It's grim up north

I went to Manchester last weekend, for a stag weekend. Actually, we were staying in Ashton-under-Lyne, where elements of my family come from, though I didn't have time for getting in touch. It was quite fun, but I remain very glad I don't live there.

Specifically, I'm glad I don't have to travel there. Both trains (to & from) were delayed by a total of 2 hours. And Ashton taxis don't know their own bloody area. I came with address in hand and it took me 25 minutes and 9 cabs to find someone who knew where the house I was staying was. This would not happen in London and Ashton is a somewhat smaller town. And there was limited wine available in the bars that wasn't shit.

Other than that, it was OK - no-one fought (somehow disappointing) and I did manage to fall asleep in the house of ill-repute we ended up in. But I was glad to be home. It should be noted that I was a lot less philosophical about this on Sunday

At the time, I could certainly understand the sentiment behind the Policy Exchange recent report on the cities of the North. That said, in the cold light of day, I don't quite know why anyone commissioned such an obviously inflammatory report. However, what is more depressing is that no-one seems to have taken the trouble to read it.

For example, this statement is clearly true: 'We cannot guarantee to regenerate every town and every city in Britain that has fallen behind.' As is this one: 'Just as we can't buck the market, so we can't buck economic geography either.' They're the end of the exec summary - they are in fact the point of the paper.

On the other hand we get somewhat dodgy arguments. Here's Chris Grayling: 'Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Leeds have successful financial services sectors.' Not that successful. Edinburgh does, Manchester might, but Liverpool?

The FT reports Peter Kilfoyle, known for his economic skill, with 'It doesn’t ring true economically, socially or politically.' But I'm not sure that's true. The polotical bit is obviously, but economically and socially. Have you read the report by the economic historian?

But the key point is not about the detail, but about the broad thrust of the critique. The report doesn't suggest that we close the north, but that the geographic and economic logic that propelled such large numbers of people to live in industrial cities no longer apply, while the economic logic that kept cities which had limited industry but large number of highly qualified staff small (e.g., Cambridge, Oxford etc) was also defunct. So we might want to reconsider the numbers rather than pour money into replacing the wealth.

It's still a politically stupid thing to say, but I'll end with some historical context is in order. These are new cities (though old towns) we're talking about in the main. And if we let them shrink a little we will be doing everyone a favour, including their inhabitants.

And their taxi drivers who might then know where they are supposed to be going.