As the old joke goes, if you ask someone from Birmingham what is Britain’s second city, they will say Birmingham. If you ask someone from Liverpool, they will say London.
jeremybeadleshand on
On population and size objectively Birmingham. But in terms of significance nationally I’d say Manchester.
Destiny7655 on
I like Edinburgh and Glasgow a lot but they’re not big enough to be the second city. The only real contenders have to be Brum or Manchester because they’re nearly 2x the size in metro area. Brum has a larger core city than Manchester but that’s mostly because of anomalies like Salford being a ‘city’. By even metro size, Leeds area is bigger than Glasgow for e.g. and has about as much cultural weight across the whole of the UK too, even though Glasgow is much more dominant in Scotland.
Saying Edinburgh is second city based only on it’s cultural output would be equally weird given you could easily pick Oxford or Cambridge by that metric even though they have small populations. You need a massive population *as well* as the cultural I think. Personally I’d choose Manchester as the only rival to London these days.
SumptuousRageBait1 on
It is absolutely Edinburgh. It regularly features and often tops lists of the worlds most beautiful cities. It has a huge international appeal and and tourists fall in love with it. Manchester/Liverpool/Bristol are all cool but they simply dont have that extra something that Edinburgh has. And sorry to bring politics into it, but a lot of the cities in England have lost their identities in recent years.
Fine_Cress_649 on
Lmao Edinburgh isn’t even Scotland’s first city, let alone the UK’s second city.
Uniform764 on
Im from the North East, I’ve been to most corners of these islands over the years.
In pure population its undeniable its Birmingham. I can see an argument for Edinburgh as the capital of the second largest constituent nation. However I’d say Manchester is the second city based entirely on vibes which I cant actually put any meaningful logic to. Perhaps because despite being here 35+ years I’ve never been to Birmingham or known anyone do anyone go to Birmingham for a job, a university course etc, even though I do know people who’ve done that in Nottingham or Leicester
thebrowncanary on
Glasgow has always been the second city of the empire and I’m disappointed respondents don’t know that.
Birmingham is irrelevant. Culturally and economically lacking compared to Manchester.
squeezycheeseypeas on
When it comes to the UK’s second city, here in Manchester we usually let London and Birmingham duke it out between themselves
Constant-Estate3065 on
Depends. Does Manchester include the bit that goes around calling itself ‘Salford’? If not, then it’s smaller than Birmingham.
DepartmentDowntown80 on
I don’t buy the comments saying Birmingham because of population. It and Manchester have very similar populations at x km from their core, there’s something here about whether surrounding towns/small cities are counted as part of the core city or not.
You might guess I say Manchester.
Rorydinho on
We don’t need a second city… we need regional capitals a la Germany and Spain.
Edinburgh for Scotland.
Cardiff for Wales.
Manchester for NW.
Birmingham for Midlands.
Leeds for NE (York would be better location though )
Bristol for SW (Exeter would be better location but it’s too small).
Norwich or Reading for SE (London has so much influence on this region that there are no real major cities).
London as the federal/national capital.
And we need to figure out how we strengthen the economies of the regional capitals relative to London.
Proper decentralisation and devolution, but I’d prefer more guard rails on devolution than is currently the case. Also, not entirely devolution driven too, the extra regional power has to come from both local and national power. So local authorities have less remit – and are smaller/cost less too.
A key part of this is better intra and inter-regional transport infrastructure. I.e. Make it easier for Cornwall to get to Bristol and vice-versa.
Lunchy_Bunsworth on
Depends. If you are talking about England it is usually Manchester – historic associations , the industrial revolution etc with Birmingham a close third. If we are talking Britain then Edinburgh and Glasgow enter the race.
advmday on
Definitely, undisputably Manchester.
In terms of cultural prominence, Manchester is far more significant than Birmingham.
Flowers_Gone_Where on
British Empire- New Delhi, then in the 2nd half of the 20th century Hong Kong, now Glasgow
Commonwealth- Probably Mumbai?
British Isles- Dublin
Great Britain- Tricky one between Glasgow and Edinburgh, from comments here I think Edinburgh just about edges it (will keep Glasgow’s historical status as the Empire’s second city)
England- Guess Manchester and Birmingham can squabble over this one (or maybe we could throw in York as a historic one…) 5 years ago would have easily given it to Manchester, but rested on its laurels, now it’s a very close one. Maybe Manchester the better city to live in, Birmingham the better city to visit?
in_no1canhearyoumeme on
In my opinion it’s Edinburgh, then Manchester and Birmingham would be behind them.
QBallQJB on
I would say Birmingham? But it seems Manchester is on the rise. And from a certain point of view you could say Edinburgh in terms of popularity
Efficient_Sky5173 on
Stupid question. Second on what? London is first on what? People living in a expensive 5 x 5 foot studio?
justADDbricks on
By definition London isn’t a city, so Birmingham would be first then probably Manchester as the second city.
InspectorDull5915 on
Depends on how you measure it. For example, Leeds is the second city in terms of legal and financial services, after London.
RoamingThomist on
Britain’s or England’s? Those are different questions.
ash_ninetyone on
St Albans I think.
Predates London. Second only to Colchester
Skeet_fighter on
Clearly, Sunderland is the capital of culture outside of London.
It’s got all the things a major UK city needs; a CEX, lots of crime, about 15 Greggs, tons of poverty, a renovation project that mostly consisted of plonking giant glass and concrete monstrosities by the riverfront in an effort to be “modern”… it’s truly got it all.
Valuable_Machine_ on
Definitely not Manchester
I Lived in greater Manchester for 10 years, I can’t imagine why anyone would ever visit Manchester unless they had to, there’s literally nothing of interest there, like at all.
GetRektByMeh on
Maybe Manchester or Birmingham? If not those two… Glasgow, Bristol?
sokorsognarf on
Considering the vastly preferential treatment Manchester gets at every level of Britain’s government, media and all other aspects of state and society, with most other regional cities ignored altogether and Birmingham treated as a problem child, the fact that there’s only 4% in it almost counts as a win for Brum
bahumat42 on
It’s Manchester. Any arguments on population and size are easily outweighed by Manchester’s global cultural relevance.
Ok-Victory-2791 on
Birmingham is an awful city. Liverpool is decent. Manchester is cool. Leeds great alrounder with the biggest potential. After London got to be Edinburgh.
GreaterLesserWerebat on
It’s impossible to say that it’s Birmingham when that city basically became a big ghetto filled with people who’ve made very half-hearted attempts, at best, to integrate into British culture.
Realistically it has to be Manchester. This is the view that business seems to have; and in large part due to Burnham’s focus on infrastructure and affordable housing, it has carved out its own identity.
Bristol is a prosperous city but it’s culturally basically a kind of part of London that drifted somewhere to the west.
Wassa76 on
Did anyone else think that article was awfully written? It’s like someone trying to hit a target for the number of words and graphs the article should be.
First-Banana-4278 on
I’m surprised to see Edinburgh Scotlands most popular choice (outwith the usual suspects) did we misunderstand the questions as “Scotlands second city?”
Seriously though how is it defined outside of vibes?
Politically I suppose it would be Edinburgh – with the most powerful governance outside Westminster. Population wise (city alone) Birmingham (metropolitan area) Manchester, culturally either Manchester/Liverpool are first and London second or vice versa, and historically Glasgow and Liverpool laid claim to the title “second city of empire” because of shipbuilding…
Birmingham probably would have a clearer case if its growth hadn’t been actively sabotaged by Whitehall in the post war years.
christraverse on
It’s Birmingham, it’s always been Birmingham, always gonna be Birmingham.
longsite2 on
Manchester is only smaller than Birmingham because that’s just the city core. If you include Greater Manchester then it is undoubtably Manchester.
Archergarw on
I don’t under stand why it’s Birmingham and not Glasgow or Edinburgh tbh and I’m Welsh so no bias here
I_miss_Chris_Hughton on
Its Birmingham. Birmingham is the only city thats ever forced the government to acquise immediately over threat of revolution (the days of may, 1832) It was the first city to industrialise, letting others follow in its wake (the industrial revolution in Birminghamcan be credibly said to have begun in 1690, almost a century before manchesters first mill). It was the first city to actually attempt a religiously neutral system (the dominance of non conformists in local government was near unique at the time, and the first to unilaterally decide its civic institutions should be municipally run (Chamberlain and the civic gospel/gas and water socialism). The title was earned.
Until as recently as the 60s Birmingham wages were the highest around, and it took repeated, direct and targeted government intervention (the government backed priestly riots destroyed the city’s political radicalism, and the redistribution of industry act was a literal “fuck you for being prosperous”) to bring the city down. Shifting the second city title is basically saying “brummies are scum, and there’s nothing you can do about it because we’ll just pass a law to deprive your economy and then strip whatever pride you had”.
Attwood should have marched south tbh.
Easy-Wallaby-3280 on
Seriously cannot grasp how it’s often said it is Birmingham. May be due to unintentional ignorance, but I would definitely say Manchester.
35 Comments
As the old joke goes, if you ask someone from Birmingham what is Britain’s second city, they will say Birmingham. If you ask someone from Liverpool, they will say London.
On population and size objectively Birmingham. But in terms of significance nationally I’d say Manchester.
I like Edinburgh and Glasgow a lot but they’re not big enough to be the second city. The only real contenders have to be Brum or Manchester because they’re nearly 2x the size in metro area. Brum has a larger core city than Manchester but that’s mostly because of anomalies like Salford being a ‘city’. By even metro size, Leeds area is bigger than Glasgow for e.g. and has about as much cultural weight across the whole of the UK too, even though Glasgow is much more dominant in Scotland.
Saying Edinburgh is second city based only on it’s cultural output would be equally weird given you could easily pick Oxford or Cambridge by that metric even though they have small populations. You need a massive population *as well* as the cultural I think. Personally I’d choose Manchester as the only rival to London these days.
It is absolutely Edinburgh. It regularly features and often tops lists of the worlds most beautiful cities. It has a huge international appeal and and tourists fall in love with it. Manchester/Liverpool/Bristol are all cool but they simply dont have that extra something that Edinburgh has. And sorry to bring politics into it, but a lot of the cities in England have lost their identities in recent years.
Lmao Edinburgh isn’t even Scotland’s first city, let alone the UK’s second city.
Im from the North East, I’ve been to most corners of these islands over the years.
In pure population its undeniable its Birmingham. I can see an argument for Edinburgh as the capital of the second largest constituent nation. However I’d say Manchester is the second city based entirely on vibes which I cant actually put any meaningful logic to. Perhaps because despite being here 35+ years I’ve never been to Birmingham or known anyone do anyone go to Birmingham for a job, a university course etc, even though I do know people who’ve done that in Nottingham or Leicester
Glasgow has always been the second city of the empire and I’m disappointed respondents don’t know that.
Birmingham is irrelevant. Culturally and economically lacking compared to Manchester.
When it comes to the UK’s second city, here in Manchester we usually let London and Birmingham duke it out between themselves
Depends. Does Manchester include the bit that goes around calling itself ‘Salford’? If not, then it’s smaller than Birmingham.
I don’t buy the comments saying Birmingham because of population. It and Manchester have very similar populations at x km from their core, there’s something here about whether surrounding towns/small cities are counted as part of the core city or not.
You might guess I say Manchester.
We don’t need a second city… we need regional capitals a la Germany and Spain.
Edinburgh for Scotland.
Cardiff for Wales.
Manchester for NW.
Birmingham for Midlands.
Leeds for NE (York would be better location though )
Bristol for SW (Exeter would be better location but it’s too small).
Norwich or Reading for SE (London has so much influence on this region that there are no real major cities).
London as the federal/national capital.
And we need to figure out how we strengthen the economies of the regional capitals relative to London.
Proper decentralisation and devolution, but I’d prefer more guard rails on devolution than is currently the case. Also, not entirely devolution driven too, the extra regional power has to come from both local and national power. So local authorities have less remit – and are smaller/cost less too.
A key part of this is better intra and inter-regional transport infrastructure. I.e. Make it easier for Cornwall to get to Bristol and vice-versa.
Depends. If you are talking about England it is usually Manchester – historic associations , the industrial revolution etc with Birmingham a close third. If we are talking Britain then Edinburgh and Glasgow enter the race.
Definitely, undisputably Manchester.
In terms of cultural prominence, Manchester is far more significant than Birmingham.
British Empire- New Delhi, then in the 2nd half of the 20th century Hong Kong, now Glasgow
Commonwealth- Probably Mumbai?
British Isles- Dublin
Great Britain- Tricky one between Glasgow and Edinburgh, from comments here I think Edinburgh just about edges it (will keep Glasgow’s historical status as the Empire’s second city)
England- Guess Manchester and Birmingham can squabble over this one (or maybe we could throw in York as a historic one…) 5 years ago would have easily given it to Manchester, but rested on its laurels, now it’s a very close one. Maybe Manchester the better city to live in, Birmingham the better city to visit?
In my opinion it’s Edinburgh, then Manchester and Birmingham would be behind them.
I would say Birmingham? But it seems Manchester is on the rise. And from a certain point of view you could say Edinburgh in terms of popularity
Stupid question. Second on what? London is first on what? People living in a expensive 5 x 5 foot studio?
By definition London isn’t a city, so Birmingham would be first then probably Manchester as the second city.
Depends on how you measure it. For example, Leeds is the second city in terms of legal and financial services, after London.
Britain’s or England’s? Those are different questions.
St Albans I think.
Predates London. Second only to Colchester
Clearly, Sunderland is the capital of culture outside of London.
It’s got all the things a major UK city needs; a CEX, lots of crime, about 15 Greggs, tons of poverty, a renovation project that mostly consisted of plonking giant glass and concrete monstrosities by the riverfront in an effort to be “modern”… it’s truly got it all.
Definitely not Manchester
I Lived in greater Manchester for 10 years, I can’t imagine why anyone would ever visit Manchester unless they had to, there’s literally nothing of interest there, like at all.
Maybe Manchester or Birmingham? If not those two… Glasgow, Bristol?
Considering the vastly preferential treatment Manchester gets at every level of Britain’s government, media and all other aspects of state and society, with most other regional cities ignored altogether and Birmingham treated as a problem child, the fact that there’s only 4% in it almost counts as a win for Brum
It’s Manchester. Any arguments on population and size are easily outweighed by Manchester’s global cultural relevance.
Birmingham is an awful city. Liverpool is decent. Manchester is cool. Leeds great alrounder with the biggest potential. After London got to be Edinburgh.
It’s impossible to say that it’s Birmingham when that city basically became a big ghetto filled with people who’ve made very half-hearted attempts, at best, to integrate into British culture.
Realistically it has to be Manchester. This is the view that business seems to have; and in large part due to Burnham’s focus on infrastructure and affordable housing, it has carved out its own identity.
Bristol is a prosperous city but it’s culturally basically a kind of part of London that drifted somewhere to the west.
Did anyone else think that article was awfully written? It’s like someone trying to hit a target for the number of words and graphs the article should be.
I’m surprised to see Edinburgh Scotlands most popular choice (outwith the usual suspects) did we misunderstand the questions as “Scotlands second city?”
Seriously though how is it defined outside of vibes?
Politically I suppose it would be Edinburgh – with the most powerful governance outside Westminster. Population wise (city alone) Birmingham (metropolitan area) Manchester, culturally either Manchester/Liverpool are first and London second or vice versa, and historically Glasgow and Liverpool laid claim to the title “second city of empire” because of shipbuilding…
Birmingham probably would have a clearer case if its growth hadn’t been actively sabotaged by Whitehall in the post war years.
It’s Birmingham, it’s always been Birmingham, always gonna be Birmingham.
Manchester is only smaller than Birmingham because that’s just the city core. If you include Greater Manchester then it is undoubtably Manchester.
I don’t under stand why it’s Birmingham and not Glasgow or Edinburgh tbh and I’m Welsh so no bias here
Its Birmingham. Birmingham is the only city thats ever forced the government to acquise immediately over threat of revolution (the days of may, 1832) It was the first city to industrialise, letting others follow in its wake (the industrial revolution in Birminghamcan be credibly said to have begun in 1690, almost a century before manchesters first mill). It was the first city to actually attempt a religiously neutral system (the dominance of non conformists in local government was near unique at the time, and the first to unilaterally decide its civic institutions should be municipally run (Chamberlain and the civic gospel/gas and water socialism). The title was earned.
Until as recently as the 60s Birmingham wages were the highest around, and it took repeated, direct and targeted government intervention (the government backed priestly riots destroyed the city’s political radicalism, and the redistribution of industry act was a literal “fuck you for being prosperous”) to bring the city down. Shifting the second city title is basically saying “brummies are scum, and there’s nothing you can do about it because we’ll just pass a law to deprive your economy and then strip whatever pride you had”.
Attwood should have marched south tbh.
Seriously cannot grasp how it’s often said it is Birmingham. May be due to unintentional ignorance, but I would definitely say Manchester.