Blog

Dave Hill: Tory London mayoral shortlist promises intriguing contest

All over town jaws have dropped and the name Mozammel Hossain KC has been googled. The placing of the barrister on the shortlist of three Conservatives from whom London party members will choose their candidate to challenge Sadiq Khan next May is a surprise matched only by the exclusion from it of minister for London Paul Scully, previously seen by many as the favourite to run for City Hall.

Hossain’s two competitors in a selection contest to take place over the next few weeks will be Daniel Korski, a former adviser to David Cameron at Number 10 and now a businessman and – as much more widely expected – Susan Hall, a member of the London Assembly (AM) and former leader of Harrow Council. Another AM, Andrew Boff, also a former council leader, was among other hopefuls who have not progressed to the next stage.

On the face of it, the candidacy race is Hall’s to lose. She is the only one of the three whose name will mean anything to most of the London Tory selectorate, not only because she is the sole elected politician in the field but also because of her abrasive social media presence and her frequent appearances on right-wing television channels, agreeing with programme hosts about how dreadful Mayor Khan is.

Hall is in many ways an archetypal hard-right Tory figure of the modern kind – pro-Brexit, anti-“woke” and describing her beliefs as “common sense” – a time-honoured shorthand for right-wing views on cultural and societal issues, including crime. On Twitter she has publicly expressed approval for controversial national Conservative figures such as Home Secretary Suella Braverman and party deputy chair Lee Anderson, and she remained a staunch defender of Boris Johnson throughout the “partygate” period and his removal as Prime Minister by Tory MPs.

It may be that the Conservative membership in London is less right-wing than the party’s grassroots as a whole. But even if that sets back Hall to some degree, her rivals will have to work hard to be seen as better bets. An argument they might deploy is that Hall’s position on the Tory spectrum would make it easy for Khan to portray her as out of step with Londoners’ values in a variety of ways, ranging from public transport – Hall has said Transport for London should be “looked at as a business“, which could be portrayed as eagerness to raise fares – to the European Union.

But she will certainly see herself as provenly effective at opposing the Ultra-Low Emission Zone and berating Khan over his handling of the Metropolitan Police. As a case study in election strategy, her approach to battling a Labour incumbent in a Labour-leaning city would be intriguing.

Korski is an adventurous shortlist choice whose presence in the contest promises to enrich the debate. A Remainer – although, he has insisted, “not a Remoaner” – he has said in interviews that he is receptive to limited building on Green Belt land and favours replacing the ULEZ expansion with “pay per mile” road-user charging. He has also said he’d like licensing rules relaxed to help London’s night time economy grow and to introduce a so-called “tourist tax” on hotel visitors, although at present London Mayors lack the necessary powers to bring those things about.

As for Hossain, he can list plaudits for his advocacy skills but has next to no public profile and did not announce he would be entering the candidacy race. We will learn a lot more about him soon. The Tory winner is due to be announced on 19 July.

Twitter: Dave Hill and On London.

On London and its writers need your backing. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and receive in return the weekly newsletter On London Extra and (at no additional charge) invitations to events featuring eminent Londoners. Pay using any of the “donate” buttons on the site, by becoming a paid subscriber to my Substack, or directly into the company bank account. Email davehillonlondon@gmail.com for details. Thanks, Dave Hill.

Categories: Analysis

Lewis Baston: With Boris Johnson gone, who will win Uxbridge & South Ruislip?

Boris Johnson’s relationship with the Uxbridge & South Ruislip constituency was, like many of his relationships, brief and transactional. It was there for him when he needed a parliamentary nomination in 2014, and has been summarily dumped in 2023.

Like his first parliamentary base, Henley, it was a stop on the way from Oxford to power in London. In resigning from the House of Commons, he has doubled back, at least for now. In his maiden speech in 2001 – he was no maiden by the time he was elected for his second seat in 2015 – evoked Jude the Obscure gazing out from the ridge near where the M40 is now upon the Oxfordshire plain towards the distant spires. He is now a steward of the Chiltern Hundreds.

It is hard to know if Johnson would have won a recall by-election. There are some indications that he might have. One is that the Conservatives remained well ahead of Labour in last year’s local elections for Hillingdon Council, suggesting they have a strong core vote in the area. Another is Lord Ashcroft’s local poll, published on 6 June, that put Johnson 17 points clear and found constituents more willing to call him a good or great constituency MP and Prime Minister than they were to condemn him as bad or terrible in either role.

In addition, the only example we have of an MP defending a recall by-election was in Brecon & Radnorshire in 2019. In that case the MP, Chris Davies, had admitted wrongdoing in a court of law (in contrast to Johnson, who hasn’t owned up to anything). But although he lost the seat he did not see a big drop in his vote share.

But each of these pieces of evidence suggesting Johnson might have survived is open to interrogation. It may be, for example, that Hillingdon’s Tory councillors are better-liked than the former PM. Polling experts have raised questions about the Ashcroft sample. And Occam’s razor tells us that Johnson would have lost. His approval ratings nationally are lower than those of Xi Jinping and Philip Schofield, and on the basis of national voting intention polls and local MRP extrapolations, the seat will fall to Labour.

While Johnson’s resignation removes the personal factors which – pace Lord Ashcroft – probably help a new Conservative candidate, the sword of Damocles is still hanging over the by-election, swinging in the breeze of a uniform national swing.

It will take place, probably during July, using the current constituency boundaries. Boundary Commission recommendations for changes, though not yet finalised, are very likely to be implemented and would somewhat favour the Conservatives, but won’t take effect until the next general election as long as it is held later than this October.

The core of the current constituency is the suburban town of Uxbridge itself on the River Colne at the western edge of the London metropolitan area and at the end of a branch of the Metropolitan Line sometimes shared with the Piccadilly. It reaches south of central Uxbridge to a tangle of straggly urbanised villages that have grown together – Yiewsley, Colham and Cowley – to the east of the town at Hillingdon, the suburban village which has given the borough its name, and across Northolt airfield to South Ruislip.

Screenshot 2023 06 10 at 22.21.47

I wrote a profile of Uxbridge & South Ruislip in November 2019, and although the situation of Johnson and the national context have transformed since then, the constituency is recognisably the same place. There are parts of London where vast new developments have been built or sudden gentrification has taken hold, but Uxbridge is not like that. There is social change, but it is more gradual and has cross-currents.

The increasing ethnic diversity of the area has been mostly South Asian in origin, yet not predominantly from one community – the Hindu population is greatest in South Ruislip, Sikhs in Hillingdon and Muslims in Uxbridge town. Even in the the more traditionally white working-class areas, such as Yiewsley, the overall BAME community has risen from around 30 per cent in 2011 to over 40 per cent in 2021, and they are increasingly home to commuting professionals. The spectacular success of the Elizabeth line, whose West Drayton station is at the south edge of Yiewsley, may accelerate these trends.

The political-demographic movements are contrary in different parts of the seat, which is part of the reason why Uxbridge has neither trended strongly to Labour nor really become safely Tory at parliamentary level. Hillingdon’s Conservatives, less noisily and contentiously than their Harrow neighbours, have managed to remain strong even as the north west London suburbs have become increasingly Indian-British. They have accommodated ethnic minority retirees, managers and professionals in their electoral coalition in Ruislip and Northwood.

Uxbridge and the urbanised villages are influenced by Brunel University, which has over 16,000 students and 2,500 staff. There are over 4,000 students living in halls of residence, mostly in south Uxbridge and Colham, and more scattered in rented accommodation across the Uxbridge area. Yet even in these wards the Conservatives have tended to prevail in local elections.

This may be part of the reason why local and general elections are so different in the constituency. Students are reluctant to turn out to vote for Hillingdon, a borough with which they have little affinity, but they have stronger views about national politics. Labour candidate in 2019, Ali Milani, had come up through Brunel student politics and was also elected to the council – for the Heathrow Villages ward in the neighbouring Hayes & Harlington seat – in 2018 and 2022. His campaign was youthful and Corbynite. It failed to connect with many of the longer-established residents, but aroused enthusiasm in some quarters, boosted by the distant prospect of ejecting Johnson. This may be hard to replicate in 2023.

Screenshot 2023 06 10 at 22.23.12

The South Ruislip end of the constituency may now be the most loyal to the Conservatives. As well as Hindus, who seem to have warmed to the Tories in recent elections, it has a higher proportion of people who own their homes outright and are therefore insulated from mortgage rates and rising rents. Labour used to win the ward based on the council-built estates in South Ruislip, but were well behind the Tories in 2022. The social housing proportion in this area has fallen to next to nothing, thanks to right-to-buy and stock transfers. Ruislip Manor, just to the north, was privately developed as part of the massive 1930s Metroland building spree.

Until the last couple of elections, Uxbridge had been drifting gently to the right for decades. Labour’s Frank Beswick held on when Anthony Eden’s Conservatives were winning a solid national majority in 1955, but he lost in 1959 to the Tory Charles Curran. Labour has only won the seat once since then, when John Ryan secured a single term in Harold Wilson’s landslide victory in March 1966, and has missed apparently good opportunities. The Conservatives held on, despite an unpopular national government, in the by-election resulting from Curran’s death in December 1972 and again in July 1997 despite the first Blair government enjoying its honeymoon.

The Tories made a canny selection on that occasion, opting for local credibility in the affable form of John Randall, who ran a family-owned department store in Uxbridge. Randall served until 2015 and was warmly regarded by colleagues and constituents of all parties. The same cannot be said of his successor, though the 2015 version of Boris Johnson as he came to the end of his second term as London Mayor was much less divisive than the 2023 edition. The Conservatives would be wise to again seek a local figure, given the experience in 1997 and the good local election results.

To win the seat, Labour needs to run up the score in its better wards: Yiewsley was their strongest in 2022, when they also won a seat in Uxbridge itself and came close in Colham and Cowley, the ward around the University. They also need to break even in Hillingdon village and not lose too badly in South Ruislip. Their candidate, Danny Beales, has been in place since December. He is a Camden council cabinet member, but he was born and grew up in the constituency.

The odds are with Labour, but the complex demography and electoral politics of Uxbridge & South Ruislip – and that history of surprising Conservative holds in 1964, 1972 and 1997 – means it cannot be taken for granted. It will be a fascinating contest, an indicator of what post-Johnson politics is going to look like.

Twitter: Lewis Baston and On London.

On London and its writers need your backing. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and receive in return the weekly newsletter On London Extra and (at no additional charge) invitations to events featuring eminent Londoners. Pay using any of the “donate” buttons on the site, by becoming a paid subscriber to my Substack, or directly into the company bank account. Email davehillonlondon@gmail.com for details. Thanks, Dave Hill.

Categories: Analysis

Dave Hill: Daniel Morgan ‘locked cabinet’ debacle shows Met Police turnaround can’t come too soon

In February a YouGov poll found that more than half of Londoners don’t trust their own police service much or at all. Sherlock Holmes need not be summoned to detect reasons for such disquiet.

Over the past few years we’ve learned that our thin blue line has hosted murderers, rapists and low-life of the type that thinks it’s a good laugh to send pictures of murdered women whose bodies they are guarding to their mates. Such incidents have been at the the most chilling end of a spectrum of institutional ignominy. That spectrum is a wide one. It also encompasses too many in the Met who fail to meet the most basic professional standards.

A grim insight into the scale of change needed on that score was provided at the London Assembly’s police and crime committee meeting on Wednesday. The immediate issue was the Met’s disclosure last month that a cabinet in Scotland Yard left locked and undisturbed for years contained a trove of documents relating to the scandal of the unsolved 1987 murder of Daniel Morgan.

How on earth had that happened? Liberal Democrat Caroline Pidgeon (pictured) tried to find out. Questioning Assistant Commissioner Louisa Rolfe, she established a timeline. Rolfe said the documents were found in January and that the locked cabinet in question was on the very floor where the Met’s management board – its top brass – is based.

Sophie Linden, the deputy mayor who heads the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) also took questions at the meeting. She told Pidgeon she didn’t hear from the Met about the cabinet and its contents until 24 April – three months after Rolfe had said the documents were found.

What was going on for all that time? AC Rolfe, who, unsurprisingly, appeared briefed up to her ears, said the Met “undertook a careful assessment of the documents to consider whether any should have been disclosed”.

Some of the mystery cabinet’s contents were eventually handed over to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel whose damning report, published in June 2021, was at times compiled in the teeth of Met resistance to allowing members access to material they wished to see. Some were belatedly provided to His Majesty’s inspectorate, which, following on from the panel’s findings, concluded in March 2022 that the Met’s “property and exhibits procedures were dire” with “hundred of items not accounted for”.

Pidgeon expressed incredulity. The Morgan panel was set up by the then Home Secretary Theresa May in 2013. The Met moved into its current HQ on Victoria Embankment in November 2016.

Had it not gone through every cupboard and drawer to check what was in them at the time, as would be usual for any re-locating organisation, let alone one the entire criminal justice system depends on? Why hadn’t the locked cabinet been unlocked back then?

And why hadn’t the Met, having finally had a look inside a piece of office furniture seemingly incuriously dumped just down the corridor from where some of UK policing’s biggest decisions are made, alerted MOPAC – whose governance duties include the delivery of efficient and effective Met policing – to its discovery more quickly?

Rolfe said “the significance of these documents would not have been immediately apparent” and that when their “relevance was identified” there was “an effort to give key partners like MOPAC time to consider the gravity of the information”. She accepted that “the long time delay” was “regrettable” and said she appreciated “the impact that might have had on trust”. Linden said the delay worried her and that she did “flag that as an issue”.

Well, good. But the overall impression I took from the meeting, fair or otherwise, was that slow and slapdash remain stubborn characteristics of how the Met goes about too much of its business.

Pidgeon pointed out that only last month the Met owned up to losing the mobile phone of a 14-year-old girl who committed suicide in March 2021. A coroner had intended to consider evidence from the phone as part of the inquiry into the her death. The child’s devastated father said the police had told him information stored on the phone would be key to establishing the circumstances surrounding her taking her own life.

Linden said a promised “deep dive” to see if the handling of property and exhibits has improved has yet to take place, having been folded in to a longer to-do list of recommendations to follow up under the Met’s own Turnaround Plan. That plan pledges itself to “high standards” and “more trust”. Both please, in spades, and soon.

Twitter: Dave Hill and On London.

On London and its writers need your backing. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and receive in return the weekly newsletter On London Extra and (at no additional charge) invitations to events featuring eminent Londoners. Pay using any of the “donate” buttons on the site, by becoming a paid subscriber to my Substack, or directly into the company bank account. Email davehillonlondon@gmail.com for details. Thanks, Dave Hill.

Categories: Comment

Transport for London on track for operating surplus, board told

After years of financial peril, Transport for London (TfL) is on course to deliver an operating surplus this financial year as ridership continues to rise towards pre-pandemic levels, chiefs told a board meeting yesterday.

Passenger numbers have risen to 85 per cent of pre-Covid totals overall, albeit with the highest travel numbers coming at weekends rather than on working days, the meeting heard. Each one per cent increase generates an extra £50 million in fares income, which is good news for TfL coffers, bringing the 2022/23 year-end deficit down to £300 million on operating costs of more than £7 billion.

Fares income overall was up by just over £1 billion on 2021/22, with property and advertising income also rising, all pointing to a continuing post-pandemic recovery. Savings of £222 million had been made over the year, well above the budgeted target of £174 million. Debt was reduced too, to some £15.3 billion. The S&P Global Ratings agency last month revising its outlook for TfL to “positive” from “stable”.

Board members welcomed the financial turnaround as well as the improving ridership figures and also criticised “glass half-empty” commentary on the capital. Sadiq Khan, who chairs the board, called for more recognition that London is recovering from the pandemic faster than other global cities.

But with no government promises on capital funding for major projects beyond next April, the city’s transport network continues to face uncertainty over longer-term improvement plans – which could even put at risk the Mayor’s ambitious “Vision Zero” strategy to eliminate all deaths and serious injuries on London’s streets by 2041, finance chief Patrick Doig told board members.

The current funding strategy would see smaller-scale investment funded from surpluses on revenue, covering three-quarters of capital spending, and government financial support sought for bigger schemes, including new Piccadilly line trains and signalling upgrades, new Docklands Light Railway trains and electric buses.

With £475 million already contractually committed on those big schemes for 2024/25, as TfL reported in March, failure to secure a new capital funding deal would mean “undoing the progress made under the current funding agreement” and forcing the transport agency to again “start making difficult choices relating to reducing service levels, asset renewals and delaying non-committed investment” could mean scaling back on road safety improvements, Doig warned.

A separate report to the board tracking progress against Mayor Khan’s transport strategy spelt out the point. Although still well down on totals a decade ago, the 2022 figures for road casualties – 101 people killed and 3,873 seriously injured – were returning to pre-pandemic levels and remained off track for meeting the 2041 ambition, the report said.

It added that a “longer-term financial settlement from central Government” is needed to get back on track with traffic reduction measures, which had been proven to be “one of the most effective ways to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured”.

And the clock was again ticking for TfL to secure the capital it needs. An initial meeting with Department for Transport officials and junior transport minister Richard Holden will not take place until 12 July, Doig said. “We need certainty well in advance of March 2024,” he said. “We have the summer and early autumn to make progress.”

Commissioner Andy Lord, whose permanent appointment to his job was announced at the meeting, said securing long-term funding would be a key priority for his tenure. He also pointed out the “irony” that under government plans for “London-style” transport systems across the country, including multi-year funding deals, the capital was now falling behind. “We continue to make the case for a ‘London-style’ deal for London,” added Doig.

The full board meeting can be viewed here.

Twitter: Charles Wright and On London.

On London and its writers need your backing. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and receive in return the weekly newsletter On London Extra and (at no additional charge) invitations to events featuring eminent Londoners. Pay using any of the “donate” buttons on the site, by becoming a paid subscriber to my Substack, or directly into the company bank account. Email davehillonlondon@gmail.com for details. Thanks, Dave Hill.

Categories: News

Mayor and Met say no to Home Office asylum-seeker barge in Royal Docks

Sadiq Khan has spoken out against the idea of people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom being accommodated in a barge based in the Royal Docks next to London City Airport following what City Hall says was an approach to the Royal Docks Management Authority (RoDMA) by the Home Office a few weeks ago.

In a statement, the Mayor says his administration was “recently made aware of Home Office proposals to use the Royal Docks as a location for a barge to accommodate people seeking asylum in the UK” and that he opposes them “in the strongest possible terms”.

He continued: “I am proud of London’s history of providing sanctuary for those seeking refuge, and I am concerned that vulnerable people fleeing appalling circumstances would not have access to the support they need, with their safety, health and wellbeing being put at serious risk.”

The decision about whether such a proposal is accepted lies with the RoDMA, a limited company owned and funded by the owners of land surrounding the historic docks, which manages their waters and marine infrastructure. Its directors as listed by Companies House include representatives of the Greater London Authority, London City Airport and Mayor of Newham Rokhsana Fiaz.

On London understands that Newham Council and the Metropolitan Police are also opposed to an asylum barge being sited on the docks and that a forthcoming meeting of the RoDMA’s members will formally reject the idea. City Hall believes the Home Office lacks the powers to override the authority’s wishes.

Mayor Khan recently wrote to Home Secretary Suella Braverman urging her to reconsider what he termed “cruel and unworkable” measures in her Illegal Migration Bill, saying they could result in 50,000 asylum seekers being left in “immigration limbo” in the capital, unable to work and at risk of exploitation, and putting extra pressures on local authorities.

In his statement he repeats his criticisms and says that instead of the approach set out in the Bill “councils and relevant partners need to retain the legal powers and the funding to support asylum seekers humanely and with dignity. We all have a responsibility to help those escaping oppression and violence, and ministers need to completely rethink their plans as a matter of urgency”.

Twitter: Dave Hill and On London.

On London and its writers need your backing. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and receive in return the weekly newsletter On London Extra and (at no additional charge) invitations to events featuring eminent Londoners. Pay using any of the “donate” buttons on the site, by becoming a paid subscriber to my Substack, or directly into the company bank account. Email davehillonlondon@gmail.com for details. Thanks, Dave Hill.

Categories: News

Christabel Cooper: What did May’s local elections tell us about next year’s London Mayor race?

The contest to become the Conservative candidate for London Mayor is underway, with minister for London Paul Scully, London Assembly members Andrew Boff and Susan Hall and others having thrown their hats into the ring. Whoever secures the nomination in July will be hoping to exploit Sadiq Khan’s controversial plan to further expand of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and expect the change in the voting system from Supplementary Vote to to First Past the Post (FPTP) to help them.

To take the new electoral system first, in the May 2021 mayoral election Khan’s first round lead over his Tory rival Shaun Bailey was far narrower than expected (40 per cent to 35 per cent) and his final margin of victory rose to 10 per cent only because he picked up more second preference votes those who had voted for the Green and Liberal Democrat candidates in the first round. This might suggest that under FPTP the non-Tory vote in London will split between Labour and the two smaller parties and allow a Conservative candidate to come through the middle and win, an assessment seemingly reinforced by a surge in support for the Lib Dems and Greens in the local elections held in much of the rest of England last month.

But is that necessarily the case? The first corrective to this view is a look at national opinion polls. At the time of the last mayoral election the Conservatives were seven points ahead of Labour following the successful rollout of the Covid vaccine. Today, by contrast, Labour has an average 15-point lead over the Tories. In May 2021 London voters gave Labour an 18 point lead according to YouGov. Now, the same pollster puts Labour 40 points ahead. All polling evidence shows that the Conservative brand has suffered serious damage, and in the absence of a character like Boris Johnson, who successfully developed a personal brand independent of the central Conservative party, any Tory candidate for London Mayor is going to be tarnished by it.

But what about that rise in support for the Lib Dems and Greens last month? This followed both improving their vote shares in the Mayoral and London Assembly elections in 2021. Could they be on track to take more votes from Labour next May, this time under a system that does not allow their voters to make second preference choice?

It is worth looking more closely at the results of those May 2023 local results. At Labour Together, for which I am director of research, we carried out polling which showed that over one fifth of the Lib Dem votes were tactical, and that nearly a quarter of those who voted for the party say that in a general election they would vote Labour. This shows that anti-Tory voters proved adept at supporting whichever party was likely to beat the Conservatives. For instance, in councils contested between the Conservatives and Lib Dems, Labour only increased its number of councillors by 69, with the Lib Dems winning 214 more councillors. But in councils contested between Conservative and Labour, Labour won 335 additional seats and the Lib Dems only 48 more.

Of course, tactical voting can go very wrong when voters are unclear about who is the best candidate to vote for is – ask any 2019 pro-EU voter in Kensington. But there will be little such doubt in the minds of progressive voters in London, that the high-profile Khan is the only candidate who can beat the Tory. Far from suggesting the anti-Tory vote is uniformly split, the local elections demonstrated that even under FPTP voters whose priority is to punish the Tories can organise themselves to back the party or candidate most likely to achieve that.

But what about the ULEZ? Recent polling commissioned by More in Common showed that a narrow majority of Londoners support the scheme, but that views were very split along the lines of the 2019 general election vote. Labour voters backed the ULEZ enlargement by 40 per cent to 33 per cent, and Lib Dem voters and Green voters were even more strongly in support – Lib Dems by 42 per cent to 33 per cent, Greens by 49 per cent to 27 per cent. For progressive voters, the expansion of ULEZ may end up being more of a benefit than a problem for Khan.

The incumbent might have more to fear from Londoners who voted Tory in the 2019 general election, are telling national pollsters they intend to vote Labour at the next one but, because they disapprove of the ULEZ expansion by a hefty margin – 55 per cent opposed compared to 25 per cent in support – might stick with the Tories for the mayoral election. They might also be more motivated to turn out.

Looking at the local election results in councils just outside London, where some voters who commute into the capital by car or van will be impacted, there was little sign of a backlash against Labour, although that may be simply because people recognised that their own council leaders have no say over the policy.

For all the talk of a threat to Khan from splits in the centre-left and left vote, the real danger to him comes from wavering Conservative supporters failing to switch to him and the core Tory vote turning out in greater numbers than expected. Over the next year, Khan will have to be skilful at managing the narrative around the expansion of ULEZ and its impact on Londoners. But if he can get that right, he will have a very good chance of being the first person to win the London mayoralty for three successive terms.

Christabel Cooper is Director of Research at Labour Together. Follow her on Twitter. Map showing distribution of Labour (red and pink) and Conservative ( light and dark blue) mayoral candidates’ support in 2021 by Lewis Baston.

On London and its writers need your backing. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and receive in return the weekly newsletter On London Extra and (at no additional charge) invitations to events featuring eminent Londoners. Pay using any of the “donate” buttons on the site, by becoming a paid subscriber to my Substack, or directly into the company bank account. Email davehillonlondon@gmail.com for details. Thanks. Dave Hill.

Categories: Analysis

Senior Met officer says ‘lower threshold’ applied for tolerance of disruption at Coronation

A senior Metropolitan Police officer has acknowledged that the service’s “threshold on tolerance for disruption might have been lower” at the King’s coronation than it would have been for other events due to the “heightened security context” in which the celebrations took place.

Appearing before the Assembly’s crime committee this morning, Assistant Commissioner Louisa Rolfe also spoke of a need for operational “very fast time decisions” taken on the day due to concerning elements of an “emerging intelligence picture” as she responded to questions from committee chair Caroline Russell.

Russell pressed Rolfe about the controversial arrests and detentions of three Night Stars – Met-backed volunteers who assist people in difficulties on the streets of Soho and neighbouring areas – and, during the event itself, of a group of anti-monarchy protesters.

Rolfe said the Met wants to “understand the detail of what happened” with the Night Stars and that the “circumstances surrounding” their arrests “will be fully explored in our debrief process” and result in an apology “if we’ve got things wrong”.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has said last month he believed a meeting would take place between the volunteers, the Met’s head of operations temporary Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist, and representatives of Westminster Council, another Night Stars partner, to “resolve the issue” of differing accounts of what occurred. It has not been revealed whether such a meeting has yet taken place.

Stressing London’s long history of hosting protests, Russell said she had been given first-hand accounts by academics among a anti-monarchy group that they had been “arrested for wearing T-shirts and waving flags while standing on the pavement on The Mall” then handcuffed, searched and discovered to be wearing Just Stop Oil T-shirts beneath their outer clothing.

Russell said the protesters informed her that Met territorial support group officers had told them there was intelligence that they had “paint, rape alarms and lock-on devices” in their possession, but that this was not the case and, following an initial arrest, were that later in the day rearrested for the more serious offence of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. Russell said she was also informed that “intimidatory” tactics were used.

Speaking generally about “the information available to officers” Rolfe stressed that need to react to “fast-moving events” and recalled previous occasions on The Mall where people have tried to emerge from the crowd to “get into the route” of processions.

She underlined that the “650 military horses” involved in the coronation were not, unlike police horses, trained to remain calm amid noise and disorder – a significant issue for the Met. “We were very concerned about public safety,” Rolfe explained.

“I can’t answer for those specific events,” she told Russell. “We will, of course, look at the broad picture as much as we can in our review,” including by speaking to officers and looking at body-worn video footage, and “seek to understand fully what’s happened”.

Accompanying Rolfe, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ade Adelekan said there is “still a significant investigation ongoing” into the 64 coronation-related arrests, resulting in 42 people still being on bail. This, along with some civil actions being taken against the Met, meant “we’re limited in what we can say,” he said, though he reassured the panel that “it is not the case” that people can be arrested for “just wearing T-shirts”.

Asked by Liberal Democrat AM Caroline Pidgeon if, “rightly or wrongly”, the Met had taken a “very cautious” approach and “to in some ways over-arrest and then answer questions later rather than risk chaotic scenes and serious disruption and damaging images around the world, Rolfe replied: “Our considerations were based on safety and security of the event and our lower thresholds were because of the significance of those risks to safety and security.”

At the start of the session Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime Sophie Linden congratulated the Met for its Coronation operation ensuring that “in the main” the event “passed off incredibly smoothly”, while reminding the committee that she and the Mayor’s Officer for Policing and Crime have already raised concerns with Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley over “a small number of arrests that took place on the day” and that Rowley and Mayor Khan have exchanged public correspondence about the matter.

Watch the police and crime committee meeting in full here.

Twitter: Dave Hill and On London.

On London and its writers need your backing. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and receive in return the weekly newsletter On London Extra and (at no additional charge) invitations to events featuring eminent Londoners. Pay using any of the “donate” buttons on the site, by becoming a paid subscriber to my Substack, or directly into the company bank account. Email davehillonlondon@gmail.com for details. Thanks. Dave Hill.

Categories: News

Richard Lander: If VAT-free shopping returns it must benefit those who make London special

On first blush, the vigorous campaign by West End businesses to restore tax-free shopping for visitors to London and the UK as a whole makes a lot of sense.

Attract tourists with lots of money and get them to spend in our posh shops for a 16.7 per cent discount (that’s the store price less 20 per cent VAT). It gets them to come here rather than going to some other major European capital or Dubai or Doha and once here they stay in hotels, eat out in fancy restaurants and so on.

Hence the campaign against the so-called “tourist tax” led by the Evening Standard. Abolished at the start of 2021 when the Brexit transition ended, the VAT refund scheme could generate £1.5 billion a year, it is authoritatively claimed. Or £3 billion, or £4.1 billion depending on who’s doing your numbers. It’s really not terribly clear.

But hang on. Let’s turn the telescope the other way around.

In essence, we’d be asking British taxpayers, already burdened by high inflation and the biggest tax take in history, to subsidise wealthy Chinese and Arabic visitors and Americans – indeed anybody now we are out of the European Union – to the tune of £1 billion a year (or £3 billion etc, etc). And we’d be subsidising them to buy Burberry handbags, Chanel perfume and Tiffany earrings – the exact same goods also on sale in Paris, Rome and Madrid.

In terms of sales, it’s a tax break that would also benefit the outlets for those uber-expensive brands in Mayfair’s luxury quarter. In other words, very little of the perceived benefit of restoring this tax break would flow beyond a small group of upscale retailers.

What is more, notwithstanding the bellyaching of well-connected lobby groups, the effect the loss of tax-free shopping having on London tourism is not clear.

“It’s obvious to anyone visiting the designer boutiques and department stores of the West End … that they’re unnaturally quiet,” thundered the Standard’s Chris Blackhurst on 17 May. Yet nine days later the paper proclaimed that “Tourism to London is bouncing back after the pandemic with 16 million overnight visits to the capital from people from overseas last year, official figures revealed.” Along with (of course) a “but the end of VAT would make things better…”.

And according to Rob Burgess, editor of frequent flyer website headforpoints.com, the case that VAT is putting off tourists coming to London is highly dubious. “It is probably having an impact at the margins, but not hugely,” he said. “For a start, the exchange rate is clearly also a factor, and one which moves around. This impacts what tourists pay.”

Let’s rethink the whole thing.

If we are going to bring the tax break back, let’s do it in a way that benefits the people and places that make London unique: restaurants, music venues, theatres, domestic designer boutiques and so on. It seems bizarre that such a break should be restricted to retail, particularly as grand shopping parades from New Bond Street to Place Vendome and Via Veneto increasingly resemble each other.

Should we bring it back at all? Probably. Can we do it differently and better? Yes. Let’s extend the scheme to hospitality and live experiences. And in retail, restrict it to smaller shops. If the department stores keep nagging, make the perk available only for goods made in Britain, from pottery to designer clothes, rather than global luxury brands. In other words, the stuff that makes us different and benefits ordinary people, not just multinational conglomerates.

We could go further and deeper so that we get the RTWM (rich tourists with money) out of the West End and into parts of London they might not otherwise visit. It shouldn’t be rocket science to develop an app that works only in certain places and certain boroughs, like the American Express Shop Small scheme that pops up a couple of times a year.

Let’s get the RTWM out to Farringdon to eat at Henry Harris’s magnificent Bouchon Racine and down to Brixton to Robin Gill’s beyond cool Bottle & Rye wine bar (see photo), both of which knock spots off their tired equivalents in Paris. Then send them east to Shoreditch for Brian Hannon’s Smoking Goat/Brat fire and flames combo, the best of their type outside the Basque country.

All three places are what London eating is really about. They deserve our support so much more than the luxury emporiums of the West End.

Richard Lander is director, Citywire Engage. Follow Richard on Twitter.

On London and its writers need your backing. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and receive in return the weekly newsletter On London Extra and (at no additional charge) invitations to events featuring eminent Londoners.

Pay using any of the “donate” buttons on the site, by becoming a paid subscriber to my Substack, or directly into the company bank account. Email davehillonlondon@gmail.com for details. Thanks. Dave Hill.

Categories: Comment