The Labour government is under fire for channelling hundreds of millions of pounds into the least “cohesive” neighbourhoods, sparking internal party tensions over the expansion of its Pride in Place Programme (PiPP).

An additional 40 neighbourhoods in England will be given £20 million in funding over the next 10 years, with the programme aiming to “build strong, resilient and integrated communities”. To decide which areas in the country will benefit from the programme’s expansion, a new “community cohesion filter” was added to “ensure” that funding is directed to local authorities where it is weakest, as measured by the Community Life Survey (CLS).

The introduction of the new community cohesion measure has skewed the revised filtering process heavily in London’s favour: a quarter of the 40 neighbourhoods now eligible for Pride in Place funding are in the capital, compared with none under the original methodology. Critics argue that this exposes the Labour government to charges of manipulating the criteria to funnel money into London, shoring up its electoral prospects ahead of the local elections amid strong challenges from the Green Party and Left-wing independents. The London neighbourhoods now set to benefit span Bexley, Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Enfield, Croydon, Greenwich, and Newham. By contrast, only three of the new areas are in Northern England: Fawdon South and Throckley & Newburn in Newcastle, and Moss Side West in Manchester.

According to analysis by the Times, 34 of the 40 areas which would have received funding under the old formula will now miss out. These are predominantly in Northern England and the Midlands. Jonathan Hinder, the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe in Lancashire and a leading member of the culturally conservative “Blue Labour” parliamentary caucus, is one of the Labour backbenchers concerned that the new method will question the Government’s commitment to tackling deprivation across the regions.

The problem is compounded by the Pride in Place programme’s so-called “parliamentary constituency cap”, designed to “broaden geographic distribution”. In practice, this allows only one neighbourhood per constituency to receive funding. That means Northern seats such as Blackpool South or Middlesbrough & Thornaby East, despite having multiple intensely deprived areas, can fund only a single neighbourhood. In effect, constituency boundaries — not the severity of social and economic need — are determining who benefits.

While London undeniably faces pockets of deprivation, it remains an economic and cultural powerhouse in one of the most regionally imbalanced nations in the industrialised world. The dramatic shift in which neighbourhoods now qualify for Pride in Place funding — driven solely by a single community cohesion filter — diverts state resources away from Northern England and the Midlands towards the capital. The new methodology penalises post-industrial constituencies and coastal seats, which may score slightly higher on a single CLS survey question but contain a disproportionate concentration of multi-deprived areas shaped by decades of chronic underinvestment. In effect, poorer communities in the provinces, which are forced to “pull together” in the face of a London-focused political system, are being punished for doing exactly what the programme claims to reward.

It has been reported that Keir Starmer, whose own seat is in north London, is eager for Pride in Place to become a hallmark of his premiership. Yet, as it stands, the programme risks reinforcing the widespread perception that today’s Labour Party is a London-centric institution, more concerned with metropolitan prestige than addressing regional inequality across the country.

---

Dr Rakib Ehsan is a researcher specialising in British ethnic minority socio-political attitudes, with a particular focus on the effects of social integration and intergroup relations.

 

rakibehsan

---