The United Kingdom is one of the most centralised nations in the developed world. Our politics, economy, culture, media and tourism are overwhelmingly concentrated in the capital, London. As a result, the rest of the nation is overlooked – on the global stage, and by our own elites. But what if we did something radical? What if we followed the example of Myanmar or Kazakhstan or, most recently, Indonesia, and relocated our capital? We asked various contributors to cast their eyes over the vast swathes of the UK that feel worlds apart from London – and nominate a city to capitalise.
Like a badly loaded barge, national life is made lopsided by London’s dominance. It affects the way others see us and the way we see ourselves; everything that matters seems to happen in London, an illusion fostered by the overwhelming concentration of the national and international media in the city. Despite the well-meaning attempts of that same media sometimes to include ‘the provinces’ in their output (how often, for instance, in the current Brexit debate have you heard a ‘vox pop’ illustrating Leave sentiment from some neglected quarter?), the end result often reeks of metropolitan condescension.
Britain has, to coin a new meaning for the word, a very severe case of ‘Capitalism’: a complaint which magnifies London’s importance whilst diminishing everywhere else. It would be a salutary corrective if some other city were given the chance to shine, and I have just the place in mind.
An Oxford-educated Scotsman I once knew sneeringly dubbed Bristol ‘the Birmingham of the West’ after I had confided my affection for the place. Unwittingly perhaps, he had doubly offended me, for I have lived in both Bristol and Birmingham and found much to admire in each of them. But I do think that in one sense at least, he spoke a truth. For Bristol is – like Brum – a hard-working, feet-on-the-ground sort of place which goes about its business without too much fuss. But which, as a result, consistently punches below its weight.
Unlike say Liverpool or Newcastle, Bristol lacks definition in the national imagination. This is partly to do, I think, with the national obsession with football. Though Bristol has in Rovers and City two well-established sides, they both haunt the lower divisions and have never thrived in the modern era. And this matters in terms of national visibility. Imagine Liverpool or Manchester without their football clubs: each would be much-reduced and would count for less on the national stage. And yet Bristol is, by many other measures, a much more successful city than any of its northern sisters. Economically, at least, Bristol puts its rivals in the shade.
The Bristol city-region (which includes three other councils – North Somerset, South Gloucestershire and Bath, and North East Somerset) has, by far, the highest productivity of any big conurbation outside London. Household incomes are correspondingly the highest outside the capital. On a measure commonly used by economists – gross value added – Bristol comes top of the so-called ‘core cities’ league. What all this adds up to is a thriving regional economy based on an enviable mix of industries.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe