London First has produced a briefing on the benefits immigration brings to London’s economy. While the debate tends to polarise between the advocates of a fairer and more flexible system, and those who see it as an emotive issue, the briefing does contain some hard facts and figures to chew on. It briefly touches on the resource pressures on the public services as a result but leaves how to cope with this through better fiscal arrangements for the capital to another debate.
Author Archive for Andrew
A brief taster of a project to come at London Says…
As blogged about before on London Says, last year’s Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act lifted the 40 year ban on the creation of parishes in London. A technical piece of legislative housekeeping but one that affects the capital’s communities nonetheless. The Government explained its reasons for doing so earlier this year in guidance issued to local authorities (PDF):
The Government’s view is that Londoners should have the same rights as the rest of the country. The 2007 Act corrects this anomaly to allow London boroughs the possibility to exercise the same community governance powers as other principal councils including being able to set up parishes and parish councils. Similarly, local electors in London boroughs will, as elsewhere in England, be able to petition for a community governance review.
In London, there will be the same possibility to choose a style for a parish perhaps to reflect better the local urban area like “community” or “neighbourhood”. Whilst some parts of London are populated by people who may be more transient or mobile than elsewhere, there are equally areas of the capital where there are stable populations who may wish to see the creation of a parish council for their local area.
In essence, this began with the 2005 Labour Party manifesto, which promised:
“Good parish councils engage communities and make a real difference, so we will extend the right to establish parish councils to communities in London.”
The subject had been the matter of debate a year earlier in the Commission on London Governance hearings at City Hall, with London Borough councillors and the National Association of Local Councils (which represents the 8,000 or so parishes outside of London) in disagreement over whether or not they would work in London. While the matter is largely settled by the passage of the Act, here’s what the commission said in its report:
- Many roles and responsibilities of parish councils were already managed by area committees and neighbourhood arrangements in the boroughs;
- There would be confusion over roles and responsibilities of parish and ward councillors;
- There was evidence from other parts of the country of antagonism and negativity between the tiers, turf wars and a refusal to compromise;
- The structure empowered ‘Nimbyism’ and could undermine attempts to equalise access to local services and advice across London;
- There would be significant capital and running cost implications;
- In terms of capturing communities, some inner London wards were only a few streets big and the Boundary Commission already took into account cultural factors and geographical boundaries when setting up ward boundaries.
(London Councils’ report by Alan Pike (PDF)
It’s a list of negatives alright but largely unproven ones. The community councils in existence in London were introduced before the Act and largely driven by the fact that many local citizens feel disconnected to the political process in town halls and in structures which don’t reflect their actual community (as we’ve blogged before, this vexes even the boroughs.) Similarly, London Councils’ recent efforts to secure greater participation in running for office at council level might be better addressed at the community tier, where a number of barriers which prevent/deter people from coming forward would be less evident. But it generally boils down to what level is best for the provision of services? While education and social services might even be better off being pooled between neighbouring boroughs, public realm/street scene issues are best handled at neighbourhood level. Many of the new aspirations contained in the recent but largely ignored Transforming Places, Changing Lives regeneration strategy could be delivered on at neighbourhood level in London. A community tier is the best chance of making that happen.
Over the next few months we’ll be gauging opinion on the creation of parishes in London at borough level and hearing from a number of figures in the capital’s political community why they might or might not be an idea who’s time has come.
If you’re interested in this work then drop me a line.
August is almost upon us, so why not? Prospect dust off their mayoral candidature crystal ball and float the prospect (npi) of historian Tristram Hunt joining Siralan Sugar, Jon Cruddas, Oona King and the drummer from Blur as the Anyone But Ken choices for Labour in 2012. At first, it’s a plausible case — Hunt (once dubbed “the Jamie Oliver of history”) a noted enthusiast of elected mayors (his Building Jerusalem effortlessly morphs from Victoriana to government white paper) is well-connected among the party’s Primrose Hill set (he even helped Derek Draper write a book) and, most crucially, believes Ken can be seen off from becoming Labour’s standard-bearer by default. But, as the piece (in full, below) continues, his attacks on the former mayor are more likely to be for the benefit of another:
Ever since he wrote a piece in the Guardian saying Labour should send Ken Livingstone off “to tend his garden and feed his newts,” elegant young historian Tristram Hunt has been discussed as a possible Labour candidate for the London mayoralty in 2012. And if a bit of posh is what is now required to seize the testicle from Boris, who better? Hunt went to a good public school, writes nicely and is the perfect candidate for the outer “doughnut” of upmarket London boroughs that voted for Boris. And his aunt is Virginia Bottomley—the Margot Leadbetter of British politics. But when confronted, Hunt denies that he has any intention of standing. His attack on King Newt wasn’t motivated by personal ambition—he was just acting as an attack dog for someone else. And that person? Apparently none other than David Lammy MP, under-secretary for skills and Tottenham’s answer to Barack Obama—with whom he claims to be friendly. Watch out Boris: you read it here first.
In the end, Labour are probably more likely to select the real Jamie Oliver (he does have history in going up against Boris.) But three years and a bit ahead of the actual election, there are others in Labour expending energy over the prospect of Ken standing again, such as the Fabians’ Sunder Katwala. Katwala raises an open primary as one way to thwart open up a Livingstone candidacy to wider electoral support, as does, erm, David Lammy. Pukka indeed.
Hidden away in last week’s Local Government Chronicle (’Pilot internet television stations forecast for autumn’, 24 July) was a commitment from the GLA that “Mr Johnson would begin writing a blog.”
We can only hope it’s better than his last one but perhaps the lure of blogging and rebuttal was just too much to resist. Either way, it’s a step forward for comms at the GLA.
There’s more behind the Evening Standard’s headline ‘Think tank chief joins team Boris’ than might otherwise be suggested. The subs’ anodyne assertion could also be viewed as yet more triumphalism on the part of the rebranded mass-market Londoner of this administration, a kind of ‘Well done, Boris!’, as if recruiting yet another Policy Exchange staffer (former Mayor’s Chief of Staff Nicholas Boles’ successor as Director, no less) as Policy Director is nothing short of a coup as headhunting goes. Or perhaps I’m being a touch conspiracy-theorist here and Mr Browne’s appointment represents the sort of “bang for buck” acumen and stewardship of taxpayers’ resources that we can naturally associate with this administration and the best is yet to come. Perhaps. But coming on the heels of the virtual merger of Socialist Action Policy Exchange and the Mayor’s Office, questions will be asked.
Questions (as the Standard’s piece alludes) such as Mr Browne’s record on immigration, given the GLA’s role in governing such a multicultural city as London (as London’s Official Opposition Ken Livingstone says in the piece “deeply at odds with the needs of a multicultural city like London”.) Questions that aren’t but should be being asked include the “quietly dropped” amnesty for irregular migrants and why it was “quietly dropped” and by whom? A throwaway remark, as an unattributed briefing to a journalist during post-election euphoria, is hardly a policy commitment. As it stands, the Mayor is on record as having support for such an initiative:
If an immigrant has been here for a long time and there is no realistic prospect of returning them, then I do think that person’s condition should be regularised so that they can pay taxes and join the rest of society,
He should be held to account for that stance and a policy worked up in that regard. Yet this would appear to fall squarely under the brief of the newly-appointed Director of Policy.
Immigration affects all aspects of the capital’s life, from the cost of goods and services, to housing, transport, employment and social cohesion (and is therefore a legitimate topic of concern for this blog.) That the mayor has brought into the fold someone with such a controversial past in this regard suggests there is something woefully wrong in the appointments policy of this administration, beyond that which has already been much commented on.
As Simon mentioned, former Westminster leader and current Local Government Association chairman Simon Milton is to be installed at City Hall as one of the colourful array of deputies. Boris having these deputies sounds like a Jeremy Vine election night gag in the making to me, but never mind. It’s also tantamount to a de facto takeover of City Hall by the Porter gang (as they may or may not wish to be known, I’m guessing not), with the Milton and Malthouse Wesminster council leadership double act now back in another guise.
The events surrounding Simon Milton’s back of the envelope appointment have barely been edifying for the mayor and his team, but unlike central government there is no apprenticeship for the role or well-versed protocol to follow. Mistakes were inevitable but at the same time entirely avoidable. However, the appointment does suggest that the delegation of the mayor’s planning powers might now be handled in a manner more akin to notions of transparency and competence.
His appointment now precipitates an election for the chairmanship of the Local Government Association, as Simon mentioned, a kind of municipal domino effect. The position of London within the Local Government Association is somewhat awkward. As the organisation is physically located in the capital then many in local government are inclined to make the all too often levelled charge of it being “London-centric”. That point came across strongly in the recent review of the organisation, with a promise to devolve a lot of its working out into the regions to counter this perceived effect. But a cursory glance at the leadership of the organisation shows it to be far from London-centric in its representation (the Tories being the biggest group hold the chair and Simon Milton was by the time of his election the best known Tory councillor in the country). The 32 London Boroughs and the City, as well as the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire Authority are members, but the GLA pulled out a few years back, arguing it wasn’t getting value for money and was ‘regional government’ anyhow.
As regional groupings go, London Councils easily outstrips the rest in terms of its work, so we’re always more likely to be interested that. But as far as the LGA is concerned at the moment, a quick glance at the likely candidates for the top job does suggest that the rest of the organisation will have to work harder than ever to get its voice heard, something it has been quite sensitive about of late.
London Councils have now responded to last week’s tepid white paper on local government, positively for the most part. Unsurprisingly it sings the praises of London Councils’ recent work on promoting local democracy and its opportunities in the capital. But recently re-elected chairman Merrick Cockell also ends on a note of caution:
It was clear from the recent London Mayoral elections that people vote when they see that their vote matters. Passing more powers from central government or unaccountable organisations to local government is likely to dramatically increase democratic participation. In the meantime, it is important that the government works with boroughs to ensure their plans bring the best possible benefit to our residents, tackles people’s apathy of the political system and help further improve local democracy.
However, as one anti-Tory blogger of note outlined recently, there is a quiet revolution afoot in City Hall involving “passing more powers… to local government”, which could go some way towards explaining the Borisonian actual but as yet undefined political narrative for government. London governance watchers need to be on the lookout for any Streamling the capital white papers or Norman Tebbit appearances at future Conservative Party conferences. You can (still) download your ‘Regional government is fat government’ poster here (PDF).
The mayor himself appeared at last week’s London Councils Summit and called for a more “common sense” approach by local government in the capital. I’ve a feeling the Conservatives have been here before and it wasn’t exactly successful. What next, a ‘Save the Pound’ campaign? A Believing in London policy document? On recent performance alone I wouldn’t rule either out.
Westminster City Council are now consulting on the remodelling of Oxford Circus to allow for predestrians to cross diagonally to avoid the current on-street congestion that tends to build up around its tube exits.
As the BBC reports, this closely resembles Tokyo’s iconic Shibuya Crossing (above), as popularised by the 2003 Sophia Coppola film Lost in Translation. Again, it’s an image with global resonance that does as much to shift seats on planes as anything tourism promotion authorities can do (airlines and film studios are increasingly cooperating on that score.) London and Tokyo signed a city partnership agreement in 2006, but this is something Westminster have done off their own bat.
Following the GLA’s decision to emulate Paris’ highly successful Vélib kerbside bike hire scheme, it’s more apparent than ever that in an increasingly competitive global urban environment, cities must also innovate and cooperate to stay ahead.
Not so much ‘Let Bartlett be Bartlett’ but ‘Let Boris be Boris’ in the last post (and Tony Travis agrees). Boris’ mayoral swagger continues with his decision to overhaul the GLA website and get his true blue Tory logo applied across the GLA.
On one level the decision can be viewed as overtly partisan, after all the previous GLA branding was hardly socialist in tooth and claw. The new blue colouring looks like something Desmond Plummer or Horace Cutler would have dreamed up when the Conservatives ran the GLC. As Mr Troll points out, it’s not far off a suburban bluewashing of the mayoralty and all around it. Visitors to the French capital may notice the discreet Mairie de Paris logo on city facilities and I’ve not heard anyone there claiming it as triumphalism on the part of the PS or M Delanoë in winning the election this year (it’s republican tricolouric for a start).
On the other hand, the GLA website has looked like that for at least seven years. It’s resolutely Independent Ken in both style and functionality, a kind of Dorian Gray 2.0 where Ken’s face never aged on it. Keeping it would be like the Labour Party going into the 1997 General Election with that red flag logo. So £40,000 seems like a going rate for an overhaul almost a decade on and we can wait and see what the end product is, as we’ll be quite capable of critiquing it then.
Speaking of colour maps, the always good London Communications Agency have a handy PDF map of the 72 London Parliamentary seats and council control/London Assembly membership, here.
The London Mayor has announced that he intends to not only uphold but extend the London Living Wage. The Guardian reports the mayor as signalling that not only will LDA-funded organisations soon be required to pay the rate for the lowest paid, but that hotel workers might see it extended to them in time for the Olympics.
Like his commitment to the irregular migrants’ amnesty he signed up to during the election and then “quietly dropped” afterwards, I was concerned that that this area of the GLA’s work might be subject to Tory demands for dilution (I had quite valid grounds for concern here.) But London Citizens have good reason to be pleased with themselves today. Now, about that amnesty Mr Johnson…
