Should the capital be moved from London to Anywhere Else?

Politicians more and more are trying to avoid the fact that many have homes in London worth in excess of £1million (especially Labour). Others in the country such as the SNP feel that Westminster only cares about London, and I feel that Westminster is too London centric. I feel that the capital should be moved from London to preferably Birmingham or Manchester, it would aid these cities become more developed with this added interest, become easier for MPs to manage the balance between Westminster and their constituency, but also make MPs less about London, and more about the other ,"real" areas of the country.

Thoughts?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1

VannR

21

Moving the capital is not economically viable, to the extent that the effect that it would have on the country could perhaps subvert any perceived social benefits of doing so.

There are other, better solutions to reducing the effect of the 'London-centric' attitude of Westminster on the rest of the country. For example, a move towards a federal state.

Reply 2

Gaiaphage

15

Put simply: No.

In my opinion, there are no other cities which are even close to being considered suitable. London is geographically well placed for a capital and is a significant part of what makes England England.

(edited 9 years ago)

Er, no...

No.

No, however I think the regions need a stronger identity with much more control over their spending. The issue should be investing in the Northern cities without the limiting our current capital.

Reply 6

WharfedaleTiger

13

I've been fan of the idea moving government out of London for a while to, for example, Bradford.

The rationale behind this is pretty obvious; it would reduce the London-centric nature of the UK, it could well save money, we'd be able to put Parliament and government in customer built buildings that are fit for purpose, it'd lead to an economic boost for a depressed area of the country and London can absorb the loss.

Reply 7

DErasmus

3

Birmingham shall rule the world

Reply 8

Hal.E.Lujah

19

A pity capital? Is that seriously the suggestion here?

I vote Rhyl.

I guess some countries have Capital's, then another city similar to London being the largest and the financial centre, I see what you mean. But I can't think of which city I'd choose.

Reply 11

Mick.w

18

Original post by MrJAKEE

Politicians more and more are trying to avoid the fact that many have homes in London worth in excess of £1million (especially Labour). Others in the country such as the SNP feel that Westminster only cares about London, and I feel that Westminster is too London centric. I feel that the capital should be moved from London to preferably Birmingham or Manchester, it would aid these cities become more developed with this added interest, become easier for MPs to manage the balance between Westminster and their constituency, but also make MPs less about London, and more about the other ,"real" areas of the country.

Thoughts?

Posted from TSR Mobile

I say willington

Reply 12

WharfedaleTiger

13

Original post by Gaiaphage

Put simply: No.

In my opinion, there are no other cities which are even close to being considered suitable. London is geographically well placed for a capital and is a significant part of what makes England England.

Really, its actually a long way away from a vast majority of the country. Is it well placed for anyone in, for example, Scotland? Or Wales? The South-West? the North?

I don't see why no other cities are suitable either. Who says that a city has to be large to be a capital? Plenty of countries (Eg. Germany, Australia) have their capitals away from the largest cities) and we have many cities in the UK which could act as the capital.

Reply 13

Gaiaphage

15

Original post by WharfedaleTiger

Really, its actually a long way away from a vast majority of the country. Is it well placed for anyone in, for example, Scotland? Or Wales? The South-West? the North?

I don't see why no other cities are suitable either. Who says that a city has to be large to be a capital? Plenty of countries (Eg. Germany, Australia) have their capitals away from the largest cities) and we have many cities in the UK which could act as the capital.

It's the capital of England, so I don't think Scotland or Wales should influence it too much. A city like Birmingham would just make the West closer and East further from the capital... it's got to go somewhere!

Australia isn't the best example when relating to England because it's such a huge country for the population size, and I'm not really sure what you mean about Germany having its capital away from the largest city? I think you might want to check your facts somewhere!

Reply 14

Robertus

6

It just seems a bit unnecessary, costly and time-consuming to uproot the entirety of Westminster to another city simply because of concerns of "London-centrism". It is the most convenient place for a capital and for a government, and carries the storied reputation of being the ancient seat of power in Britain. And MPs shouldn't be about London anyway, or any other city for that matter. Their job is to represent their constituents, and London/Westminster should be merely a convening point for parliament.

I also resent your comment about "real areas of the country". London is no less "real" than anywhere else in Britain. The vast majority in the area do not feel the effects of London's supposed special treatment or economic advantage, and many are socially disadvantaged even in the centre of the city. In actual fact "London" refers to the entire Greater London area, too, and those in the outer boroughs should not be unfairly grouped with the city-dwellers either. Regardless, the needs of Londoners require addressing just as much as the needs of Mancunians or Glaswegians.

However, I would propose that if an English Parliament were ever established, the seat of it should be placed in another city - such as Manchester perhaps.

Reply 15

young_guns

1

Original post by MrJAKEE

Politicians more and more are trying to avoid the fact that many have homes in London worth in excess of £1million (especially Labour). Others in the country such as the SNP feel that Westminster only cares about London, and I feel that Westminster is too London centric. I feel that the capital should be moved from London to preferably Birmingham or Manchester, it would aid these cities become more developed with this added interest, become easier for MPs to manage the balance between Westminster and their constituency, but also make MPs less about London, and more about the other ,"real" areas of the country.

Thoughts?e

I completely disagree.

I simply cannot understand the snide, self-important, smug position that somehow London is less "real", less "authentic" than any other area of the country.

What exactly makes a Londoner somehow less English/British/worthy than anyone from anywhere else? It's a kind of reverse snobbery that borders on the ridiculous.

London has been the capital for about 900 years, it is the first city of the United Kingdom in terms of population, international influence, it is the economic powerhouse of the South East and in many ways of the country.

Removing the capital to another city is often offered as some kind of panacea silver bullet, but it would just be treating the symptoms rather than the underlying causes of the malaise (many of which are the fault of the inhabitants of the other regions, not of London)

Reply 16

young_guns

1

Original post by Robertus

I also resent your comment about "real areas of the country". London is no less "real" than anywhere else in Britain

Superb comment, I could not agree more. This is something that really irritates me, when I hear northerners and others sneer at London as if it is somehow unworthy, somehow less authentically English/British, as if they are the arbiter of that.

It is a kind of reverse snobbery that is bigoted, patronising and self-important.

London is an amazing city; it really is one of only two (the other being New York) truly global metropolises. It is an economic powerhouse, and a leader in so many areas (finance, art, culture, law, advertising, insurance, politics). Instead of resentfully sniping at London, I think other Brits should appreciate what it means to be in the same country as a city that is as globally influential and economically vital as is New York

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 17

Smash Bandicoot

5

Definitely needs moving to Blackpool.

On a serious note, moving the capital? This isn't Mortal Engines lol

Reply 18

young_guns

1

Original post by Robertus

many are socially disadvantaged even in the centre of the city

Spot on. I live about a mile from the Palace of Westminster and yet I am in a very working-class / ethnically mixed area, with high levels of social housing, and all sorts from Nigerians to Turks to Chinese, to traditional white working class people.

There is no sense that the people of my area enjoy some kind of privilege at the expense of others simply by dint of their proximity to the seat of power.

Reply 19

MrJAKEE

OP

5

There are so many reasons why London is not representative of the country as a whole. The booming economy compared to other parts, excessive price rises, increasing wages, different ethnicity - so many stats that in general do not reflect the average Brit.

Just because something has existed for 900 years, doesn't mean you cannot change it? I see a move to somewhere more central in Britain as being better for MPs (means less distance to their constituency, so more time spent there and so better representation in general). A capital only means in my view where a country's government convenes, I barely see how it would restrict London in any way.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Should the capital be moved from London to Anywhere Else?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you