Here are five predictions for what will shape Britain’s cities this year

For a start, we'll probably hear more from this guy: London's mayor Sadiq Khan. Image: Getty.

Last year was one which confounded predictions and wrong-footed experts in everything from politics to football. But I buy Nesta’s argument that accuracy isn’t everything when it comes to predictions. Thinking about possible futures informs our plans, even if they have to change in light of unexpected events.

With that in mind, here are my predictions about five big issues that will shape the rest of this year for city regions.

First, the rules of global politics and economics will change, with a move towards increased protectionism from some and growing concerns about immigration everywhere. 

Last year’s backlash against globalisation is set to continue with the arrival of President Trump, committed to reintroducing tariffs, revitalising America’s manufacturing industries and working on a bilateral rather than multilateral basis. The French and German elections, whatever their outcome, are set to have wide-ranging implications for the EU and its constitution and, of course, for Brexit negotiations.

All of these changes will affect trade not just internationally but also at the city region level, with different implications depending on the industrial and workforce make-up of each area.

The combination of Brexit with such significant changes in political leaders in the US and EU means that international politics will dominate the national policy agenda this year. It will colour almost every other policy debate and absorb a substantial proportion of ministerial and civil service time, to the exclusion of many other issues – potentially including devolution, which requires considerable policy untangling in such a centralised country.

However, amid international economic upheaval, it is even more important that the UK government does all it can to support city regions up and down the country to thrive. That means, paradoxically, there’s a chance (it may be a slim one but here’s hoping) that the government ends up engaging in more wholesale devolution to city regions to free itself to deal with these international challenges.

Second, as government seeks to support domestic growth, the tension between economics and politics will continue to grow, exemplified by the government’s forthcoming industrial strategy’s recommendations. 

Government needs to support economic growth and boost productivity as quickly as possible in order to raise wages and improve living standards. Economic evidence suggests the way to deliver results quickly is to concentrate investment and resources on the areas that are already successful. This will deliver the fastest, and generate higher levels, of growth and taxes for the UK as a whole.

Yet we already know that the way the UK has supported economic growth in the past has not delivered enough benefit for enough people. This is further bolstered by the fact that many who voted for Brexit and Trump did so in part because they felt their living standards had not improved in recent years. Politicians need to deliver an economy that “works for all” - one that has high productivity and helps the people and places that have been left behind.

But there is no easy way to do this; the risk is that, as economic and political pressure grows, the government ends up investing in policies that history shows neither help growth nor help the more disadvantaged areas – for example, building innovation campuses in deprived communities that lack the skills, business demand or infrastructure to support them to grow rapidly, or for locals to benefit from any jobs created.

The industrial strategy will need to grapple with this. Greg Clark’s commitment to a place-based approach is encouraging but expectations are high, probably too high. To be regarded as successful, the industrial strategy will need to set the tone and pave the way for the UK’s sustainable future growth, make the most of limited funds to invest in innovation and support economic growth, and respond to demands that something happens now for those who are left-behind.

The industrial strategy will shape domestic economic policy for the foreseeable future, and city regions will need to be at the heart of its development and implementation.


My third prediction is that distrust in politicians and the "elite" will continue to grow, with metro mayors and local politics offering new opportunities for national parties to connect with the electorate.

National politicians face stupendous difficulties in delivering on the high expectations of a divided electorate. Take Brexit – the Conservatives need to agree a deal that delivers on all the campaign promises, while holding together its small majority. Labour needs to work out what deal will work best for the 70 per cent of its constituencies who voted Leave and who UKIP is looking to poach, while at the same time as not antagonising its Remain supporters, who the Liberal Democrats are courting. This task will be made more difficult by the lack of trust among the electorate of national politicians and the elite in particular.

Local politics, and the incoming metro mayors in particular, offers new opportunities for national parties to reconnect with a sceptical, divided electorate. The election of city region mayors in May creates a new opportunity for all of the national parties to reinvent themselves and reconnect with the electorate – one recognised by big names like Andy Burnham and Andy Street.

For Labour, there’s an opportunity for mayors to show that Labour can deliver demonstrable change grounded in local priorities rather than political ideology. For the Conservatives, there’s a chance to demonstrate their relevance and value to urban voters, such as in the West Midlands, that have otherwise largely ignored them.

This is not to suggest it will be easy for mayors to build trust. It is a new role and will take time to make a difference. One of the big challenges the new metro mayors will face – as our work on lessons for metro mayors highlights – is setting the tone for the future of the role, as well as for their term. Communicating their aspirations early on, and ensuring they make a start on delivery, will be vital, even if substantial change takes time.

Fourth, 2017 will be a year in which UK city regions and metro mayors rethink their national and international roles.

Across the world, there is a global shift towards mayors being regarded as the pragmatic responses to ideological impasses at national level – the people who not only ensure that services run and potholes are filled, but also those who can take tangible action to tackle big issues like climate change. Global networks such as Benjamin Barber’s Global Parliament of Mayors and C40’s Climate Change Leadership Group will become increasingly important to city leaders keen to make the most of international links and learn from each other about tackling global problems.

Cities will also be looking to pioneer new ways of doing things, with big data and "smart cities" likely to become of increasing interest as cities consider how best to support economic growth and respond better to the needs of their residents and visitors.

Finally, throughout 2017 the nature of work will continue to change, which will impact people and places in different ways. 

Since the recession, the UK has seen strong jobs growth, tepid GDP growth and zero productivity growth. Policy needs to sustain the first and tackle the second and third issues. As the UK continues to specialise in knowledge intensive jobs and industries, skills are becoming more important to individuals’ opportunities and are likely to become a growing policy priority as the government seeks to make it a country that works for everyone.

At the same time, technological advances continue to alter the nature of work, creating the opportunities and challenges of automation, remote working and the gig economy. Job security and in-work poverty will continue to be big challenges facing national and local government. Fixing the skills deficit in the UK will not be easy or quick.

We already know that there are big policy changes on their way this year that will affect the UK labour market in different ways across the country. The National Living Wage will have the biggest impact on low paid cities such as Sheffield, where 28 per cent of people will get a pay rise in April. Questions remain about the long-term impact this will have on future growth – firms replacing people with robots, firms cutting or adding jobs, firms increasing their productivity – particularly in low waged cities.

If 2016 was the year of big decisions about Brexit and Trump, 2017 will be the year these are acted upon. While we know that the fundamentals of what makes city economies thrive have not changed – skills, infrastructure, innovation – how these fundamentals will be affected over the coming year is less clear. 

City regions will be vital to the UK making the most of its new role in the world – we need to do all we can in the months ahead to ensure they are well positioned to do so.

Alexandra Jones is chief executive of the Centre for Cities. 

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

 
 
 
 

Which pairs of capital cities are the closest together?

Vienna, which is quite close to Bratislava, but not quite close enough. Image: Thomas Ledl

It doesn't take long to get from Paris to Brussels. An hour and a half on a comfortable Thalys train will get you there. 

Which raises an intriguing question, if you like that sort of thing: wich capital cities of neighbouring countries are the closest together? And which are the furthest away? 

There are some that one might think would be quite close, which are actually much further part. 

Buenos Aires, Argentina's capital, sits on one side of the estuary of the Río de la Plata, while Montevideo, Uruguay's capital lies on the other side. 

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

But at 207km apart, they're not really that close at all. 

Similarly, Singapore – capital of, er, Singapore – always sticks in the mind as 'that bit on the end of the Malaysian sticky-out bit'. But it's actually pretty far away from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia's capital. A whole 319km away, in fact:

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

Thinking of 'countries that cause problems by being close together', you inevitably think of South Korea and North Korea. 

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

And while Pyongyang in the North and Seoul in the South are pretty close together, 181km just isn't going to cut it. 

Time to do some Seoul-searching to find the real answer here.

(Sorry.)

(Okay, not that sorry.)

Another place where countries being close together tends to cause problems is the Middle East. Damascus, the capital of Syria, really isn't that far from Beirut, in Lebanon. Just 76km:

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

Seeing as Lebanon is currently host to millions of refugees fleeing the horrors of Syria's never-ending civil war and the atrocities of Daesh, or Isis, this is presumably something that authorities in Beirut have given a certain amount of thought to.

Most of the time, finding nearby capitals is a game of searching out which bits of the world have lots of small countries, and then rooting around. So you'd think Central America would be ripe for close-together capital fun. 

And yet the best option is Guatemala and El Salvador – where the imaginatively named Guatemala City is a whole 179km away from the also imaginatively named San Salvador.  

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

Another obvious place with lots of small-ish countries is Europe – the site of the pair of capitals that drove me to write this nonsense in the first place. 

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

And in fairness, Vienna and Bratislava do make a pretty good showing of it. Austria's capital sits on the Danube; drift downstream, and you swiftly get to Slovakia's capital. As the crow flies, it's 56km – though as the man swims, it's a little longer. 

There are more surprising entries – particularly if you're willing to bend the rules a little bit. Bahrain and Qatar aren't really adjacent in the traditional sense, as they have no land border, but let's just go with it. 

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

Manama, Bahrain's capital, is 140km away from Doha, the centre of the world's thriving local connecting-flight-industry which moonlights as Qatar's capital. 

Sticking with the maritime theme, Port of Spain in Trinidad and Tobago is 152km from St George's, Grenada. 

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

Good, but not good enough. 

Castries, the capital of the Carribbean country of St Lucia, is 102km north of Kingstown, the capital of St Vincent and the Grenadines. 

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

Better, but still not good enough. 

Basseterre, the capital of St Kitts and Nevis, inches ahead at 100km away from St John's, the capital of Antigua and Barbuda.

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

But, enough teasing: it's time to get down to the big beasts.

If you ask Google Maps to tell you the distance between the capital of Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it comes up with a rather suspect 20km. 

 

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

A short distance, but considering the only thing separating the two is the River Congo, something's up: Google places the centre of Brazzaville a little north of where it should be, and the centre of Kinshasa many many miles south of where it should be, in some sort of suburb.


So, in true CityMetric style, we turn to train stations. 

Though such transport hubs may not always perfectly mark the centre of a city – just ask London Oxford Airport or London Paddington – in this case it seems about right. 

Kinshasa's main train station is helpfully called 'Gare Centrale', and is almost slap-bang in the middle of the area Google marks as 'Centre Ville'. On the other side of the river, 'Gare de Brazzaville' is in the middle of lots of densely-packed buildings, and is right next to a Basilica, which is always a good sign. 

 

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

And when marking that distance, you get a more realistic 4.8km. If you want to be really keen, the ferry between them travels 3.99km, and the closest point I could find between actual buildings was 1.74km, though admittedly that's in a more suburban area. 

Pretty close, though. 

But! I can hear the inevitable cries clamouring for an end to this. So, time to give the people what they want. 

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

If you ask Google Maps to tell you how far away the Holy See, capital of the Vatican, is from Rome, capital of Rome, it says 3.5km. 

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

If you set the centre of Rome to be the Palatine Hill, the ancient marking point for roads leading out of Rome, that narrows to 2.6km.

 

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

Fiddle a bit and put the centre of the Vatican as, well, the middle bit of the roughly-circular Vatican, that opens up a smidge to 2.75km.

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

Mark the centre of point of the Vatican as the approximate location of St Peter's Tomb within St Peter's Basilica, which is after all the main reason the Vatican is a thing and not just a quirky suburb of Rome, and 2.67km is your answer. 

Though obviously in practice Rome and the Vatican are as far away as one single step over the railings at the entrance of St Peter's Square, which fairly blatantly makes them the closest capital cities in the world. 

But that would have been a very boring thing to come out and say at the start. 

Oh, and if you hadn't worked it out already, the longest distance between a capital city and the capital of a country it shares a land border with is 6,395km. 

Click to expand: Image: Google Maps

I know it's tough for you, Vladimir and Kim. Long-distance relationships are a real struggle sometimes.

I can't make a pun work on either Moscow or Pyongyang here, but readers' submissions more than welcome. 

Jack May is a regular contributor to CityMetric and tweets as @JackO_May.

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