> suggests a lack of representation

That's a big can of worms for HN. Suffice to say we have one of the least representative democracies and it's steadily getting worse. First past the post is no longer fit for an electorate that wants to vote increasingly for minor parties. It works where there are just two choices. Individual constituencies, especially safe seats, are often hugely unrepresentative. Finally add demographics that skew the ageing electorate ever more tory, until the baby boom finishes playing out.

So that's less North-South more safe seats vs everywhere else. Yet it does often play out North-South most when seeing election results maps.

Still Scotland votes overwhelmingly against Conservative, who barely exist in Scotland, yet gets English Tory government. Admittedly they won a couple back in 2017, but I can see why they inch toward independence. It's different this side of the border, but NW and NE England issues are equivalent in scale.

CGP Grey summarises it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I

I'm trying hard to avoid a political argument. :)

> spending does localise in high population areas, no?

Well it does, but thanks to the ever increasing centralisation of funding - started in 1974 I think, but especially since replacement of rates with council tax, even high population areas can't compete. The funding Leeds or Manchester gets for infrastructure, services is declining compared to the SE. Even though both are booming, they are permitted to do less per capita. We've ended up with one of the most centrally funded, and controlled, countries on the planet.

The rules limit what can be done, whether on services, transport or housing. The days when Manchester or Edinburgh could provide what was most needed locally are long past. Only London still gets that.

At the same time the rural bits of Scotland, Yorkshire, Cumbria etc used to be able to be cross-subsidised to provide mobile libraries, rail and bus routes etc. The market approach means those areas are increasingly forgotten and services and routes closed. Simply put, we went too far - both centralised funding and market solutions favour the City most. The pressure to move away is ever increasing, while it's never been easier to telecommute or locate your business anywhere there's a net link.

> there are a number of northern areas

Sure there are comfortable well off areas. Harrogate, Ribble Valley, Cheshire, York - are well off and attractive retirement locations. Yet it's also true that the worst areas for mental health, life expectancy and so on are clustered mainly in the north too - there's one just 50 odd miles down the road in Blackpool that's in the worst 5 in the country for lots of measures. I think there's a few bits around Barrow, Burnley and Preston that are little better and crop up in deprivation news stories.

Talking of Blackpool, their county council votes against fracking, the minister simply overrules them and changes the rules. That probably adds to feeling unrepresented by their MPs. :)

> It's one of the things that I've liked about being in the EU, spending is distributed better to poor areas than it would normally be under Tory spending control.

Totally agree. It was disappointing that the EU didn't trumpet their benefits a little more, as the areas benefiting most were often heavily voting for Brexit - because they were deprived, not because they seemed anti-EU as such. Without the EU many of those spots wouldn't have got the development funding. Despite its many flaws I also felt the EU was a natural limiting factor on the increasingly extremist stance of the Tory party.

Edit: That was longer than intended. Sorry!