This morning I was leafing through The Times. My guilty pleasure.
Apparently Clarkson’s been up north.
He’s written 20 paragraphs of soppy gushing about Mancunians.
The article is behind a paywall. I asked Perplexity to pull out the main points.
Clarkson’s key arguments for why Manchester is Britain’s “first” city rather than its “second”, as I understood them:
Architecture and regeneration
The Victorian warehouses and industrial buildings weren’t knocked down but cleverly converted. The city feels alive and modern rather than like a museum.
Energy and atmosphere
Manchester feels lively, busy and “real” — unlike London, which he paints as tired and sanitised.
People and style
The locals look confident, well turned-out and modern, without London’s airs, graces and snobbery.
Culture and way of life
Restaurants, bars, waterfronts — the city isn’t coasting on momentum but living in the moment. There’s a sense of freedom and no stiffness.
Compared with London
Back in the capital, Manchester seems to win on every count: atmosphere, drive, a sense of the future.
A symbol of modern Britain
In his view, Manchester reflects what Britain is now better than what it used to be.
The bottom line: London is status. Manchester is life. Nobody tell the Gallagher brothers — they’d only argue over which of them said it first. ❣️
