Should we move the capital?

[najaB]

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.

What are the major logistical problems that moving the seat of government would cause?

 

[nw1]

What are the major logistical problems that moving the seat of government would cause?

You'd have to move Parliament itself and all the associated employment (Whitehall etc).

And presumably if the whole aim of the exercise is to spread employment out so it's not so centred in London, it wouldn't just be Parliament, but a lot of employers too.

With HS2 (presumably) opening, is it not better to leave the capital in a city with good infrastructure already present - London - and take advantage of HS2 to increase the proportion of the country within commutable distance of London, so that there isn't too much of a concentration of people in the SE?

 

[yorksrob]

A former King Charles once moved the capital to Oxford temporarily when he was having a spot of bother.

Perhaps as a cheaper alternative, we should just move the DfT to Carlisle.

 

[nr758123]

I favour Birmingham as it’s probably the best distance between Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London. Does anyone else feel the same?

The place closest to equidistant between all four capitals is Luddendenfoot. So let's say Halifax.

 

[nw1]

Bringing a bit of light-heartedness into this:

Maybe following Boris' "glorious victory" in 2019, the government could have built a brand new three-million population city on the Brexit- and Boris-supporting plains of the rural Midlands to celebrate, named it Johnson City, and made it the new capital!

 

[najaB]

You'd have to move Parliament itself and all the associated employment (Whitehall etc).

The vast majority of civil servants already work outside of London.

And presumably if the whole aim of the exercise is to spread employment out so it's not so centred in London, it wouldn't just be Parliament, but a lot of employers too.

Is that the aim of the exercise? In any case, many employers are already moving staff out of London.

The place closest to equidistant between all four capitals is Luddendenfoot. So let's say Halifax.

Indeed. The centre of the UK is a lot further north than a lot of people appreciate. One of my previous bosses (based in Glasgow) used to get quite het up when people proposed meeting "somewhere central" like Birmingham!

 

[MotCO]

The vast majority of civil servants already work outside of London.

That is true if you are referring to the processing parts of the Civil Service, such as HMRC, DVLA etc, but all the senior advisors, and their advisors / consultants etc will be close to Westminster. Plus, as I said earlier, all the media circus associated with Westminster is there - the BBC moved to Salford, but realised that all the politicians and experts wanted to be interviewed in London, not Salford, so the media will remain in London. That will mean also that the printed media will want to stay close, then their advertisers will, and so it snowballs. You could probably say the same about the Treasury needing to be near the Bank of England and Canary Wharf etc.

To give another example, the NHS moved its senior staff to Leeds, but all that meant was that the London - Leeds trains were full* of NHS and DHSS staff going to and fro, with some overnight stays in London or Leeds, which will add to the cost and inefficiency.

* ok, a slight exaggeration, but you get the picture

 

[dorsetdesiro]

London needs to be turned into a new fifth home nation, also remaining as the UK capital, as Greater London practically has become its own country as it has grown & changed so much so it doesn't really represent the rest of England like New York City doesn't for the rest of the US.

I am not sure about a huge sprawling city like Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham etc as the new English capital. It could grow much larger and forming its own identity like London has already repeating this problem.

I feel a older & smaller town/city such as Stratford upon Avon, Warwick, Lichfield, Shrewsbury, Worcester, Hereford etc may be more suitable for the new English capital as these are more English in character also would be attractive for tourism, nicer for spending a weekend than somewhere like an urban concrete jungle like York/Bath over Leeds/Swindon.

 

[PTR 444]

London needs to be turned into a new fifth home nation, also remaining as the UK capital, as Greater London practically has become its own country as it has grown & changed so much so it doesn't really represent the rest of England like New York City doesn't for the rest of the US.

Maybe not an independent city state as such, but I would support London becoming a devolved nation within the UK with its own parliament and the like.

 

[nw1]

The vast majority of civil servants already work outside of London.

Is that the aim of the exercise? In any case, many employers are already moving staff out of London.

I'm not sure, but that seemed to be the main justification given here (too much population, infrastructure stretched, etc, in the southeast).

Indeed. The centre of the UK is a lot further north than a lot of people appreciate. One of my previous bosses (based in Glasgow) used to get quite het up when people proposed meeting "somewhere central" like Birmingham!

How do other countries compare though? Is it necessarily typical for the capital to be central?

I can think of examples where the capital is central (Spain and Italy are perhaps the most obvious) but plenty of contra-examples too. Paris is distinctly northern within France, for example, and significantly closer to London than Mediterranean France.

 

[Richardr]

not one that hasn’t transitioned properly from imperial administration.

You need to explain what you mean by this.

 

[dangie]

I feel an older & smaller town/city such as ….. Lichfield….

No thank you. Lichfield is only 7 miles from me. London is 120 and that’s still not far enough

 

[najaB]

How do other countries compare though? Is it necessarily typical for the capital to be central?

No, it's not. The point I was making is that choosing Birmingham because it's 'central' would be based on a misunderstanding.

 

[Parjon]

Moving power from one city to another hardly transforms the nation for the better.

Instead of asset stripping London, how about we simply demand probity and competence from people whose job it is to democratically run the country successfully.

 

[MotCO]

Moving power from one city to another hardly transforms the nation for the better.

Instead of asset stripping London, how about we simply demand probity and competence from people whose job it is to democratically run the country successfully.

+1

 

[gswindale]

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 ==



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.

Ah but remember that Washington DC, although the capital of the United States is not in any of the United States - it is a federal district, so shifting it would require major changes to their constitution.

I really don't see why the Houses of Parliament need to be in London? It would make very little difference to the status of London as a whole and could release valuable funds by relinquishing real estate

 

[MotCO]

I really don't see why the Houses of Parliament need to be in London? It would make very little difference to the status of London as a whole and could release valuable funds by relinquishing real estate

But it is only valable real estate because London is the capital and the seat of the government. Move the parliament elsewhere, and real estate values in London would fall away drastically since demand for accommodation and offices would plummet.

 

[nw1]

No, it's not. The point I was making is that choosing Birmingham because it's 'central' would be based on a misunderstanding.

Ah ok, sorry, I thought you were making the point that London isn't such a good capital because it's not central - apologies for misunderstanding.

 

[birchesgreen]

Buy Sealand platform and move it there.

 

[najaB]

Buy Sealand platform and move it there.

That get my vote!

 

[ChrisC]

Indeed. The centre of the UK is a lot further north than a lot of people appreciate. One of my previous bosses (based in Glasgow) used to get quite het up when people proposed meeting "somewhere central" like Birmingham!

The centre of the UK is claimed to be the small village of Dunsop Bridge, in the Forest of Bowland, Lancashire. A lovely quiet rural location.

No thank you. Lichfield is only 7 miles from me. London is 120 and that’s still not far enough

Leave it in London where it is. Don’t spoil any of our lovely smaller historic cities.

 

[dangie]

Indeed. The centre of the UK is a lot further north than a lot of people appreciate.….

Many years ago I cycled Land‘s End to John O’Groats. If I remember correctly distance wise the half way point was around Kendal in Cumbria. Scotland goes on for a hell of a long way

 

[Thirteen]

There's no real point moving the capital as London would still be the biggest city in terms of population and people would still go there for major attractions.

Moving Parliament would be a costly move and indeed, the Houses of Parliament themselves wouldn't be demolished as they're listed buildings.

 

[Gemz91]

Give in back to Gainsborough.

 

[Busaholic]

There's no real point moving the capital as London would still be the biggest city in terms of population and people would still go there for major attractions.

Moving Parliament would be a costly move and indeed, the Houses of Parliament themselves wouldn't be demolished as they're listed buildings.

They might not get demolished but they might very well collapse, possibly as a result of fire, if the official reports are to be believed. Notre Dame cathedral was in a lot better way and look what happened to that...

 

[birchesgreen]

Close the building down and call it an ex-pub, it'll soon burn down.

 

[MotCO]

Close the building down and call it an ex-pub, it'll soon burn down.

Only if you remove the clock first (in this case, Big Ben)!

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Decentralising and moving government departments out of London has to be the way forward. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government recently moved to Wolverhampton, the first time that a government department had a ministerial presence outside of London. More of this!

 

[najaB]

Moving Parliament would be a costly move and indeed, the Houses of Parliament themselves wouldn't be demolished as they're listed buildings.

That said, they are woefully inadequate for the current purpose. Turning the place into a museum would probably be a good idea, and a hell of a lot cheaper than updating them to be suited to a 21st century seat of government.

 

[urbophile]

I really don't see why the Houses of Parliament need to be in London? It would make very little difference to the status of London as a whole and could release valuable funds by relinquishing real estate

The Palace of Westminster needs massive refurbishment and renovation before it collapses on the heads of the MPs and Peers. No doubt it was built too early to incorporate RAAC (though they've still got RAAB) but there are many other structural faults and doubtless dangerous things like asbestos. Would it not be a massive advantage to relocate both Houses of Parliament outside London, and restore the Barry/Pugin building as an architectural and historic tourist attraction?

I'm not aware that there are any concrete (sorry for the pun) proposals for temporary accommodation but it should be addressed urgently. And let's abandon the romantic nonsense which would have the present chamber replaced with an identical copy, with the confrontational 'two sides' layout, and not enough seats for members to be assured of one. Compromise: build more seats (with proper desks, and up to date electronics) but reduce the number of MPs. Let alone the House of Lords which is another can of worms (though arguably less poisonous ones than the Commons).