Should the capital be moved from London to Anywhere Else? Watch

MrJAKEE
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
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
0
reply
VannR
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
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.
0
reply
Gaiaphage
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
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.
0
reply
happysmile
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Er, no... :erm:
0
reply
moment of truth
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
No.
0
reply
WNB
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
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.
0
reply
WharfedaleTiger
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
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.
0
reply
DErasmus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
Birmingham shall rule the world
0
reply
Hal.E.Lujah
  • Study Helper
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
A pity capital? Is that seriously the suggestion here?
0
reply
517340
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
I vote Rhyl.
2
reply
cake_lover
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
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.
0
reply
Mick.w
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(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

Name:  blob.jpg
Views: 261
Size:  34.6 KB
Name:  willington7.jpg
Views: 256
Size:  55.5 KB
1
reply
WharfedaleTiger
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#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.
0
reply
Gaiaphage
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(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!
0
reply
Robertus
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
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.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(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)
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(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
0
reply
Smash Bandicoot
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
Definitely needs moving to Blackpool.

On a serious note, moving the capital? This isn't Mortal Engines lol
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(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.
1
reply
MrJAKEE
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#20
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
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (114)
66.67%
No I haven't decided yet (34)
19.88%
Yes but I might change my mind (23)
13.45%

Watched Threads

View All