Should we move the capital?

[Sad Sprinter]

Despite being a proud Londoner, I’ve come to the conclusion we may need to move the capital of the UK in order to create a modern, civic state and not one that hasn’t transitioned properly from imperial administration. I favour Birmingham as it’s probably the best distance between Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London. Does anyone else feel the same?

 

[70014IronDuke]

If we moved it to Bootle, Bentham or Dent you could justify improving the local rail services, even electrification

EDIT: I meant Bootle, Cumbria, of course.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Despite being a proud Londoner, I’ve come to the conclusion we may need to move the capital of the UK in order to create a modern, civic state and not one that hasn’t transitioned properly from imperial administration. I favour Birmingham as it’s probably the best distance between Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London. Does anyone else feel the same?

Greater London has
- The highest population of any UK county.
- Large business districts (e.g. Canary Wharf).
- Incredible public transport. (Including plenty of air connections)
- Parliament

It's already well set as the capital city, I don't see why it needs to change.

 

[MotCO]

A new capital would presumably be the new seat of government, so there would need to be a new parliament, supported by necessary civil service offices, the plethora of news media offices and studios, new and improved transport links, additional houses, supported by schools, hospitals etc..... Nah, it will never happen.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A move to decentralise would probably be a good thing if implemented correctly, but that would take years. I don't think moving the capital would help though. Proper regional assemblies for the English regions, rather than the half-***ed mayoral system some regions currently have, would be more desirable than uprooting central government and shifting it to somewhere like Milton Keynes.

 

[adc82140]

An English parliament could work in somewhere like Birmingham. It should be set up to deal with isuues that are devolved to the other nations. I still don't know why the Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs get a say in matters like education and health at Westminster. The UK capital for reserved matters should remain in London.

 

[Sorcerer]

We can easily transition into what you call a modern civic state without moving the capital city which won't really have any practical benefits. London's status as a capital and global city (much so that it's one of only two Alpha++ cities along with New York City) has been built up over thousands of years, and it would be a very long transition to change that. Generations dare I say. That said, I can get behind an English Parliament, or better yet some properly devolved regions in England since it's considerably more diverse and populated than Scotland and Wales are.

 

[MotCO]

An English parliament could work in somewhere like Birmingham. It should be set up to deal with isuues that are devolved to the other nations. I still don't know why the Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs get a say in matters like education and health at Westminster. The UK capital for reserved matters should remain in London.

I understand why there is a cry for an English parliament, but that's only because Scotland, Wales and NI have their own. And is the UK big enough to justify the expense of all these parliaments, and a central parliament, particularly when the central parliament can veto some decisions of the devolved parliament - e.g. the Scottish Gender Recognition Act.

 

[adc82140]

I understand why there is a cry for an English parliament, but that's only because Scotland, Wales and NI have their own. And is the UK big enough to justify the expense of all these parliaments, and a central parliament, particularly when the central parliament can veto some decisions of the devolved parliament - e.g. the Scottish Gender Recognition Act.

Theoretically (ha ha) this could be countered by a significantly slimmed down Westminster parliament. But it'd have to be done properly.

 

[Howardh]

England does need it's own parliament yet that would be another layer of government to deal with. Maybe departments, like Education etc, could be moved taking their civil servants with them but that would decentralise government meaning you'd have MP's, particularly cabinet ones, here, there and everywhere - probably better to keep them all in the same place out of our way!

Our system works, just about, although me thinks it would be better if we let Brussels rule us, can't get any worse!!!

 

[yorksrob]

I understand why there is a cry for an English parliament, but that's only because Scotland, Wales and NI have their own. And is the UK big enough to justify the expense of all these parliaments, and a central parliament, particularly when the central parliament can veto some decisions of the devolved parliament - e.g. the Scottish Gender Recognition Act.

I'd rather have a federal UK with devolved regions self governing alongside the Celtic nations.

London would retain those functions that needed to be carried out on a Kingdom wide basis.

 

[deltic]

Bradford would be an ideal location for a relocated capital. Would highlight the need for decent infrastructure which isn't London focused

 

[nw1]

No.

London is the largest and most important city in the UK and the city containing the highest proportion of national monuments, famous and important buildings and so on, as well as being the financial centre. Also the road and rail network converges on it.

Why should we move it just because it's not central to the UK as a whole? Plenty of other countries have a non-central capital.

Should the US move its capital from Washington D.C. to somewhere on the Great Plains?

This sounds like inventing a problem for the sake of it.

Please no English parliament btw! Without the moderating influence of the large number of non-Tory MPs in Wales, Scotland and NI I suspect it would be utterly dominated by the Tories.

 

[70014IronDuke]

No.

London is the largest and most important city in the UK and the city containing the highest proportion of national monuments, famous and important buildings and so on, as well as being the financial centre. Also the road and rail network converges on it.

Why should we move it just because it's not central to the UK as a whole? Plenty of other countries have a non-central capital.

Should the US move its capital from Washington D.C. to somewhere on the Great Plains?

This sounds like inventing a problem for the sake of it.

Please no English parliament btw! Without the moderating influence of the large number of non-Tory MPs in Wales, Scotland and NI I suspect it would be utterly dominated by the Tories.

Well, the Turks have done it, the Kazakhs have done it, why should we miss out?

Actually, even we've done it - it was Winchester back in the day, after all.

Perhaps we could have a compromise solution, as in the EU - we keep it for six months a year in London, but from April to August we move it ooop north, somewhere on the seaside, say like Middlesbrough - just to spread out the money a bit, and for regional solidarity's sake.

EDit: @yorksrob would back this, for sure.

We'd probably have the Whitby line doubled with a 2 x 158, 2TPH service, and everyone getting a seat.

 

[al78]

No.

London is the largest and most important city in the UK and the city containing the highest proportion of national monuments, famous and important buildings and so on, as well as being the financial centre. Also the road and rail network converges on it.

Why should we move it just because it's not central to the UK as a whole? Plenty of other countries have a non-central capital.

Should the US move its capital from Washington D.C. to somewhere on the Great Plains?

This sounds like inventing a problem for the sake of it.

Please no English parliament btw! Without the moderating influence of the large number of non-Tory MPs in Wales, Scotland and NI I suspect it would be utterly dominated by the Tories.

I agree no for sheer practical reasons alone but London is not optimally located from a general population point of view. It is tucked down in the SE meaning it is a long way from a lot of other places. If London were located where Birmingmham is now, a lot more of the population would be an hour's commute and there would be a much greater choice of places to live for a viable commute (people wouldn't have to move to the Midlands for a good capital city job with a viable commute), meaning less population pressure on a small part of the country as there is in the SE today. In addition, the SE does not have sufficient natural resources to support its regional population which is why it frequently has severe traffic congestion and water shortages which are likely to get worse with projected climate change. Spreading the population load is much easier with a centralised honey pot city which would mean less pressure on any one surrounding area.

 

[nw1]

If we moved it to Bootle, Bentham or Dent you could justify improving the local rail services, even electrification

Dent as in north(ish) of Whernside? Don't know the other 2 places but I have passed through Dent back in the day, on a long-distance walk.

If so: changed my mind, let's make Dent the new capital! An important condition, of course, would be no new development, due to its National Park location. Parliament to occur in the pub, etc...

 

[najaB]

London is the largest and most important city in the UK and the city containing the highest proportion of national monuments, famous and important buildings and so on, as well as being the financial centre. Also the road and rail network converges on it.

Keep in mind that in many countries, the capital isn't the largest and/or most economically important city. Cf Brasilia, Canberra, Berlin, Washington DC, Ottawa...

 

[nw1]

I agree no for sheer practical reasons alone but London is not optimally located from a general population point of view. It is tucked down in the SE meaning it is a long way from a lot of other places. If London were located where Birmingmham is now, a lot more of the population would be an hour's commute and there would be a much greater choice of places to live for a viable commute (people wouldn't have to move to the Midlands for a good capital city job with a viable commute), meaning less population pressure on a small part of the country as there is in the SE today. In addition, the SE does not have sufficient natural resources to support its regional population which is why it frequently has severe traffic congestion and water shortages which are likely to get worse with projected climate change. Spreading the population load is much easier with a centralised honey pot city which would mean less pressure on any one surrounding area.

I see what you mean but it's still quite a radical change. Will HS2 not help mitigate some of this, bringing much more of the country within viable commuting distance of London?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2023 ==

Keep in mind that in many countries, the capital isn't the largest or most economically important city. Cf Brasilia, Canberra, Berlin, Washington DC, Ottawa...

I guess, but in most of these cases, the capital originally wasn't something else.

I'd imagine UK residents are too used to the idea of the capital being also the largest and most important city. It's probably also the norm in Europe, thinking of a few nearby (and not-so-nearby) countries in our continent, in most cases the capital is the largest and most important city.

As an aside it's of note that in many (not all) US states, the state capital is not the "obvious" one, presumably for historic reasons (perhaps the state capital was more important historically than the current 'obvious' large city, in the same way that Winchester is capital of Hampshire due to its historic importance, despite not being the largest city nowadays).

 

[Mag_seven]

Should we move the capital?

What brick by brick!

 

[The exile]

Theoretically (ha ha) this could be countered by a significantly slimmed down Westminster parliament. But it'd have to be done properly.

This is exactly what would need to happen - but can’t unless and until England (or more sensibly English regions) have their own devolved Systems.

 

[brad465]

What brick by brick!

It's been joked before that HS2 is now so expensive it would be cheaper to just move Birmingham next door to London.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Despite being a proud Londoner, I’ve come to the conclusion we may need to move the capital of the UK in order to create a modern, civic state and not one that hasn’t transitioned properly from imperial administration. I favour Birmingham as it’s probably the best distance between Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London. Does anyone else feel the same?

Where is the money coming from to finance this aspiration of a "modern civic state" which seems to suggest the end of the monarchy? I notice that you still favour an English city, despite the mentions of Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.

 

[najaB]

Where is the money coming from to finance this aspiration of a "modern civic state" which seems to suggest the end of the monarchy?

The former does not imply the latter.

I notice that you still favour an English city, despite the mentions of Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.

Given that the population of England is an orde of magnitude greater than Scotland or Wales, and a couple greater than Northern Ireland it makes sense that the parliament would be somewhere in England. If only to minimise travel expenses for MPs.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The former does not imply the latter..

Forgive my indiscretion, I must have been paying far too much attention to the Burnham Oblast plan for the future in Greater Manchester...

The phrase modern civic state is one that in my dotage, I have totally misunderstood.

 

[PTR 444]

No.

London is the largest and most important city in the UK and the city containing the highest proportion of national monuments, famous and important buildings and so on, as well as being the financial centre. Also the road and rail network converges on it.

Why should we move it just because it's not central to the UK as a whole? Plenty of other countries have a non-central capital.

Should the US move its capital from Washington D.C. to somewhere on the Great Plains?

If you’re going by the logic of the first two paragraphs, the US capital should be New York City.

 

[317 forever]

If we moved it to Bootle, Bentham or Dent you could justify improving the local rail services, even electrification

EDIT: I meant Bootle, Cumbria, of course.

That would be a logical place. It would be approximately midway between London and north Scotland.

 

[Busaholic]

What brick by brick!

RAAC by RAAC, perhaps. To be filmed by Werner Herzog.

 

[cb a1]

Dent as in north(ish) of Whernside? Don't know the other 2 places but I have passed through Dent back in the day, on a long-distance walk.

If so: changed my mind, let's make Dent the new capital! An important condition, of course, would be no new development, due to its National Park location. Parliament to occur in the pub, etc...

+1 from me. My dad's side of the family lived in Dent for centuries.

Which pub? The Sun or the George and Dragon.

 

[70014IronDuke]

+1 from me. My dad's side of the family lived in Dent for centuries.

Which pub? The Sun or the George and Dragon.

And in order to keep peace in The House, the Lords can sit in the Railway Inn, Ribblehead

 

[nw1]

+1 from me. My dad's side of the family lived in Dent for centuries.

Which pub? The Sun or the George and Dragon.

I can't actually remember, it was that long ago (as a point of reference, I reached the start of the long-distance walk by Class 101 DMU). It was quite nice though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2023 ==

If you’re going by the logic of the first two paragraphs, the US capital should be New York City.

True, but it would be silly to change it from Washington to New York now after it's been Washington for so long - and perhaps that's my main issue with moving the capital from London, thinking about it.

London's status as large city backs my view up, but I think my main point is that there is not a strong enough reason for change, given change would cause all sorts of logistical problems.