some of the ensuing cuts (to free travel for the old or young, say), but had no way of backing up his contention that the British government made him do it.

That changed Tuesday when Transport for London published this month's board papers, which include a copy of the letter in which transport secretary Grant Shapps sets out the exact terms of the bailout deal. You can read the whole thing here, if you’re so minded, but here are the three big things revealed in the new disclosure.

Firstly, there’s some flexibility in the size of the deal. The bailout was reported to be worth £1.6 billion, significantly less than the £1.9 billion that TfL wanted. In his letter, Shapps spells it out: “To the extent that the actual funding shortfall is greater or lesser than £1.6bn then the amount of Extraordinary Grant and TfL borrowing will increase pro rata, up to a maximum of £1.9bn in aggregate or reduce pro rata accordingly”. 

To put that in English, London’s transport network will not be grinding to a halt because the government didn’t believe TfL about how much money it would need. Up to a point, the money will be available without further negotiations.

The second big takeaway from these board papers is that negotiations will be going on anyway. This bail out is meant to keep TfL rolling until 17 October; but because the agency gets around three-quarters of its revenues from fares, and because the pandemic means fares are likely to be depressed for the foreseeable future, it’s not clear what is meant to happen after that. Social distancing, the board papers note, means that the network will only be able to handle 13 to 20% of normal passenger numbers, even when every service is running.

Shapps’ letter doesn’t answer this question, but it does at least give a sense of when an answer may be forthcoming. It promises “an immediate and broad ranging government-led review of TfL’s future financial position and future financial structure”, which will publish detailed recommendations by the end of August. That will take in fares, operating efficiencies, capital expenditure, “the current fiscal devolution arrangements” – basically, everything. 

The third thing we leaned from that letter is that, to the first approximation, every change to London’s transport policy that is now being rushed through was an explicit condition of this deal. Segregated cycle lanes, pavement extensions and road closures? All in there. So are the suspension of free travel for people under 18, or free peak-hours travel for those over 60. So are increases in the level of the congestion charge.

Many of these changes may be unpopular, but we now know they are not being embraced by London’s mayor entirely on their own merit: They’re being pushed by the Department of Transport as a condition of receiving the bailout. No wonder Khan was miffed that the latter hadn’t been published.

Jonn Elledge was founding editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.