Relocating the UK's capital city

[AlterEgo]

Northampton might be fine, it may increase the value of my house. Perhaps they will also build the bypass my village needs!

 

[nlogax]

What, no Cumbernauld?

 

[aftv]

Burton-upon-Trent. Might finally get CrossCountry sorted out

 

[Noddy]

That would work both ways though. I strongly suspect if you did that it would be somewhere like Tamworth which has good links to road (M6/M6 Toll/M42), rail (WCML and XC), and an airport (Birmingham Airport is closer to central Tamworth than Heathrow is to central London).

Other: Gainsborough. It has previously held the honour when it was both the capital of England and Denmark, in the year 1013.

Other: Northampton.

On the basis that, for a couple of hundred years around the 11th-12th centuries, it was where various kings held court outside of London. Probably best known in that period for the trial of Thomas a Becket in the castle where Northampton station now stands.

If folk are going for places that are former capital cities, Tamworth also has that claim too! It was the capital of the Kingdom of Mercia. If Mercia had subsumed Wessex rather than the other way round perhaps it would still be the capital…

 

[Bletchleyite]

I assume we're talking of the administrative capital here, I see no reason to move the ceremonial capital from London (unless we federalised the UK and England needed a capital separate from London which would in that case be a city state Union capital). It's a world famous city and serves the role well.

If we wanted to move the administrative capital I would take a leaf out of Malaysia's book and build a completely new city from scratch probably somewhere in the north Midlands (Stoke sort of area). I'm thinking on the scale of Milton Keynes but designed for public transport (with a comprehensive tram network from day one) and the bicycle (with cycle facilities to Dutch specification throughout). It would be designed for prosperity from the start, with a new university (as a high quality academic institution, not an "ex Poly") there from the very start. It would be of German style "gentle density" but with lots of green parkland managed on the successful but unique Milton Keynes Parks Trust model (an independent body gifted land at the start to make money to keep itself running independent of political interference).

Malaysia's example is called Cyberjaya if you want to know more about it, but I'd choose a more English sounding name, perhaps in the style of MK being derived from one of the smaller constituent villages.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But I'll try and rephrase it - I believe Nottingham could be a new capital city for the UK.

Nottingham is not a bad location but I'm very strongly of the view that it's better if it is not an existing city as that puts constraints on its development. If you start from scratch you don't really have NIMBYs - well, you have a few in farmhouses etc but not lots.

MK obviously has them now but they've taken years to develop. And some are a bit different from normal NIMBYs - I'm a NIMBY in the sense that I oppose development that counters the original concepts of MK (e.g. the destruction of the grid road system with development too close to it and reductions in speed limits that go with that) but not development that does follow the original plan (e.g. filling in down the side of Campbell Park to create the original New York esque concept).

 

[Sun Chariot]

Anull the incumbent Royal Family.
Reintroduce the Kingdom of Wessex*.
Declare Winchester the capital of the new - much-expanded - Kingdom of Wessex.
Sell London off as a giant parkour circuit.

* Going to battle, riding a horse and chopping up pretenders to the throne - it's a bit "old school".
Perhaps the monarch of the new Kingdom of Wessex can be settled via Scissors-Paper-Stone / big conkers competition / person who can belch loudest in a railway station lift.

 

[Johnnie2Sheds]

Leicester. Then we might get some chuffin' wires up!

 

[Broucek]

Somewhere reasonably central where there's a need for regeneration and plenty of space to build a modern parliament building and the associated facilities. Wath On Dearne.

Yeah, and served by a modern electric railway. Oh, wait....

 

[Bishops]

Im really surprised that Newcastle isnt in the original list and i had to click 'other'.

May help some of our football team not leaving for the brighter lights of bigger cities too

 

[3141]

You say that, but Parliament is facing an expensive restoration project in the coming years. While I don't see a relocation happening, both houses are set to move out for the work, so this is one of the best times to move the capital.

The capital isn't just the city in which Parliament is located. It's also the place which has the central law courts, the Bank of England, and the headquarters of many companies which are important for the national economy. Many of these would need or wish to be relocated as well. They interact with Parliament and with the Government. The scale and cost of all the relocations make the idea impractical.

 

[Magdalia]

The capital isn't just the city in which Parliament is located. It's also the place which has the central law courts, the Bank of England, and the headquarters of many companies which are important for the national economy.

This is not correct. For example, in Australia the government and parliament is in Canberra, but the central bank is in Sydney.

 

[JamesT]

This is not correct. For example, in Australia the government and parliament is in Canberra, but the central bank is in Sydney.

But it is for the UK, which is what is being discussed.

 

[Magdalia]

But it is for the UK, which is what is being discussed.

But it would be possible to move the UK parliament and leave the Bank of England in London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it would be possible to move the UK parliament and leave the Bank of England in London.

It would also be possible to move the Bank of England and keep Parliament in London, one supposes. Like the way the Beeb moved to Manchester, though I definitely wouldn't choose Manchester as it's becoming rather a London-in-the-North (in the manner Brighton is kind of London-on-Sea) and the wealth from that really needs to be spread around more rather than concentrated on a single city.

 

[philthetube]

The results of this thread may come to fruition, how long before London is under water.

 

[JamesT]

But it would be possible to move the UK parliament and leave the Bank of England in London.

Physically it may be possible, but @3141 ‘s point is that currently there is a degree of connectivity with all these institutions being in the same place. Which you risk losing if you split them up. Yes, videoconferencing has moved on, but there is value in say the Chancellor being able to drop in for a chat with the Governor at short notice, which is a bit harder when you’re a hour’s train ride away.

 

[Minnietheminx]

Haltwhistle. Geographically speaking, close to the centre of mainland Britain.

 

[Magdalia]

Physically it may be possible, but @3141 ‘s point is that currently there is a degree of connectivity with all these institutions being in the same place. Which you risk losing if you split them up. Yes, videoconferencing has moved on, but there is value in say the Chancellor being able to drop in for a chat with the Governor at short notice, which is a bit harder when you’re a hour’s train ride away.

In Australia they manage with government in Canberra and the central bank in Sydney. The City of London financial institutions won't be moving and it would be more important for the Bank of England to be near to them. If government moved out of London then I doubt that the Bank of England would follow. It would be much more difficult and risky to move the Bank if England out of London.

 

[The exile]

The Prime example of a geographically diffused country (from a European perspective at least) has to be West Germany where for very understandable reasons the deliberate decision was made to chose an insignificant place (sorry Bonn) as the site for the provisional capital, with the other state institutions elsewhere. Worked pretty well without modern comms for 40 years.

 

[SargeNpton]

In Australia they manage with government in Canberra and the central bank in Sydney. The City of London financial institutions won't be moving and it would be more important for the Bank of England to be near to them. If government moved out of London then I doubt that the Bank of England would follow. It would be much more difficult and risky to move the Bank if England out of London.

Slightly different, the Dutch capital is Amsterdam but the seat of government is in The Hague.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Slightly different, the Dutch capital is Amsterdam but the seat of government is in The Hague.

That one did occur to me in this discussion! It's similar to but slightly different from the Malaysian example.

I don't, FWIW, think that in 2026 proximity matters that much, most meetings are online anyway and people rather enjoy an occasional jolly. Just making sure the two locations are well connected by both rail and road is enough.

 

[davetheguard]

Oxford.

It was the capital during the Civil War.

From a railway point to view, likely benefits are: it would surely lead to the "paused" GW electrification being extended from Didcot to Oxford as originally intended;

A large chunk of the journeys from the station are on Cross Country - hopefully being a more high profile location would force the DfT to finally address XC's serious lack of capacity;

A sensible electrification policy for East - West Rail i.e. all of it!

 

[3141]

In Australia they manage with government in Canberra and the central bank in Sydney. The City of London financial institutions won't be moving and it would be more important for the Bank of England to be near to them. If government moved out of London then I doubt that the Bank of England would follow. It would be much more difficult and risky to move the Bank if England out of London.

As I recall from my school days, Australia established a new capital city partly because choosing one of the existing large cities in the country would lead to problems with the other potential cndidates. So they made their choice, the central bank is in Sydney and they have an incentive to make their choice work. I see no significant reason to move our capital and by doing so we'd raise many questions about what else should or shouldn't move along with the Parliament.

But as it's so unlikely I'll just regard it as an entertaining fantasy.

 

[Sorcerer]

I might genuinely be the world's only Liverpudlian who wants to keep the UK capital in London without also wanting a proper secession from the UK into the newly formed Scouse Republic.

Of course Burnham seems to be trying to make Manchester the de facto capital city.

Is he? Aside from the gimmick that is No 10 North I don't know of anything he's done to try and make Manchester the de facto capital.

 

[JamieL]

Voted Edinburgh because it is already the capital city of the country I live in

 

[brad465]

Voted Edinburgh because it is already the capital city of the country I live in

I've seen the suggestion before of relocating to Edinburgh just to make life harder for the SNP.

 

[BAFRA77]

Slightly different, the Dutch capital is Amsterdam but the seat of government is in The Hague.

Why stop at only 2? We could do a South Africa and have three Capitals

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why stop at only 2? We could do a South Africa and have three Capitals

We have four already!

 

[HSTEd]

If the capital city is to be moved out of London, I can't see it being tenable to move it to any existing urban area.

I think too much highly specialised infrastructure would be required, a new build city a la Canberra, Brasilia (or indeed Washington DC) would be required.
The machinery of government simply employs too many people, even if large parts were to be left behind in London.

Such a project would provide the impetus for a major housebuilding programme though, which could be a big bonus!