Re-uniting the UK: 10 reasons for moving the UK’s Parliament north

Houses-of-ParliamentEarlier this week I floated the idea of moving Parliament from its current location closer to the geographic centre of the United Kingdom.  Here are ten reasons why it make sense:

1. Re-uniting and re-imaging the UK in a post-referendum world
The institutions which have held the UK together for the past three centuries are broken. The United Kingdom is no longer united, even if Scotland votes No tomorrow. If the UK is to have a future, it can only be on the basis of re-imagining what it means to be the UK in the 21st Century. 

Could there be anything with more symbolic power to re-unite the UK than moving Parliament to a new home at the centre of the United Kingdom?

2. Devolution, although essential, isn’t enough to heal the anger
The evidence from Scotland is that devolving powers (though welcome in its own right) serves only increases alienation and anger with Westminster. The risk is further devolution to the nations and English regions, without any change at the centre, will only serve to exacerbate this trend.

The only way to address the anger with the Westminster domination of politics is to transform the institution at its heart: The UK Parliament.

3. Taking Parliament out of the hands of the ‘Westminster elite’
One of the strongest complaints not just in Scotland, but across the rest of the country is that the UK is run by and for the benefit of a ‘Westminster elite.’ What better way of wresting it from the hands of a (real or perceived) elite than to move it from Westminster? Of course this alone won’t be enough to break the power of the elite, but a geographical change of perspective could provide a driving force for reshaping UK politics more generally.

4. Reshaping how politics is done
A new building in a new location could help re-shape politics away from the adversarial bear-pit of the Palace of Westminster, and help establish a more transparent, consensual political culture, no longer bound by centuries of tradition and procedure at Westminster.

If you doubt the power of architecture to shape a more open and transparent political culture, visit the Reichstag in Berlin.

5. Reinvigorating the economy of the North
Relocating the UK Parliament (even without moving most of the institutions of Whitehall) to the North would provide a huge economic boost to whichever city and region it moved to. Not just the construction of a new Parliament building, and offices for hundreds of Parliamentarians and their staff, but the knock on impact in terms of the relocation of lobbyists, think tanks and the like.

6. Reducing the power of the City of London
Moving Parliament to the North would not break the power of the City of London, but it would reduce its power over politics. A geographic separation of two hundred miles would provide a useful ‘distance’ between corporate and political power.

Two of our strongest competitors, the US and Germany, function very well with Government and finance in separate cities: Washington and New York; Berlin and Frankfurt.

7. Rebalancing power away from London
London is rightly a global city that the UK can be proud of, but its relation with the rest of the UK is increasingly toxic. The concentration on London politics, art, sport and media is detrimental to the cultural, political and economic life of the nation as a whole. As a result, too much of current public discourse and policy making serves only to confuse what is in London’s interest with what is in the UK’s interest.

8. Reducing London’s over-heated economy
Arguably London and Londoners will be the biggest beneficiaries of the relocation of Parliament. One of London’s most pressing problems itself is its overheated economy. Land and house prices are simply too high. Moving Parliament and all that goes with it (lobbyists, think tanks etc) would help reduce the overheating.

No long the seat of a working Parliament (other than for ceremonial occasions) the Palace of Westminster could become one of London’s principle tourist attractions.

9. Its perfectly possible: The Germans have already done it
ReichstagIf anyone thinks its simply not possible to move the institutions of Government 200 miles north – well the Germans have already done it. An historically divided nation was brought together by the relocation of the German federal parliament 300 miles from Bonn to Berlin. With the advent of HS2 in particular, it will be perfectly feasible to do the same in the UK: Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool will be as close to central London as much of outer London and the South East.

10. Parliament needs to move in any case
The Palace of Westminster is in need of major refurbishment, which means that both Houses of Parliament will need to relocate whilst the work is undertaken in the next few years. Under plans currently being considered by MPs, this could be for a period of up to five years.

Why not take this historic opportunity to move North on a trial basis?

A number of MPs (not just from the North), including Frank Field (Birkenhead) and Gavin Shuker (Luton) have already floated the idea of moving Parliament north.  So why not do it?

You know it makes sense…

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Re-uniting the UK: 10 reasons for moving the UK’s Parliament north

  1. Debbie Mika says:

    As a Southerner I am getting fed up with everything moving north to Manchester. There are other places in the country that need a boost too.

    • niallcooper says:

      I’m not necessarily advocating Manchester, could be Liverpool, Preston, Warrington… There’s still vastly more In London than the whole of the North put together… And the North is closer to Scotland and Northern Ireland…

  2. raymondo45 says:

    There is no need for erecting new Parliament buildings when there are empty RAF or Army camps in the North complete with accommodation houses and blocks. This would solve the problem of greedy claims for second houses.
    The military could be used to guard the perimeter of the new ‘Parliament Camp’ to ensure the MPs remain in the camp for the duration of their working hours instead of sloping off to second jobs for the boys.
    Westminster would then make a wonderful tourist attraction and the revenue collected used for the upkeep of the camp, simples.

  3. You make a good case, and these issues of the over-heated South East, skew the whole picture for housing and employment for the rest of the population.

  4. tom norton says:

    In cultural terms and economic terms the South is I think generally understood to begin at Watford, – but I have no wish to be pedantic !

    • niallcooper says:

      I’m talking about relocating the UK Parliament to the geographic centre of the UK, not England. I fear you are confusing England with the UK. Watford Gap (not Watford) may be the start of the South England, but in terms of the geography of the UK as a whole, Birmingham is very much in the south.

  5. ianchisnall says:

    Hi Niall, the arguments here include a number of elements I have blogged about previously. I totally agree. Whilst Coventry would make the greatest sense in geographical terms, I would like to see somewhere like Stoke on Trent benefit from the inevitable regeneration. I think there is a case for an English Parliament in say Stoke and then a UK Parliament that perhaps remains in London with a much smaller membership. Alternatively the Parliament could meet in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff in turn?

    • niallcooper says:

      I’m uncomfortable with the idea of a separate English Parliament, as I think it will undermine the UK still further, but London is increasingly hard to justify as a suitable location for a UK Parliament. In terms of the geography of the UK Coventry is still very much in the south…

  6. ianchisnall says:

    The real issue Niall is that we do need some form of devolution within England itself. This is at the heart of the imbalance in the current system. Hence we either devolve to regional bodies (my own preferred model) or to an English Parliament. Only then can a Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Irish Assemblies along with either a number of regional Assemblies or else an English Parliament strengthen the UK Parliament. I think the geography becomes much less significant in the UK Parliament as long as the power balance is correct between the various Assemblies/Parliaments.

  7. dixie2824 says:

    The geographical centre of the UK is Haltwhistle, Northumberland. This should be our new capital!!

    • niallcooper says:

      You’re the second person to suggest this. Maybe the Parliament building could straddle Hadrians Wall – what could be more symbolic than that? Sadly, transport links might make this slightly problemmatic…

  8. Debbie Mika says:

    1 It depends which way Scotland votes tonight of course
    2 Please don’t equate all the south as being as rich as London there are very deprived and forgotten areas in the south-west of England. I agree with moving parliament away from London but wherever it moves to must still be accessible from Penzance and Land’s End as well as more northern constituencies.

    • niallcooper says:

      Agreed – I’ve spent enough time in Cornwall to know how remote it can feel. The same also goes for areas of Wales and Scotland, which is why it’s a tricky balance…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s