AIBU to wonder how a government can be based in Manchester?

[dottiedodah]

Andy Burnham is proposing to govern from Manchester when he starts on July 20th.How can this be so ? Surely all previous governments have been based in London?

North west of England. Middle of U.K.,

slightly south of U.K. if we are going to be pedantic!

When did this happen, did he become PM while I was out at the shops?

I love this proposal, purely for the look on the face of Jacob Rees Mogg when he has to go up North for a vote or something. 😊

I think it’s sensible, despite being a southerner I agree we are too London-centric.

However why always Manchester! (Obviously I know why in this case). They’ve got all the bbc things there, let’s give another major non-southern city a chance! Or how about Truro, they must be more cut off from national government than Manchester.

Many Depts are based in both. Lots of Depts have moved to the North and have done for years. Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester. And many in Wales.
London has the Ministers, the key advisory policy peeps. And smaller key personnel in the various Depts.

If Burnham doesn’t last long it will be because he picks the wrong team. If Angela Rayner is anywhere in his cabinet he has lost.
If he doesn’t listen to others he will lose. If he encourages division he will lose.

Reading this thread has mostly been a lowering experience. The number of posters who haven't listened properly to what Burnham said, who understand very little about democratic and parliamentary processes, and are willing Burnham to fail before he's even begun is quite shocking. Very occasionally, I think democracy is a bad idea. That's what I'm thinking right now.

I'm off to eat a chicken pie. Because I'm northern. Pies, chips, mashed potato and roasties. No veg. No salad. That's what we eat and don't eat up here.

Typo

I hope he does if only to piss off the middle class London demographic

But why Manchester? Where else has been considered? Is there anywhere we can see how the decision was made, with costs, pros and cons?

Fortunately we live in a democracy so we can vote on it. Oh wait we can't, King Andy get to what he likes.

I suppose it doesn’t matter where they govern, will still be incompetent

Why Manchester? I wonder...

Why not Manchester? Its England’s second city and is booming. And its one, new department. Will inevitably be cheaper than setting it up in Lindon, and as its about devolution, of course it should be somewhere that has successfully progressed with devolution.

It’s an interesting debate. Thanks for posting about it. Hope you feel better soon ! best wishes from a north westerner😉

What a silly comment. Why shouldn't things be devolved from London and the South East?

Things is I’d agree but labour didn’t really follow any manifesto and u-turned like crazy, I think if they had stuck to common sense policies we’d still have starmer in place.

It doesn't make any difference does it really? It's basically just a home office in a different city

Sorry, you want an election on every locational decision about a government department? Crikey.

I always thought our second city was Birmingham. They should be told they no longer are.

Yes.

I'm also struck by some posters implicitly or explicitly horrified by the prospect of being governed from 200-300+ miles away. Imagine how that must feel.

(Again, Andy Burnham is not of course proposing to move Government to Manchester.)

Why not. The city is booming and so many organisations have relocated there preferring it to London.

It didn't cross my mind that you had been rude...until you suggested I'm from Manchester 🤩 I am from the sunny side of the Peninnes, not the side where it rains all the time. I hope you are not very ill and will recover soon.

There's no official title of 'England's second city', it's entirely subjective. And is usually considered to be Birmingham anyway.

And even if it were, why does that automatically mean it should be chosen? It may be cheaper than London, but it's certainly not the cheapest place in the country. And prices are rising fast. Why not choose somewhere even cheaper, like Hull? Or more centrally located, like Newcastle? Why not choose somewhere in desperate need of regeneration, rather than somewhere that's already benefited?

I would very much like to see how the decision was reached, and why alternatives like these were discounted in favour of a pretty expensive city with mediocre (at best) transport links.

Centuries ago York was the centre of a Northern form of Government.
It didn’t last. Squabbles inevitably broke out and it did not last.
You cannot have two points of Government.
Much has moved to the North already. This is part of a function that his PrimeMinisters office based in London would normally undertake.
A starting block I suppose. More may well follow.

I think it’s a great idea, especially as the HoC is so dilapidated. But I’d like to know what Cornish MPs think about the travel

Although if they close the Houses of Parliament for refurbishing like they’ve been saying they need to for a while, one option would be a temporary relocation to another part of the country, so I suppose the chance of that option being selected has ticked up a notch.

If it is going to cost the proposed £40 billion and take 60 years to refurbish parliament, I’d prefer them to build a permanent new modern building for 1% of the cost.

Shame on you. Westminster is a beautiful building. Full of history. Our history. Abandoning it to some sterile modern breeze block would be utterly depressing.