So we define Manchester as GM minus Wigan, and Leeds as just Leeds (this is based mostly on travel-to-work patterns). If one looks at Manchester (the city council area) alone, it may be ahead.

Still, Leeds has had quite strong growth post-2019 in both GVA and productivity.*

*Data is provisional

That knowledge has also been growing at ~5.7% a year since 2019.

Thanks in part to that, Leeds is also now the only big city in the North/Midlands to have productivity above the national average.

One has to wonder whether this decision would really hurt that momentum.

Focusing on city centres is very sensible. These are the most productive places in the country and attract the most high-value businesses (see their importance for the Industrial Strategy sectors). And commercial developments are key for high-value businesses.

The MRGF gives six mayors funding for commercial developments, particularly in city centres.

All of the mayors cover large cities, whose economic underperformance is a key reason for the country’s lack of growth. For example, most of them have productivity below the national average.

Simply put, it matters nationally that London may be going through a productivity decline. And it matters nationally that some long-underperforming large cities seem to be showing signs of growth.

Policymakers at all levels need these data to make decisions on devolution, urban transport, etc.

Among those at risk is the APS. We previously highlighted some potential issues with APS’s self-employment data and its impact on productivity. But removing it would not solve the problem: it just makes it even harder to spot (especially since no other datasets count local self-employment).

Second, if these cities do start to take off, expect them to become more different from each other. One can already see this in the current data.

Devolution would provide a framework to manage these differences. More local decision power means more tailored policies to support each city's path.

When broken down to sectors, most post-2019 growth in these place, and the cause of their relatively strength, is in the knowledge economy.

This is a good thing: these are the industries big cities should have an advantage in. These cities had not tapped into that advantage well in recent history.

The labour input data is particularly notable since there been growing concerns about LFS (which feeds into productivity). Specifically, there is a substantial decline in self-employment. And this is largely not corroborated by other data sources (e.g. HMRC).

The interesting thing here is that the productivity growth in many large cities is driven by both growth in output and stagnation, if not decline, in labour inputs (jobs or hours worked). This combination of expanding economy and lagging labour market is not unheard of but it is unusual.

Some of the UK's large cities had struggled to close the productivity gap with London. That appears to be changing now: large cities are catching up.

In some MCAs, the IS-8 sectors have a meaningful but small presence. This is a feature, not a bug. A lot of MCAs have big cities that are 1). underperforming in general and in IS-8 sectors, and 2). significant to the national economy. So targeting these places makes sense for high-impact returns.

Also why does everyone think “working people” exist only in the north or the midlands? Not just a reform misconception judging by this quote.

Populism correlate with economic factors. Clearly, it is rooted in reality even if it is a proxy for other things.

As an immigrant, I feel mixed. Controlling immigration is justifiable. Selling magical solutions without discussing trade-offs is not. Though, that is not unlike other policies.

So it looks like it may be retroactive. Copper did not deny that it could be retroactive.

The technical note has some very contradictory info on this. On one hand, it suggests some people may leave. On the other hand, it is still suggesting rises in the next few years. Just abysmal communications.

You probably get a similar result for other professions that are respected but not well paid (e.g. care workers or apprenticeships in the UK). Ultimately, people mostly choose jobs based on pay, not vibes. So people are happy to support more of these respected jobs, but not keen on taking them.

LBJ’s first rule of politics just never gets old