Day 17 | Proposal 16
16
Regional Investment Fund
Fair investment. Transparent allocation. No community left behind.
Current policy — Manifesto 1.1
A permanent national investment fund targeted towards communities facing deprivation, low productivity and infrastructure need, helping places that have too often been overlooked build the foundations for long-term economic growth.
Published Manifesto 1.1 policy. The sections below set out the proposal as published. Questions and challenges are open questions, not settled answers.
Key figures
- Indicative annual target
- £20 billion
- A manifesto working estimate, not an independently certified final costing.
1. Introduction
Create a permanent national Regional Investment Fund that directs investment towards communities facing the greatest economic, social and infrastructure need.
The purpose is to ensure that communities experiencing deprivation, low productivity, weak infrastructure and poor connectivity receive a fair opportunity to attract investment and build the foundations for long-term economic growth.
2. Core principle
No community should be left behind simply because prosperity has historically been concentrated elsewhere.
3. Investment weighted by need
Funding should be weighted according to need rather than population alone.
Communities facing deeper structural disadvantage should therefore receive greater priority.
The working manifesto identifies seven conditions that should guide investment:
- Low productivity — areas where economic output and opportunity lag behind.
- High deprivation — communities experiencing persistent social and economic disadvantage.
- Weak infrastructure — places held back by inadequate physical foundations for growth.
- Poor transport — communities where weak links restrict access to jobs, services and investment.
- Low private investment — areas struggling to attract sufficient commercial capital.
- Inadequate housing — places where housing weakness constrains renewal and opportunity.
- Poor connectivity — communities disadvantaged by weak links to wider economic activity.
4. Indicative £20 billion annual target
The Regional Investment Fund has an indicative annual target of £20 billion.
This is a manifesto working estimate rather than an independently certified final costing. Detailed fiscal modelling would be required before any final commitment could be made.
5. Illustrative allocation
The percentages below are illustrative, not fixed permanent quotas. Precise allocations would be reviewed annually using objective deprivation and productivity indicators.
| Purpose | Share |
|---|---|
| Most deprived regions | 40% |
| Underdeveloped regions | 30% |
| Growth regions | 20% |
| National strategic projects | 10% |
Illustrative shares only. Annual review against objective indicators would determine actual allocations.
6. What success should mean
The purpose is not simply to redistribute public money geographically.
Targeted capital investment should improve the economic foundations of disadvantaged communities and help them generate sustainable growth.
Investment should help improve:
The long-term objective is to help communities build the foundations for sustainable prosperity.
- Infrastructure
- Transport
- Connectivity
- Housing
- Conditions for productive private investment
7. Core commitment
Core commitment
Create a permanent Regional Investment Fund with an indicative £20bn annual target. Weight investment towards deprivation, low productivity and infrastructure need. Review allocations annually using objective indicators. Use the fund to help communities build the foundations for long-term growth.
Questions for public scrutiny
Nothing in Manifesto 1.1 is presented as settled fact. These are open questions the proposal must be able to answer — they are not answered here.
- 01Which objective deprivation and productivity indicators should determine annual allocations?
- 02How should immediate deprivation be balanced against projects capable of generating the strongest long-term productivity gains?
- 03What should count as genuinely additional regional investment rather than replacing spending that would have happened anyway?
- 04How should local authorities, regional bodies, businesses and communities participate in choosing projects?
- 05What governance and transparency safeguards should prevent politically motivated allocation or poor-value projects?
- 06How should transport, housing, digital connectivity and other infrastructure priorities be compared when allocating investment?
- 07Should public investment be designed to attract additional private capital, and if so, under what safeguards?
- 08How should success be measured — jobs, productivity, private investment, connectivity, deprivation or a combination of outcomes?
Source: Manifesto 1.1 Complete Working Master, Policy 19 — Regional Investment Fund. This release is Day 17 / Proposal 16 in the campaign sequence. Journey days and public-release proposal numbers are not always the same.
Download the Manifesto 1.1 Complete Working Master (PDF)Read. Question. Challenge. Improve.
This is a public-scrutiny working proposal. Questions, evidence, objections and alternatives are welcome.
Have Your Say
What is your view on this proposal?
Scrutiny, not endorsement. Disagreement is as useful here as support.
Responses are counted anonymously and the running totals are shown publicly beside each option. One response per device, changeable at any time.
Have an objection, question or better alternative?
Set out your argument. Serious challenges shape later versions of the manifesto.