CityMetric Advent 1: Manchester's 30-year history of creepy giant Santas

The Christmas market in Manchester's Albert Square. Image: Manchester City council.

We love Christmas round here. Bloody love it. Honestly, it's been a constant battle of will not to have that Fairytale of New York (city themed Christmas song, innit) blaring out since about 15 October. Anyway, to celebrate the imminent arrival of our lord Santa, we've decided to do a Christmas themed post every day until the big day. Think of it as a sort of advent calendar, only with municipal government policy instead of chocolate.

To kick us off, we've decided to take a look at Manchester's long and distinguished history of oh my god what is that thing my god it's eating the mayor.

Image courtesy of Luke Montague on Flickr, licenced under creative commons.

Installing the giant Santa on the side of the Town Hall has been a Mancunian tradition since the mid 1980s. The city's first Santa came in the form of an 80-foot blow up doll, which clung to the corner of the clock tower like he really, really liked it:

Image courtesy of Manchester Archives+ on Flickr, licenced under creative commons.

That one, in the words of the Manchester Evening News:

was pensioned off because after six years he was “worn out and shabby”.

But even before then he had suffered the indignity of losing air on several occasions and had to undergo frequent surgery to repair him.

Stone gargoyles were responsible for wounding Santa on at least two occasions.

Gotta watch those gargoyles.

After a while, then, he was replaced by this guy, who looks much jollier, at least until he gets hungry.

Image courtesy of Duncan Hull on Flickr, licenced under creative commons.

That Santa, too, was retired in 2007. These days, the city instead uses a giant illuminated yellow chap:

Image courtesy of Raver Mikey on Flickr, licenced under creative commons.

He’s affectionately known as the "Zippy Santa", after a certain kid's TV character.

Image courtesy of Raver Mikey on Flickr, licenced under creative commons.

This Santa, luckily, isn't nightmarish in any way, so-

Image courtesy of Constant Weader on Flickr, licenced under creative commons.


Yeah, so anyway, if you have kids, maybe best to avoid Manchester city centre for the next few weeks, eh?

Like this sort of thing, do you? Why not like us on Facebook, too. 

 
 
 
 

Budget 2017: Philip Hammond just showed that rejecting metro mayors was a terrible, terrible error

Sorry, Leeds, nothing here for you: Philip Hammond and his big red box. Image: Getty.

There were some in England’s cities, one sensed, who breathed a sigh of relief when George Osborne left the Treasury. Not only was he the architect of austerity, a policy which had seen council budgets slashed as never before: he’d also refused to countenance any serious devolution to city regions that refused to have a mayor, an innovation that several remained dead-set against.

So his political demise after the Brexit referendum was seen, in some quarters, as A Good Thing for devolution. The new regime, it was hoped, would be amenable to a variety of governance structures more sensitive to particular local needs.

Well, that theory just went out of the window. In his Budget statement today, in between producing some of the worst growth forecasts that anyone can remember and failing to solve the housing crisis, chancellor Philip Hammond outlined some of the things he was planning for Britain’s cities.

And, intentionally or otherwise, he made it very clear that it was those areas which had accepted Osborne’s terms which were going to win out. 

The big new announcement was a £1.7bn “Transforming Cities Fund”, which will

“target projects which drive productivity by improving connectivity, reducing congestion and utilising new mobility services and technology”.

To translate this into English, this is cash for better public transport.

And half of this money will go straight to the six city regions which last May elected their first metro mayor elections. The money is being allocated on a per capita basis which, in descending order of generosity, means:

  • £250m to West Midlands
  • £243 to Greater Manchester
  • £134 to Liverpool City Region
  • £80m to West of England
  • £74m to Cambridgeshire &d Peterborough
  • £59m to Tees Valley

That’s £840m accounted for. The rest will be available to other cities – but the difference is, they’ll have to bid for it.

So the Tees Valley, which accepted Osborne’s terms, will automatically get a chunk of cash to improve their transport system. Leeds, which didn’t, still has to go begging.

One city which doesn’t have to go begging is Newcastle. Hammond promised to replace the 40 year old trains on the Tyne & Wear metro at a cost of £337m. In what may or may not be a coincidence, he also confirmed a new devolution deal with the “North of Tyne” region (Newcastle, North Tyne, Northumberland). This is a faintly ridiculous geography for such a deal, since it excludes Sunderland and, worse, Gateshead, which is, to most intents and purposes, simply the southern bit of Newcastle. But it’s a start, and will bring £600m more investment to the region. A new mayor will be elected in 2018.

Hammond’s speech contained other goodies for cites too, of course. Here’s a quick rundown:

  • £123m for the regeneration of the Redcar Steelworks site: that looks like a sop to Ben Houchen, the Tory who unexpectedly won the Tees Valley mayoral election last May;
  • A second devolution deal for the West Midlands: tat includes more money for skills and housing (though the sums are dwarfed by the aforementioned transport money);
  • A new local industrial strategy for Greater Manchester, as well as exploring “options for the future beyond the Fund, including land value capture”;
  • £300m for rail improvements tied into HS2, which “will enable faster services between Liverpool and Manchester, Sheffeld, Leeds and York, as well as to Leicester and other places in the East Midlands and London”.

Hammond also made a few promises to cities beyond England: opening negotiations for a Belfast City Deal, and pointing to progress on city deals in Dundee and Stirling.


A city that doesn’t get any big promises out of this budget is – atypically – London. Hammond promised to “continue to work with TfL on the funding and financing of Crossrail 2”, but that’s a long way from promising to pay for it. He did mention plans to pilot 100 per cent business rate retention in the capital next year, however – which, given the value of property in London, is potentially quite a big deal.

So at least that’s something. And London, as has often been noted, has done very well for itself in most budgets down the year.

Many of the other big regional cities haven’t. Yet Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham and Derby were all notable for their absence, both from Hammond’s speech and from the Treasury documents accompanying it.

And not one of them has a devolution deal or a metro mayor.

(If you came here looking for my thoughts on the housing element of the budget speech, then you can find them over at the New Statesman. Short version: oh, god.)

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook