London has been named the second-best performing city in the world for 2026, beating Paris, Tokyo and a host of major US cities in a global ranking of 1,000 urban economies.

The capital took second place in Oxford Economics’ 2026 Global Cities Index, behind only New York. Paris completed the top three, followed by Seattle and San Francisco.

Rather than focusing simply on tourism or how enjoyable a city is to live in, the annual index takes a broader view. Cities are assessed across five areas: economics, human capital, quality of life, environment and governance.

London achieved an overall score of 98.8 out of 100, just behind New York’s 100 and comfortably ahead of Paris on 93.4. Oxford Economics said New York and London remain at the top largely because of the scale of their economies and the strength of their labour markets.

Why does London rank so highly?

London’s biggest advantage is its people.

The capital ranked first in the world for human capital, scoring 100. Oxford Economics measures factors including educational attainment, universities, population growth, demographics and the ability of a city to attract skilled workers.

London benefits from its concentration of internationally renowned universities, major corporate headquarters and highly qualified workforce. It also performed strongly on economics, with a score of 86.5. Oxford Economics ranks London seventh globally in that category – and it is the only non-US city in the economic top 10.

Its performance was more mixed elsewhere. London scored 83.2 for environment and 80.5 for governance, but its quality-of-life score was lower at 77.

That distinction matters. Being second in the Global Cities Index does not necessarily mean Oxford Economics considers London the world’s second-most pleasant place to live. Paris, for example, scored 88.1 for quality of life, substantially higher than London.

Still, London’s combination of employment opportunities, skilled workers, universities and economic strength was enough to keep it ahead overall.

London beats Paris to rank second among the world’s top cities

London also remains comfortably ahead of every other British city in the 2026 ranking.

Edinburgh was the UK’s next-highest entry at 71st, while Manchester came in at 90th. Cambridge ranked 100th, Leeds 103rd, Glasgow 108th and Bristol 112th.

Manchester did receive separate recognition as one of Oxford Economics’ “Cities to Watch” for 2026. The new category highlights cities that the researchers believe are gaining momentum and could climb the rankings in future years.

At the very top, however, there has been remarkably little movement. New York, London and Paris also occupied the first three places last year.

Oxford Economics argues that the continuing dominance of these global cities reflects advantages that are difficult to replicate quickly: deep pools of skilled workers, large economies, established institutions and an ability to attract businesses and investment.

London’s skyline could be heading even higher after the government cleared the way for the City of London’s long-term development plan to move forward.

Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook had intervened in the City Plan 2040 in June amid concerns that future London skyscrapers could harm the setting of the Tower of London, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Planning inspectors were asked to reconsider the boundaries of the City Cluster – the part of the Square Mile where many of London’s tallest office towers are concentrated – and compare the City’s plans with an alternative proposed by Historic England.

Inspectors have now backed the City of London Corporation’s approach. Pennycook accepted their conclusions and withdrew the government intervention on 23 September, removing a major obstacle to the plan.

Why were new City of London skyscrapers under scrutiny?

At the heart of the dispute was a familiar London planning problem: how to make room for modern development without overwhelming some of the capital’s most important historic landmarks.

The City Cluster, around Bishopsgate and Leadenhall Street, already contains skyscrapers including 22 Bishopsgate, the Walkie Talkie and the Cheesegrater. City Plan 2040 provides the framework for further development as the Square Mile seeks more office space.

Historic England had proposed different boundaries for tall buildings because of concerns about the impact of future towers on the Tower of London and its surroundings.

After an additional examination, planning inspectors concluded that the City’s approach offered an appropriate balance between heritage protection and economic growth.

That does not amount to blanket permission for new skyscrapers. Individual developments will still require planning approval, while their impact on heritage sites will need to be assessed.

However, the decision gives developers much greater certainty about where the City intends to concentrate future tall buildings.

How could City Plan 2040 change London’s skyline?

City Plan 2040 will guide development across the Square Mile until 2040, with the City Cluster expected to accommodate much of its future high-rise growth.

Protecting the Tower of London will remain part of that process. Pennycook said the planning inspectors had carried out a “thorough and considered assessment”, while heritage policies and site-specific Heritage Impact Assessments will continue to apply to future developments.

Conservation concerns are unlikely to disappear. Historic England has repeatedly highlighted the importance of protecting the setting of the Tower of London as the City skyline grows around it.

City Plan 2040 can now progress towards formal adoption, with planning inspectors expected to produce their final report before the City Corporation completes its own approval process.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has announced plans for a new government body designed to combat foreign disinformation, deepfakes and hostile information operations targeting the UK.

The National Centre for Information Defence was announced during Burnham’s address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York earlier this week. According to the government, its purpose will be to “detect, attribute and disrupt” hostile-state information attacks and strengthen Britain’s ability to defend itself against information warfare.

However, the announcement has already triggered debate over free speech and the appropriate limits of government involvement in combating disinformation.

“Another day, another piece of dystopian news from the UK. PM Burnham plans to create his own ‘Ministry of Truth’ to ‘support and defend’ democracy. In reality: disagree with the government, and they’ll come for you,” Irish journalist Chay Bowes shared on X.

The internet reacts to Labour’s ‘Ministry of Truth’

Nigel Farage was one of many people unimpressed by Andy Burnham’s plans to create a National Centre for Information Defence.

“Andy Burnham is setting up a Ministry of Truth to clamp down on free speech,” the Reform UK leader claimed in a 51-second video comparing the proposed centre to the information-control apparatus depicted in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Farage argues that the new initiative will ultimately be used against political dissent. The government rejects that interpretation and says the centre is intended to counter hostile foreign activity rather than police legitimate domestic political criticism.

Political commentator Lee Harris took to X on 23 September to share a video expressing his dissatisfaction with the plans.

“I kid you not. Labour, the same corrupt party who want to set up a ‘Ministry of Truth’, are going to court to COVER-UP Britain’s migrant crime wave! They don’t want you to know the truth. This is a HUGE scandal. It’s an absolute disgrace,” Harris said.

What will the National Centre for Information Defence actually do?

Andy Burnham said the centre would focus on hostile states conducting information operations against Britain and its allies.

In his UN speech, the UK prime minister accused Russian agencies of employing bots and fake websites, falsifying newspaper articles, forging the branding of 28 British organisations – including universities and the BBC – and amplifying divisive political narratives. He also warned that advances in artificial intelligence would make such operations increasingly sophisticated.

The proposed centre is expected to work alongside intelligence agencies, government departments, law enforcement and social media companies, bringing together expertise currently spread across different organisations.

Emily Thornberry, chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, welcomed the Labour government’s plans.

“A British counter disinformation centre is long overdue, and very welcome,” the Labour MP for Islington shared online in a post with the comments section disabled.

Why critics call the UK disinformation agency a ‘Ministry of Truth’

The comparison comes from George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the book, the Ministry of Truth is a government department that controls information, rewriting historical records and altering facts to ensure they always support the ruling Party’s version of events.

Critics of the UK’s proposed National Centre for Information Defence have used the comparison to raise concerns about giving the government a role in deciding what constitutes disinformation. Their argument is that a body created to counter false information could potentially expand beyond hostile foreign propaganda and interfere with legitimate political debate or criticism.

The government rejects that comparison. It says the centre will target foreign-state disinformation and information attacks, not determine what opinions people in Britain are allowed to express.

“With Andy Burnham’s new National Centre for Information Defence, Labour now has a government body whose job includes deciding which views of Britain ‘bear no resemblance to reality’. The Prime Minister says the country faces an ‘industrial-scale assault’ of disinformation, that Russia is amplifying ‘far-right narratives’, and that talk of national decline, unrest after terror attacks, or negative aspects of modern life is a corrosive fiction that must be disrupted,” said Christopher Talbot, a regular commentator on UK politics and public law.

“Orwell called it the Ministry of Truth. Burnham calls it Information Defence. Same job description, nicer branding. When a government starts treating public pessimism about living standards, crime, cohesion or migration as a hostile information operation rather than a political argument, 1984 stops looking like a warning and starts looking like a how-to guide. Is Labour now treating the book as its manifesto?” Talbot asked.

When will the new UK centre for information defence launch?

For now, there is no publicly confirmed launch date.

Andy Burnham’s wording at the UN was that he was tasking Britain’s security chiefs to “begin work” on the National Centre for Information Defence.

Significant questions remain publicly unanswered, including the centre’s final organisational structure, staffing and budget, the exact legal powers available to it, how “disruption” will operate in practice and the mechanisms through which it will be held accountable.

Downing Street has said that further information will be released in due course. Initial work is being undertaken from the Office for the Prime Minister and Cabinet, but no date has yet been announced for when the National Centre for Information Defence will become fully operational.