The former head of global counter-terrorism at MI6 has criticised an assessment that living conditions in Manchester have plummeted as a result of the terror attack in May, calling it unfair and counterproductive.

The Economist intelligence unit (EIU) published its 2017 ranking of living conditions in 140 cities around the world on Wednesday, with Manchester the fastest-falling. It dropped eight places to 51st, putting it just 0.3% above London in 53rd.

But with the EIU directly attributing the fall to an increased threat of terrorism in the city following the bombing of the Manchester Arena on 22 May – in which 22 children and adults were killed and more than 250 were injured – questions are being asked over the fairness of the criteria.

Jon Copestake, the editor of the survey, said in a statement that the “heightened state of alert has become the new normal” in Manchester, along with many other European cities that had experienced terror attacks in the last decade. In London, the EIU said, “the perceived threat of terror ... was already at a heightened level” from alerts and attacks dating back to July 2005. (Last year, Manchester had climbed three places to 43rd – a full 10 places above the capital.)

But Richard Barrett, director of the Global Strategy Network and a former head of global counter-terrorism at MI6, said it was “unfair”, and cautioned against linking terrorism and living conditions.

He questioned the wisdom of the assessment when terror attacks had occurred in Australia and Canada, which together account for four of the EIU’s five most liveable cities.

A mural by artist Russell Meeham, AKA Qubek, in Manchester’s Northern Quarter, painted in response to the attacks. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

“Just because there was one attack in a city is not to say there would be another, just as if there has not been an attack in a city it means that it is well protected.

“I’m not sure it’s a particularly accurate measurement, and it certainly doesn’t do counter-terrorism much good, because it encourages people to think that terrorism can have that broader effect on a city’s economy, its reputation and so on.

“The reputation of a city should depend more on its reaction to a terrorist attack.”

In the wake of the Bastille Day terror attack in July 2016, Barrett wrote that terrorism aimed to “provoke a reaction” from society and government, and that the fear of it, lodged in the collective consciousness, is what gave it its power.



The events in Manchester in May do not reflect our great city. The true Manchester was shown by the remarkable response Bernard Priest

He praised Mancunians’ response to the 22 May tragedy. “People went about their business, and Ariana Grande went back and did another concert, in a way that for me would suggest that a city was more ‘liveable’.”

On Tuesday it was confirmed that the families of the 22 people killed in the Manchester Arena bombing would each receive £250,000 from money donated by the public. A review of Greater Manchester’s counter-terror strategy – examining the region’s “preparedness and response” to the arena attack and identifying any lessons learned for the emergency services – would begin next month.

Bernard Priest, the deputy leader of Manchester city council, said in a statement that Manchester remained a highly ranked global destination, and that the survey’s standard metrics failed to reflect the city’s “remarkable spirit”, which had been recognised around the world since the attack.

“The events in Manchester in May do not reflect our great city. The true Manchester was shown by the remarkable response, the countless generous acts and the determination that showed the world that community, solidarity and togetherness will always win out over terror and hate.”

Sheona Southern, managing director of Marketing Manchester, said that previous years of the survey had shown that a city’s score could drop swiftly in the immediate aftermath of a terror attack, but the lasting impression of the assault on Manchester would be “one that recalls the strength and resilient spirit of its people”.

“Of course the terror attack on Manchester was widely publicised, but so too was the global outpouring of love and citywide sense of community immediately following the incident,’ she said.

The aim of the annual global liveability ranking by the Economist’s corporate arm is to quantify living conditions and “lifestyle challenges” across five broad categories of stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education and infrastructure.

Melbourne retained the title of the world’s most liveable city for the seventh consecutive year. Despite its fall, Manchester remains the UK’s most liveable city – a position it has held since 2011 – and in the top tier globally, with a score of 87.5%. Any city ranked above 80 is described as having “few, if any, challenges to living standards”.



Damascus, the capital of war-torn Syria, was once again the lowest-ranked.

Elsewhere in the 2017 ranking there were signs of increasing stability, with the EIU noting the “potential milestone” of average global livability recording marginal signs of improvement for the first time in a decade.

Twelve cities, including four from Europe, had seen livability improve in the last year, compared to just six that had experienced decline – bucking a downward trend in global stability that started about 10 years ago, and has reflected the increased threat of terrorism around the world.

The Arc de Triomphe in Paris. The French capital has also seen its ranking fall after a spate of terror attacks. Photograph: Philippe Lopez/AFP/Getty Images

Last year’s survey found living conditions to have declined in 20% of the 140 cities assessed, with Paris among the fastest-falling following a spate of terror attacks from November 2015.

Those were often motivated not by events in Paris, but by perceived discrimination at a global level, said Barrett.

He said bigger cities such as London, Manchester and Birmingham were “always going to be a target” for terrorists, because of the greater potential for media coverage and international impact.

“In and of itself, does that make a city less liveable, less attractive? I’m not sure it does.”



Too many security measures could make life harder for residents, said Barrett, while not necessarily reducing the likelihood of a terror attack. “There is a balance between reassuring the people who live in a city that sufficient precautions are being taken, and making life harder to live. In Manchester, I doubt you’d notice a lot different to before that particular attack.

“It could happen anywhere. I think it’s an unfortunate metric – it’s unfair.”



But, he added, there was a lower risk of terrorism in cities that were resilient and socially cohesive, where the rate of unemployment and crime was low and there was a good relationship between communities and authorities.

“Although it’s a mistake to say that terrorism makes a city less liveable, the more liveable a city, the less risk of terrorism.”

Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to join the discussion, and explore our Archive