Move the capital?

NORMAN MACRAE co-author of original article

YES

The idea for the original Economist article came from Alastair Burnet, but others of us contributed. Without the move, southern house prices and traffic congestion have outpaced those in the north even more than we had feared. Culture-setting industries have remained too south-England oriented-the media, investment banking (breeding anti-manufacturing bias), international airports and the rapidly failing Church of England. We lost an opportunity to build the world's first serious capital city designed for the motor age and the knowledge industries. In 1962, there was hope that some fresh architectural visions might emerge. By 2002, all building projects with a political involvement (Dome, Scots parliament) seem blighted by huge cost overruns and incompetence. If the project for a new Elizabetha is revived, the initial building projects should be handed to Korean contractors who so quickly built their architecturally exciting World Cup 2002 football stadia at a fraction of Wembley Stadium's cost and time delays.

LINDA COLLEY historian

Why are bureaucrats and MPs still so thick on the ground in London given that so many of their responsibilities have been transferred elsewhere? Much of Britain's foreign policy is now made in Washington, just as much of its domestic organisation is hammered out in Brussels. Moreover, devolution means that all kinds of matters once determined in London have become instead the business of Edinburgh, Cardiff, and (intermittently) Belfast. Criticising the size of the state, and the proliferation of its officials was once a hallmark of the left. Perhaps it should become so again. It seems strange that when Britain governed more than a quarter of the world, it possessed only a fraction of the civil servants who now inhabit London. But even if their numbers were pruned-or if they took off to York, or Newcastle, or wherever-I doubt that the pressures on London would be much lifted. London is not simply or mainly a national capital. It is a city-state with an increasingly international dynamic and population. Create a new capital if you like (though not, please, Elizabetha): London will keep growing.

TAM DALYELL Labour MP for Linlithgow

I deplore political cities like Canberra and Brasilia. The government seat must be in a cosmopolitan city or politics becomes more inbred than it already is.

TREVOR KAVANAGH political editor, the Sun

YES

Yes, give our cosseted politicians and civil servants a real glimpse of life outside the great metropolis. But where do we put them? Manchester would swiftly become as congested as the southeast. Birmingham already is. The answer must be Liverpool. The infusion of 50,000 bureaucrats and their political masters, the construction of a new parliament, departments of state, airport, restaurants and wine bars would create jobs and enrich this regional ghetto. Merseyside would flourish and its new citizens and their families will learn much about real life. Within a generation, Scouse could become the received pronunciation. And I'll be retired and living happily in a decongested former capital.

WARREN HOGE NY Times London correspondent

I lived in south America for five years as the New York Times bureau chief in Rio de Janeiro, and I remember one saying common to Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Colombia, and so on-people would always talk about "the capital" and "the interior." There was this central place, and then all the rest out there-indistinct, remote, other. I was surprised to re-encounter this quaint third world notion when I moved to London. The one country in South America where this attitude didn't take hold was Brazil, and Brazil is of course the one country that moved its capital out of its coastal home in Rio, thereby creating a whole inland culture. In Britain, the inland culture is already there, but the determination to ignore the north is so strong here that I don't know if moving the capital would make a difference.

DEYAN SUDJIC architecture critic

There is almost always something irredeemably second best about a capital city that has been parachuted out of a big city. Canberra was meant to sort out the rivalries between Sydney and Melbourne, but who would live there if it was a choice between municipal concrete and a view of the harbour? Ajuba is less of an urban apocalypse than Lagos but it was designed by the same people who gave the world Milton Keynes. And who would seriously want to live in Washington if they could be in Manhattan?

JOSEF JOFFE editor, Die Zeit

Move the capital? Like Brasilia which, 40 years on, is a decrepit monument to 1960s-style architecture? Or Washington, which only in the late 20th century stopped being a one-horse town? As the sorry history of Berlin in the 1990s demonstrates, shifting a few thousand public servants from Bonn does not create an irresistible magnet for industry, banking and services. Government per se does not make for greatness. A new British capital in the north would do nothing to relieve congestion and high rents in London. It isn't the presence of Tony Blair that makes London the most expensive city in the western world. It would be better to put a few billion more into dragging the Tube into the 21st century. Keep Buckingham Palace and the British Museum where they are-1066 and all that would have been in vain if parliament became a five-star hotel.

JUDE KELLY theatre director

YES

The capital city is now Leeds and a Yorkshire accent has become the new received pronunciation. House prices in the southeast drop, to the great relief of low-paid workers in London. However, second homes for networkers and socialites force prices up in the post-industrial mill-towns of Halifax, Huddersfield and so on. An ex-miner's back-to-back cottage becomes a "must have," beating the Cotswolds as a weekend retreat. The trans-Pennine cluster of Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds spawns a new wave of cultural venues. Several of the galleries, orchestras, theatres and dance companies are allowed to call themselves "national" or "royal." Leeds develops the north end-a theatre quarter which twins with the west end as the commercial epicentre for burgeoning drama and long-running musicals. Regional television studios immediately fill up with new production teams and London independent producers complain of losing their special commissioning relationships. All of a sudden England is more exciting and diverse.

SUSAN KRAMER Lib Dem London mayoral candidate

YES

Eliminate the centralist character of Britain and the question of where the capital lies becomes irrelevant. Edinburgh and Cardiff now provide good counterweights and rivals to London. Allow London to govern London, let regional "capitals" develop and Whitehall is welcome to find itself any home it chooses-I hear John O' Groats is a delightful place.

RICHARD HOGGART writer and academic

This argument often confuses the capital city with the seat of government. There is no reason why London should not continue as the capital-history, setting and much else argue that-but with the advent of information technology, most organs of government could now be devolved. Unlike France, Germany or Italy we have not had a clutch of cities which feel secure in themselves as commercial and cultural magnets. But that is changing. Art galleries, museums, theatres, music and ballet have recently transferred from London, and many existing local institutions grown in confidence.

NEAL ASCHERSON journalist and historian

YES

Forty years on, the notion of expelling the capital from London remains alluring. But the dimensions of the problem have changed in two ways. First, it is no longer the post-industrial north of England which faces the worst long-term problems. It is the overcrowded, expensive southeast of England-with the capital as the source of its congestion. The late Pim Fortuyn said that Holland had become a single urban area with a few huge green parks. For Holland, read London's 100-mile periphery. Official public spending figures conceal the overwhelming flow of public finance into this region-Britain's true "subsidy junkie." Second, which capital do we expel-the British or the English one, given that an English parliament is probably going to happen in the next few decades? It is usually federal capitals which are raised out in the sticks. But what matters most is to sever the English connection to Westminster. Only then would England be forced to design its own modern institutions. Foreign policy, defence and pageantry can stay in London-if the voters of a London city-state consent. But the capital of England should move to a Midland brownfield site, on a main rail line. Not Virgin, or the parliament would never have a quorum. GNER is better. Grantham?

RICHARD ROGERS architect

I read once that when Tony Benn became industry secretary, back in the 1970s, the first thing he did on moving into his new office was place a large map of Britain on his wall-upside down. I don't know whether the story is true, but I hope it is; Britain's ruling classes have been London-centric for far too long. England needs a more powerful regional strategy to combat a situation, where, to put it crudely, jobs outnumber houses in the south and houses outnumber jobs in the north. I have been a member of the House of Lords now for over five years. I can't pretend that I am particularly enamoured of it, or of Westminster more generally. The building has a great history but it feels out of touch. However, the prospect of moving Parliament is about as unlikely as any that can be imagined. Better to concentrate on increasing the scope and quality of city governments, and winning regional government for those regions that want it. And if, in the end, even the southeast decides it wants its own parliament, it should be outside London. Brighton?

SASKIA SASSEN sociologist

YES

London's global city functions would not be affected by moving the seat of government. Today, government plays a much smaller role in locating industry and so on. Also, London's mayoral government would benefit from having national government far away. Another potential plus is the release of democratic energy that could accompany this process. Relocating the capital and launching a vast building programme, will engage people-launching debates, fights, demonstrations, conversations across enemy lines. One model is the July 2002 "town meeting" that brought together 5,000 people in New York city for a day to discuss the official plans for the rebuilding of lower Manhattan. The meeting threw out the plans, surprising everyone, especially the organisers who expected the event to legitimate their ideas.

TREVOR PHILLIPS chair of the London Assembly

YES

Move the capital? Cool by me.

London government gets back the royal palaces and parks; ordinary kids get to play in the gardens of Buck House. And anything that gets Whitehall out of the face of London government has to be good for the metropolis. No more wrangles over Tube finance or who runs the police. No more civil servants sucking up housing and road space. Above all, Londoners will know that in the mayor they are electing someone who has to do a job, who can't go around shrugging his shoulders and blaming everything on "ministers." But whichever place takes over should be clear about what it is getting: the job of providing security for tens of thousands of ungrateful politicians, bureaucrats and diplomats; the joy of civic ceremonies and anti-globalisation protesters bringing the city to a halt; the overwhelming desire of central government to control its immediate environment. And at weekends your new city will become a ghost town, you won't even have 7m other Londoners to keep you company.

JUDITH MAYHEW adviser to the Mayor of London

Moving the government would take away a vital piece of the jigsaw which makes London the world class city it is today. Moreover, simply relocating government would not solve the economic problems of the rest of Britain. Each year London contributes ?20 billion to the rest of Britain in public spending. Breaking up London would dissipate these resources to the detriment of the country as a whole.

TONY TRAVERS director, Greater London Group, LSE

London would, like New York, prosper-because it is big. But dropping all that bureaucratic dead wood on the north would damage it. There would also be an immediate demand that London should keep the ?20 billion it currently exports to the north. (Perhaps it's not such a bad idea after all.)

JEANETTE WINTERSON novelist

I love London, even though Ken Livingstone is trying to kill it, and I would be sorry to see the capital moved. We need to conceive our country around power centres, not capitals. Now that Scotland has its own parliament, why not turn Manchester into the northern centre of power? MPs could stay in London but the civil service could relocate. In the internet age we don't need everyone bundled in one place. A fast 24-hour rail service to Manchester from London and Edinburgh would benefit everyone. At present the service is slow and stops in the early evening. Turning Manchester into a power centre and a hub city would have economic and democratic advantages. We could halt the flow of wealth south, but only if the north is re-imagined. Manchester has done much to re-imagine itself already; all it needs is a desire for change from the rest of us. While Tony Blair was obsessing about the House of Lords, he could have done some democratic good and shipped some of his kit north. Trouble is, he's an Islington man.

HUGO YOUNG political columnist, the Guardian

YES

When this idea first came up, I was a 24-carat

northerner. Born in Sheffield and working a journalistic apprenticeship in Leeds, I was assigned the task of responding to The Economist in the pages of the Yorkshire Post. The cutting of my leader lies before me: a masterpiece of pomposity, unerringly despatched from northern haut to southern bas. Interesting idea, we sniffed. But let no one imagine that southerners alone would object to the transplanting of the capital. Northerners wanted nothing to do with a "gin-and-tonic belt" on the Yorkshire Moors. "The north would not have revived if the north became not the north at all." Now that I've been a southerner for most of 40 years, I see that the YP was less prescient than The Economist. The trouble with the south is that it is full up, and needs relief from self-destruction. This is now the region that needs salvation, and moving the political capital (I envisage a Foster-Chipperfield-Rogers futuristic glass metropolis, with York Minster just visible on the horizon) would be the right millennial proof that we had the imagination to reshape our economic geography. It would mark the moment when Britain has to become England and the imperial baggage of Londinium at last recedes behind the new seat of a European region. I propose a Royal Commission under the hand of Lord Prescott of Humberside.

TS ELIOT poet

YES

Unreal City... A crowd flowed over London Bridge, so many/I had not thought death had undone so many