Liverpool players celebrating after winning the UEFA Champions League. Credit: Andrew Powell/Liverpool FC via Getty Images

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.
Today, Liverpool is in the papers for the right reasons. Liverpool FC’s long awaited victory in the Champions League doesn’t just feel like a triumph on the pitch – it’s a validation of Jürgen Klopp’s inclusive, hard-working and always-improving culture; it’s a celebration of a football team that reflects the best parts of the city that (give or take a few Everton fans) loves them.
This victory and the efforts leading up to it reinforce my belief in Liverpool. It makes me all the more convinced that it’s where the future of the nation could and should lie. But I’m also aware that, in spite of today’s headlines, if you want to understand Liverpool’s appeal, you have to slough off a long history of bad press. As long ago as 1849, Herman Melville was complaining: “Of all sea-ports in the world, Liverpool, perhaps, most abounds in all the variety of land-sharks, land-rats, and other vermin, which make the hapless mariner their prey.”
And then, towards the end of the twentieth century, people really began to stick the boot in. The city endured long stagnation and then a sharp descent into the mass unemployment and deprivation of the 1980s, the Toxteth riots and the infamous Derek Hatton years – when the Militant tendency took control of Liverpool City Council.
Liverpool became a byword for urban decline, bad planning, and hatefully ugly modern architecture. It was the butt of endless bad jokes about moustaches, tracksuits, accents and thieving. A few good jokes too. Bill Bryson took a train to Liverpool in Notes from a Small Island. “They were having a litter festival when I arrived,” he wrote:
“Citizens had taken time off from their busy activities to add crisp packets, empty cigarette boxes, and carrier bags to the otherwise bland and neglected landscape.”
You get the gist. I’m as guilty as anyone for making people think ill of Liverpool. The city made the top 10 of Crap Towns, a book about the worst places to live in the UK, which I edited in 2003. Back then, when I was canvassing opinion, hundreds wrote in to complain about the city and the rut it was in. They were especially frustrated because the city had fallen so far.
My correspondents pointed out how fantastic Liverpool could still be, with its rich culture, with its history of innovation and rebellion, with its astonishing architecture (to give just one illustration: it has more Georgian buildings than any other UK city except Bath). “I think it has the potential to be a visionary city,” said one contributor – if only someone would come along to help it fulfil its potential.
Fortunately, the people of Liverpool did just that. There was its triumphant year as European Capital of Culture in 2008 – when it was proved that Liverpool could not only compete with the best of them when it came to inspiration and artistic flair, but that hundreds of thousands of people would flock to its world-beating museums, galleries and music venues.
Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of pounds began to pour into Liverpool from the EU. Buildings around the historic waterfront and throughout the city have been brushed up, restored and saved for future generations, public spaces have been fitted out with fountains, trees and seating, the public transport infrastructure has been radically improved, there are new cruise liner terminals, and thousands of skill-building projects have been initiated around the city. Its magnificent centre looks cleaner and brighter than at any point in its history.
And it doesn’t just look better, it feels better. When I was growing up in Lancashire in the 1990s, I was frightened of Liverpool. It was the big bad neighbouring city. The place where my 80-year-old relative got mugged, where people were scared to leave their cars in case their radios got stolen, of wailing sirens and a low constant throb of trouble. When I visited, I barely noticed how impressive so many of its buildings were, because I was too busy keeping my head down, concentrating on getting to where I was going unscathed.
Now it feels like one of the most walkable and welcoming cities on earth. The change has been psychological as much as architectural, a British version of the renaissance in New York after it cleaned up its act. Which feels right. The cities have always been closely tied – and look so similar that Liverpool often doubles as the Big Apple in Hollywood films. When you visit Liverpool nowadays, you also get that same stiff neck from staring up at so many imposing buildings as you do in Manhattan. The same realisation that you’ve just been walking around saying “wow” when you probably should be getting somewhere.
It’s been quite the turnaround – so just imagine how much more Liverpool could achieve if it were made into the UK capital. That feels like justification enough for making the move. There’s a strong moral case for continuing to undo the years of neglect that have still left large parts of the city poverty-stricken and underpopulated. There’s a similar case to be made for having a capital in the North, bringing improved transport infrastructure, investment and political awareness to a region so criminally neglected by Westminster.
But there’s an even stronger practical case for shifting the political centre of the UK to Liverpool. Liverpool still has thousands of empty houses – not to mention countless commercial properties and vast acres of office space. They could comfortably and stylishly accommodate Parliament and all its attendant personnel. Those people would find themselves in a city that already looks like an international capital, that has top class universities, excellent schools, and world-class art galleries and museums.
They’d also be somewhere fun. Somewhere that now has a thriving cultural scene, exemplary food and drink, and that has always had the kind of nightlife that inspires local kids to form bands and conquer the world.
Somewhere that is putting the problems of the past behind it and has earned a better future. If you don’t believe me, go there.
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.
SubscribeI suppose that I should say something, make some comment, but it just beggars belief. I could ask “wtf is going on in publishing today?”, but we kind of know even if we can’t really understand why. I’ve read Kate Clanchey’s work and heard her read, and she (like many others) does not deserve what has happened to her. I do get fed-up with people being insulted on the behalf of others, if those kids had a problem let them speak up, apparently they were not insulted though. But mostly I’m fed up with the cringeing, cowering, cowardly publishers who are betraying their profession.
Jordan Peterson has written recently in the National Post regarding, generally speaking, the cravenness of his colleagues in Universities. IMO it is a tour de force of writing in exposing the applied postmodern-marxian push within institutions – if not directly by ideologues, then certainly by, in most cases, staff and students being coerced to pay lip service for fear of unemployment.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-why-i-am-no-longer-a-tenured-professor-at-the-university-of-toronto
Thanks for this Michael. The following quotation blew my mind:
“The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past — such as Shakespeare — are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood, memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what color or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.”
This from none other than President Putin….
I have long admired Jordan Peterson and am glad that he has no need financially to slave away in a hostile environment.
However, the great revelation was the passage quoted from a President Putin speech. No need to invade the West Putin only needs to set up anti-woke political parties in western countries and he might well get his puppet parties voted into power on the basis of the sentiments quoted in Jordan Peterson’s article. Putin sounds more like a classic liberal-conservative than most of our elected representatives.
Yes. Regarding Hollywood, one need look no further than the insights of The Critical Drinker YouTube channel and his video ‘What Happened to Our Villains?(a few expletives in there) and the very in- depth ‘Symbolism and Propaganda’ from the Jonathan Pageau channel.
These stories are always the same : you dig through the links to find the disgusting insult that caused the furore in the first place. All the articles are coy about printing what was actually said. It must be really bad, you think. And then you find out… She described one of her black pupils as having “chocolate-coloured skin”! What? A poet trying to describe the appearance of someone. What a monster!
Since when is being compared to chocolate an insult? Her student’s skin sounds beautiful.
Indeed, particularly when you consider how many women spend hours and pounds seeking to make their skins more chocolaty in colour rather than “hideously white” as a former DG of the BBC described his staff without sanction.
Rediculous complaints. If she had described the skin as the colour of excrement or mud one might have understood the furore.
“Chocolate drop” was a common racist slur.
Never heard that phrase. It sounds about as cutting as “carrot-top” that I used to get called from time to time at school. No doubt that is a banned word now for fear of offending sensitive red-heads.
I’ver heard it uses, and never in a good way. Not a current racial slur though.
Is ebony allowed? That gets used a lot (not that I do, but I’m not very poetic). And in reverse, is alabaster acceptable?
I guess what I’m trying to say is, when is analogy and metaphor acceptable and when is it not? Who gets to make those rules?
I would say that for a poet any analogy is acceptable as long as it makes for a good poem.
Who gets to make those rules? Sunny Singh, Chimene Suleyman, and Monisha Rajesh apparently.
“Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony…” da da da
The left. Where you been?
As if black people don’t have chocolate-coloured skin. Utterly bizarre.
During my working life I have been Jock, Thistle Arse, Haggistani, Porridge Wog, Caber To$$er; very felicitous, poetic and harmless compared to some of the things I have been called.
What kind of chocolate? My boy looks like a milky bar
If Picador and Pan MacMillan wish to constrain free speech then the answer they may understand is to avoid buying their publications, urge our friends and acquaintances to do the same, and urge writers to submit their texts elsewhere
I agree! Boycott the bastards! They cannot be allowed to profit from their hypocritical cowardice.
I contacted Pan Macmillan a few minutes ago to tell them I wouldn’t be buying their books any more.
“If I have regrets about our conduct during the Clanchy affair, it’s that we weren’t clear enough in our support for the author and her rights, as well as our condemnation of any trolling, abuse and misinterpretations that happened online.
– Philip Gwyn Jones, Picador
He later apologised for the comments. In December Picador distanced itself from Gwyn Jones, and Clanchy.”
Does this mean that Picador actually supports trolling and abuse of its authors?
No, he has been re-educated to believe that Picador should have been quicker to react to legitimate outrage and criticism by the oppressed minority of chocolate coloured people by banning a vile racist author who has shown herself up by acting as a white saviour to disadvantaged children and encouraging them to get their work published in an institutional ly racist country etc. etc.
What a horrible time to be an author! We used to congratulate ourselves on our commitment to freedom of expression, now we seem to be emulating the former East Germany.
The authors Chimene Suleyman, Monisha Rajesh, and Sunny Singh owe a HUGE apology to the young writers who’ve been denied the opportunity to get their work published thanks to the authors’ narcissistic and despicable power trip.
f**k Picador publishing – I hope Ms. Clanchy finds a BETTER publisher with the courage to support free expression and without an insane “sensitivity reader”.
I commented on the difference between the woke and the conservative in the comment section of the article on Roger Scruton.
The woke tend to get their way in institutions because of their intolerance and fanaticism. This is the sin of the leftist. They are unable to tolerate those who fail the ideological litmus test. In contrast the conservative is accepting of other ways of thinking even if they are not their way. They are reluctant to drive out the leftist bigots. They accede to the fanatic mob with the thought that the author can publish elsewhere. They lack fanaticism. This is a virtue but leaves conservatives vulnerable.
The conservatives commenting on Unherd are often as vitriolic as comments from the left. The trend to see one’s opinions as facts and to disparage those who differ is widespread.
I agree that conservative thinkers are able to let off their frustration at evidence of woke’s ideological success here in a “safe space” and may be as entrenched in their views as the woke, but they lack true fanaticism.
When I read of publishers abjuring their previously published woke opinions as a result of the pressure from conservatives colleagues and conservative twitter mobs; when I read of leftist academics resigning from tenured positions at Universities as a result of the intolerance of their conservative colleagues and bullying anti-woke mobs harassing them I will believe in an equivalence.
Posters here may post anti-woke diatribes but they are not out harassing and seeking to have people ejected from their jobs for mildly woke sentiments or describing conservatives in an unflattering or slightly disobliging way. They do not proudly proclaim they have no socialist friends as if it were a virtue. On the whole the holders of conservative views tend in practice to be all too tolerant and willing to bend to the fanaticism of the woke..
Good point.
Spot on. Fanaticism, openness to argument, reasonableness are personality traits which are not exclusive to one side or the other.
Well we do have to stop tolerating the woke. This has become an existential struggle.
Oh, please. Moral equivalence is just another form of cowardice.
Commenters may have strongly held opinions; but in terms of vitriol, I don’t see posts ranging from calls for people to be sacked and financially ruined through to the opinion that people holding other views be assaulted or killed.
I’ve just written to Pan Macmillan to tell them that I won’t be buying any more books published by them.
Good. Can you provide a link we can all use? I’ve also made a mental note not to buy any more Pan MacMillan books. Hopefully someone will organise a proper boycott campaign with wide publicity.
I just used the contact form on their website:-
https://www.panmacmillan.com/help-is-at-hand
We will all bow before Chimene Suleyman, Monisha Rajesh, and Sunny Singh. Stop protesting and arguing, white people.
We are all guilty of racism and colonialism, the Original Sins of the West.
And what is an Original Sin? One that we ourselves cannot overcome. Original Sins require Redeemers in order for the sinners to be forgiven.
Chimene Suleyman, Monisha Rajesh, and Sunny Singh will listen to our pleas and judge us as they see fit.
They collectively are the sovereign — and our moral betters.
Bow.
Never mind whether one agrees or disagrees with these cancelled individuals, the sheer bullying mob hypocrisy of these publishers, universities, etc is what galls me. The very basest of human behaviour from those who profess the highest of motives.
Another quite ridiculous and dishonest article from a left leaning cultural extremist who wants temporary solidarity from those on the right.
You can tell from the list of authors in her anthology that inclusion owed more to the publisher’s policy of diversity and racialised inclusivity than literary merit. Something she was happy to play along with when it suited her.
Like Bindel, she’s been bitten by the people she’s closest to because she’s not extreme enough for them.
She’ll go back to her old friends when it’s safe to do so – when the trannies have been seen off – and go back to despising the right at the same time.
I upvoted you, because I think you’re correct. In my experience those most hurt by identity politics are those who seek to profit by it. It requires so many purity tests that even its most ardent adherents are going to trip themselves up at some point.
This who live by identity politics will die by identity politics.
It’s even worse. any are people simply seeking for opportunities to bully.
How do you know all this? She had students. She published their work.
How long until Shukria Rezaei is cancelled? She’s a student at a British university who has dared to speak out, so her position must now be pretty perilous.
My take on this is that Clanchy’s real “sin” was to be a white woman writing about non-white people. Her critics felt offended by that and thought she was somehow using her students to advance her own career. The “chocolate skin” comment was just a convenient example for them to point to; it could easily have been changed in later editions, but Clanchy’s underlying “stain” is unchangeable. This is a terrible time to be an author if you’re white and want to write about anyone who isn’t.
Vladimir Putin may be a lot of things, but he is no fool.
“The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags, as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx… See more @https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-why-i-am-no-longer-a-tenured-professor-at-the-university-of-toronto?fbclid=IwAR1xkzCantQbMQy4CXJM2Oo5bg-D1xNmFCLbrr-DlbdaVATe4qMQbqO4BVc
Jordan Peterson: Why I am no longer a tenured professor at the University of Toronto
https://NATIONALPOST.COM
Boo. Cancellation of poets, how degraded has our society become. Shameful!