Blog

True London Podcast: Should the Met be just for London?

Imagine the following:

  • A Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) whose only job is to serve Londoners by preventing, detecting and solving crime in London. Its current national responsibilities, such as combating terrorism and protecting the royal family, would have been taken on by a separate, national organisation.
  • The politician accountable to Londoners for the performance of the MPS being the Mayor of London and only the Mayor of London, whoever that Mayor may be. It would no longer also be accountable to whoever is home secretary, a national politician, as at present.
  • The Mayor alone having the power to hire and fire the MPS Commissioner. At the moment, the home secretary decides who that will be and is required only to “have regard” for the Mayor’s views before making a recommendation to the King. And although two past Met chiefs have stepped down because Mayors were unhappy with them, officially only the home secretary can give them the sack.
  • The Mayor’s statutory police and crime plan being the defining strategy document for MPS policies and priorities, just as the Mayor’s statutory transport strategy defines the policies and priorities of Transport for London. Although the Met itself will run its operations day-to-day, they would have to be in line with what the Mayor wants and was elected to deliver.
  • A police service for London that, because of the changes imagined above, is better focussed on protecting Londoners – and others who work in or visit the city – against crime and better at catching those who perpetrate it too.

That, I think, is a reasonable summary of what Nick Bowes, former head of policy for Sir Sadiq Khan, would like home secretary Shabana Mahmood to bring about as she develops her ideas for reforming and reorganising police services nationally.

Following his recent article for On London about these issues, Nick has elaborated on some of its themes in the latest True London podcast, which you can listen to here or watch below.

There are several other dimensions to this issue, and Nick’s article touched on those. On London and True London will return to them another day.

Follow Dave Hill on BlueskyFacebookInstagramLinkedIn, YouTube and Apple. Follow Nick Bowes on Bluesky.

OnLondon.co.uk is funded by sales of publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To start receiving it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s personal Substack or follow any Support link on this site. Thanks.

Categories: Comment

John Vane: On Chiswell Street, Sun Street and Silk Street

A discreet exit route from Liverpool Street station, reached via an upper level corridor, takes you to Sun Street Passage and then, after a fashion, to Sun Street itself, along which Bill Sikes frogmarched Oliver Twist en route to doing some housebreaking in Chertsey. Charles Dickens also had Sikes hustling the child across Finsbury Square and on to Chiswell Street and Barbican. Knowing this adds magic to every visit to those streets. Coincidence has lately led me down them three times.

The Dickens links are just one part of its long story. Sun Street has a junction with Wilson Street, where there’s a pub, The Flying Horse, whose sign hides an older, smaller one for the defunct Metropolitan Borough of Shoreditch. That local government unit was absorbed into a protective Hackney 61 years ago, but the south side of Sun Street – named after another pub, also with us no more – belongs to the City of London. And once you’ve you’ve passed Wilson Street, you’re in Islington.

Img 8019

Before reaching that point, walking west, you pass on the Hackney side the adjoining and connected Sun Street Hotel and Lima Peruvian restaurant. Their frontages are resplendently retro, unlike the evolving back of Broadgate across the road. The hotel displays a union jack and a flag of Malaysia, which denotes the origins of its owner, the MTD Group. The place was opened in 2022. It’s part of MTD’s swish mixed-use One Crown Place, which Hackney approved in 2015.

Img 8023

Soon, you’re on the south side of Finsbury Square, which doesn’t look its best just now. By contrast, the memorial to the 43 people killed in the Moorgate tube crash of 1975 is immaculate. Bernard Marks, the father of journalist and later TV comedy-drama writer Laurence Marks, was among those who perished. The cause of the crash remains a mystery.

Img 7928

On to Chiswell Street, whose signage preserves another pre-1965 relic – the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury. Set back on your right, opening up like some temporal anomaly, are the generous grounds of the Honourable Artillery Company. Incorporated by Henry VIII, it is the British Army’s oldest regiment. What goes on there I don’t know, but through its iron gates you can see, on the far side, the company’s museum. There’s also a marquee. A sign on the gates provides a phone number to call if you’d like to go inside.

Img 7925 2

Further on, Chiswell Street is bisected by the Islington-City boundary. A left hand turn on latter’s side offers you Milton Street, which is a remnant of what was previously called Grub Street. It is thought to have been named after a refuse ditch that ran down it in the 13th Century and it later, famously, became the dwelling place of low-rent writers. “Grub Street” lives on as a synonym (one that most certainly does not apply here…).

Next up on Chiswell, The Brewery venue offers conference facilities. You’d never guess, would you, that beer used to be produced there? That ceased in 1976, the year after the Moorgate crash. Opposite, on the Islington side of the street, find another part of the ex-Whitbread complex has become a deluxe boutique hotel. The exterior brickwork provides a heritage and history clue.

Img 7920

Once past the brewery take the left at a four-way junction into Silk Street, which loops deeper into the Square Mile and leads to the main entrance of the Barbican Centre. The word “barbican” means fortified gateway, and London’s use of it stems from the area’s proximity to the Roman London Wall, completed in around the year 200. Oliver’s fictitious footsteps were yet to come.

Buy John Vane’s London novel Frightgeist here

OnLondon.co.uk is funded by sales of publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To start receiving it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s personal Substack or follow any Support link on this site. Thanks.

Categories: Culture, John Vane's London Stories

Nick Bowes: Police accountability in London – a mess, 25 years and counting

Who is accountable for the performance of London’s police? There is no single politician whose job depends on what happens at the Metropolitan Police Service. Rather, the Met is an organisation with two masters, albeit the two aren’t exactly equal. The outcome? Messy, confused responsibilities leading to unclear decision-making that leaves Londoners unsure who is in charge.

There is plenty of good reading on why we find ourselves in this position. A starting point is Professor Tony Travers’s excellent book, The Politics of London, which tells the story of the tussle back in the late 1990s between those with a bold vision for a new devolved settlement for the capital and Whitehall’s age-old refusal to give up power.

Police accountability was caught up in this. The Greater London Authority Act (1999) spelled out the policing powers of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly. They were a dilution of the original vision of the Mayor having sole responsibility for policing in the city and instead left the Home Secretary with considerable power, notably over the hiring (and firing) of the Met Commissioner.

The Met’s national as well as London responsibilities were used as the justification. Professor Travers and my LCA colleague Robert Gordon Clark flagged this in an early comment piece for the Evening Standard back in 2000.

We’ve ended up with London’s Mayors scrutinised and held to account for the Met’s performance by the Assembly and, arguably, by the media and the public too. Yet, despite this, Mayors have no legal power to decide who is in charge of it. Worse, it means commentators can blame the Mayor of the day for the conduct of operational matters that are wholly the responsibility of the Commissioner.

For 25 years, this untidy model has loomed over London’s policing. One of its many shortcomings has twice been exposed when Mayors have made known their lack of confidence in Met chiefs – in the first case by Boris Johnson in 2009 and then by Sir Sadiq Khan in 2022 – resulting in Commissioners being effectively forced out of their jobs, despite those Mayors not having legal powers to do so.

I haven’t been shy about laying into the dog’s breakfast of politicians’ powers and responsibilities that applies to the Met. My views were forged during my years as Sir Sadiq Khan’s policy chief and have been reinforced during the years since.

I believe the Met is too large to operate effectively. Its national functions, such as counter-terrorism and royal family and VIP protection, should be shifted to a new organisation. And the Home Secretary should lose the power to fire-and-hire the Commissioner, with this instead residing solely with the Mayor or, at the very least, becoming a truly joint decision between the two rather than Home Secretaries’ being pre-eminent. Such changes, along with internal structural overhauls, would result in an organisation freed to focus solely on policing London.

A shift of that type would raise further questions. At present, London’s Mayors are required to draw up a police and crime plan, setting priorities for the Met. But they have no control over day-to-day operational policing. Given the size of the mandates Mayors win – a million votes and more – should they have more power to give the Met directions?

Who should have the power to ban problematic marches, the Commissioner, the Mayor or the Home Secretary (at present, it is the latter, and only if the Commissioner requests it, although many people think the Mayor has this power).

But once clearer and simpler arrangements had been made, London’s voters would be in a far better position to make judgements about the Met’s and Mayors’ crime and policing performances.

I read with interest the government’s ambitious plans for shaking up policing in England and Wales. These are extensive and would see national functions combined into a new British equivalent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States. The head of this new organisation would become the most senior police chief in the country, dislodging the Met Commissioner from a position he or she has held since London policing’s earliest days.

Swept away would be directly-elected Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) outside London with the Home Secretary regaining the power to hire and fire Chief Constables. But where would that leave those Mayors who are de facto PCCs, as is the case with London’s and Greater Manchester’s? And how will this fit with the new system of local government being created in much of non-metropolitan England?

Here, the government’s intentions are less clear. Will there be a weakening – or removal altogether – of the Mayor of London’s role in the capital’s policing? With the Met’s national functions stripped out, gone with the stroke of a pen is one of the main reasons used to justify the Home Secretary’s involvement in London’s policing. But rather than a reduced role for the centre, might Whitehall’s powers over it actually be strengthened?

And what about the future of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) – body formed in 2012 to replace the Metropolitan Police Authority – that support’s the Mayor’s oversight and scrutiny of the Met? What of the still-new London Policing Board, a panel of appointees set up as recommended by Louise Casey in her far-reaching 2023 review of standards and institutional culture in the Met (and which an aggrieved Assembly police and crime committee would like to see dissolved).

Then there is the separate matter of the small but significant City of London Police, which serves the Square Mile independently of the Met, but also leads nationally on fraud. Will that responsibility too be passed up to a new FBI-style organisation? Has the very existence of the City police been brought into question?

There is also an argument for the Met to be given responsibility for all transport-related policing in London, rather than its rail services, including the London Underground, being the responsibility of the national British Transport Police, as at present.

Much detail needs to emerge before we can fully understand the ramifications for London of what Shabana Mahmood has in mind. Perhaps it is a rare opportunity to both clear up the muddle in which the Met is caught and strengthen London’s devolution settlement – and all in time for the Met’s 200th birthday in 2029.

Yet some of the early signs suggest that the old tendency of the centre to hoard and claw back power is re-asserting itself. Governments may change, but Whitehall’s giant sucking sound never goes away.

Nick Bowes was Mayor Khan’s director of policy from 2016 until 2021. He is now managing director, insight and public affairs at LCA. Follow him on Bluesky. Image from Met Police X/Twitter profile.

OnLondon.co.uk is funded by sales of publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To start receiving it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s personal Substack or follow any Support link on this site. Thanks.

Categories: Comment

Walks, talks and doves for peace in London’s Queen’s Park

London is often depicted as an unfriendly place riven with community tensions. Usually, such impressions are formed by people who live elsewhere and aren’t familiar with the capital’s neighbourhood everyday lives and the friendships and values that bind them. Sometimes, they result from malign desires to portray the city in an unfavourable light as part of some larger goal. The launch of what its organisers call London’s first “peace zone” serves as a gentle but firm rebuke to such misunderstandings and mischief.

The event took place a week ago, on Sunday 18 January, at St Anne’s Church in Salusbury Road, NW6, in the Queen’s Park area of Brent where it meets the City of Westminster. The idea came from women from the local Jewish and Muslim communities.

Building on walks and talks they have together organised and undertaken during the past, sometimes uneasy, couple of years, the zone seeks to demonstrate interfaith harmony. It does so by encouraging residents and businesses to display of strings of images of doves on he homes and premises.

Around 50 people gathered in the airy reception space at St Anne’s and set about cutting their dove shapes from paper plates or, in some expert cases, constructing origami likenesses of them. Blue Peter-style, a few had been prepared earlier and strung across the entrance. Beneath them, four leading lights behind the initiative obligingly posed so On London could take their picture (above)

Catherine Charles and Caroline Bourne (respectively, second and third from the left) are members of the close-by Brondesbury Park Synagogue and co-founders of local “peace talks” to promote friendship between different faith groups. Aliya Azam (left) is an interfaith advisor from the Al-Khoei Foundation, an international charity with an office on nearby Chevening Road, and head of science at the Al Sadiq and Al Zahra Islamic schools along the road. The Reverend Pete Hopkins (right) of St Anne’s was very happy to be involved as host.

Img 7887

The peace zone has been endorsed by Mustafa Field of Faith Forum for London, an organisation whose aims include, in its words, “facilitating dialogue and good relations between different faith communities and wider society”.

“We’re lucky to be surrounded by temples, synagogues, mosques and churches in Queen’s Park,” he said, “and even more blessed by the people who bring different beliefs, languages and cultures into our everyday lives”.

Img 7878

It was a hyperlocal occasion with the simple yet quietly global objective of bringing people together and spreading the message of togetherness by embracing and celebrating the universal symbol of peace. And it wasn’t only about industrious crafting – there was also cake. Local councillor Neil Nerva was in attendance, too.

With dove production well underway, both Catherine and Aliya expressed the hope that the peace zone idea will be taken up in other places too. Their Instagram suggests they are having some success in their own patch of the city, and building on it, with monthly Queen’s Park “walk and talk” sessions for women, guided by the belief that small acts can indeed change the world.

Screenshot 2026 01 26 at 04.59.28

Follow Dave Hill on Bluesky. All photos by him, with appropriate permissions, except the one of the doves on a front door, which is courtesy of Catherine Charles. 

OnLondon.co.uk is funded by sales of publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To start receiving it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s personal Substack or follow any Support link on this site. Thanks.

Categories: Culture

Tim Donovan: How Green will London be after 7 May?

Never mind Reform UK, in London the Green Party is also making the political weather. Membership has surged among disaffected Labour supporters in particular. The upcoming local elections in London’s 32 boroughs are assuming considerable importance, not least for the future of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. With leader and Hackney resident Zack Polanski transforming the party’s image and appeal, can the Greens turn their rapidly-expanding grassroots movement into electoral gold?

DOORSTEP LAMBETH

Above the counter at the Brown and Green café in Crystal Palace Park is a message on heart-shaped yellow paper. “You are loved whoever you are and wherever you are from,” it says. “We are all brothers and sisters born on the same earth. You are welcome here. Love, not hate.” On a crisp Saturday morning in December, there is little chance of that not being heeded. Gathered on the outside terrace, drinking tea, are dozens of activists and volunteers for the Green Party, London’s in-form political team. Taking hold of their clipboards and badges, they are preparing for a Big Day Out South London.

Many are new to the project and this is their first direct experience of political campaigning. They are about to be deployed to knock on doors and gather information that could help the Greens shape their campaign in the up-coming London borough elections. It is to be an “introductory conversation” with potential voters, nothing too heavy. Local candidates and teams will be back in the spring to press home the case. There’s no need to be up-to-speed on every issue in the Green policy book. “The main thing is that you are polite and friendly,” says an organiser.

Over the past few months the Greens have seen a huge surge in membership. In Lambeth alone it has tripled to nearly 2,500. The challenge now is to harness that injection of energy and turn it into electoral gold.

In a brief pep talk, Green London Assembly member Caroline Russell, also a councillor in Islington, says the increase in support has put the party in an unprecedented position, enabling it to do much more than ever before. “How ever well we are doing in the polls, on social media, the thing that gets people elected is doors knocked, conversations held and making sure you get really good data on who’s planning to vote Green,” she says.

The volunteers are divided into groups according to borough, and I am accompanying the Lambeth contingent, stewarded and shepherded by Scott Ainslie, a garrulous Scot and former actor who was the Green’s MEP for London in the year preceding Brexit. Scott leads the Green opposition to Labour on Lambeth Council. There are four Green councillors there, including one who defected from Labour over its stance on the Middle East and another who won a by-election last May – the first such contest lost by Labour in the borough since 2008.

Unnamed 2

Scott insists there’s something stirring on the ground and that the flamboyant leadership of Zack Polanski is helping widen the party’s appeal well beyond saving the planet. He says it is enabling cut-through of his core belief that social justice goes hand in hand with environmental justice. He dares to believe that the Greens could deliver the sizeable electoral shock of defeating Labour and taking control of Lambeth Town Hall next May.

The level of disaffection with Labour nationally and locally makes this far from impossible, especially as the disarray of Your Party has reduced its potential for competing for the same type of voter.

In our south London canvassing group are Andy and Matt who have just joined the Greens. Andy has once before delivered leaflets for Labour, but was not a party member. Matt joined Labour briefly after Sir Keir Starmer’s landslide election victory, believing in change, before disillusionment rapidly set in over the approach to poverty, equality and immigration. Both say Polanski’s style and rapid route to recognition, while not the clinching factor, helped persuade them to sign up.

The target of today’s mission is the Central Hill estate, a 1970s development of houses and flats linked by a maze of walkways and stairways. For well over a decade it has been earmarked for demolition by the council, but workable plans and necessary investment have remained elusive, and many of the tenants have resisted, wanting it refurbished instead. Around 90 of the 450 homes are boarded up. It’s a prime target for the Greens, not least because one of their candidates, a former resident and tenants rep of the estate, is trying to win back the council seat he narrowly lost here in Gypsy Hill ward at the last local elections in 2022.

Huddled under a tree, next to the area’s closed-down police station, Scott delivers a crash course in canvassing to the newbies. He is “running the board”, poring over sheets of the electoral register and allocating addresses to each of his foot soldiers. Following a now familiar model of modern campaigning, he wants some solid bits of intelligence brought back. Does the resident have any issues or gripes they want addressing? How did they vote last time and are they open to supporting the Greens? Contact details are sought and a score given as to the likelihood of a Green vote next time. This is laying the foundation for a follow up contact from the local candidates.

THE TASK AHEAD

Across London, in the flush of their expanding membership, the Greens think they can turn this brand of grassroots, hyper-local, responsive politics into dozens of seats in council chambers. They currently have 41 councillors out of the more than 1,800 in the capital, holding at least one seat on 15 of London’s 32 local councils. However, most of these were not elected as Greens and are former Labour councillors who have defected, sometimes after being deselected. Despite the Zack-hype and expectation, the Greens are pinning their hopes on eye-catching results in a handful of boroughs.

The scale of the task ahead is soon apparent from this one exercise in one Lambeth neighbourhood. Many Central Hill tenants either aren’t in or aren’t really bothered. But council elections can be won on small margins and there is widespread concern in Labour ranks that, such is the current mood, many of their voters won’t turn out. We soon get an idea of how high the stakes are when the local Labour MP and two Labour councillors are seen canvassing in a nearby street. We are in a prime local battleground.

Andy gets into his stride quickly and is soon engaging people in conversation with the zeal of the newly converted, telling one tenant that the Greens want to remove power from the elite and fat cats. She tells him she voted Labour last time and is clearly in the market for change. But her prime concerns are a million miles from a wealth tax or Gaza, let alone tackling climate change. Like several other tenants she is angry about the mould from damp in her home.

Some residents say they are broadly content. Others talk about plumbing and rubbish problems and the condition of the pathways. In one block, a man invites Andy in from the cold. Later, Andy tells Scott the man is a definite convert from Labour. “It’s all about taking time to talk and listen,” he says. When he admits he forgot to push a leaflet through another door he is mock-scolded by the boss: “I asked you to do one thing!”

Unnamed 4

There will be a need for plenty of humour over the campaign days ahead. The Greens are facing a nice problem to have. But can they get sufficiently organised in a short space of time to seize this moment and marshal all these new members to make headway across London. Or will the logistics become overwhelming?  You get a hint of frustration from Matt that he did not have the local knowledge – particularly around the condition of housing – to be persuasive on the doorstep. But that will come, he hopes. “I am a results-focused kind of person. This today was about introducing ourselves. It is not the only time we will visit these voters.”

Scott insists that top-notch organisers are being recruited, including one who has come over after helping Labour gain a previously Conservative council at the last election. There is more money for leaflets from new member subscriptions and plenty of time until May, he says. And then there’s the Zack factor. “Before, you needed to deliver six leaflets before people knew who you are or what you stood for. Now it only needs one.” What about the changing identity and broadening appeal? Did anybody raise environmental issues with him on the doorstep in areas like this? “Never,” he said.

In the week Polanski won his landslide victory to become leader, I was asked to contribute to an assessment of him on the BBC Radio 4 programme Profile, having watched him up close as a member of the London Assembly when he was also the Greens’ deputy leader. I offered up some very mild scepticism about a figure who had joined the party less than a decade ago, was previously a Liberal Democrat and had a colourful past in various previous occupations.

A message afterwards from one veteran environmentalist said I was right to be cautious – they did not like the new eco-modernism. However, there has been little internal party dissent. Hundreds of thousands of people have been engaging with Polanski’s social media and the polls have improved for the Greens. Suddenly grassroots activists are finding they have won the right to be heard.

DOORSTEP HACKNEY

It is a chilly January Saturday in Dalston, east London, and the focus of the Hackney Green party is on volume and reach. Dozens of first-time volunteers are helping deliver New Year greetings cards to the 120,000 homes in the borough. It is a clear response to Labour’s mayor sending round a mass Christmas card last month – a tussle of festive sentiments.

Screenshot 2026 01 22 at 08.39.36

Cynthia, a software engineer, says she has joined the party primarily to counter the rise of Reform UK and because of issues like the Greens’ positive stance on trans rights. Flick, who’s a theatre stage manager, says she has been drawn by the “intersectionality” of issues of environmental and social justice.  Jack, a chef, signed up in the Barnet but has answered an appeal by London organisers to come and help in Hackney.

That’s because Hackney is by far and away the Greens’ number one target in the capital, a place where they hope to crown the country’s first Green Mayor.

Membership here has risen from 650 to nearly 3,000 in a year, the energy of newcomers needing to be harnessed to the experience of activists embedded in their communities for years. It is an expansion with logistical challenges. The group of leafleters I am accompanying discovers their target street already has Green New Year cards protruding from letterboxes – duplication that Caroline Russell, present again, brushes off as an inevitable hiccup given the overnight scaling-up of operations: “It’s like a start-up which suddenly grows fivefold and you need different systems of governance and processes.”

Alex is another recent recruit, attracted to the Greens by their “faith in democracy” where policy-making resides firmly with members. He was impressed that within days of becoming a Green he was invited to join a local policy forum, and soon after given training in canvassing and other campaign techniques. Today, he’s organising a group of leafleters on the King’s Park estate in Hackney Wick, where he also happens to live. “Until recently the party was regarded as not having much hope. All of a sudden that has changed,” he says.

That even five months away from council elections this is a battle being fought on Hackney estates – balcony by balcony – becomes evident when the Greens find themselves just metres away from one of the existing Labour councillors for the area, who talking to a tenant just moments after a Green leaflet hit her doormat. She is explaining Labour’s headline policies such as this year’s rail fare freeze and lifting the two-child benefit cap, and stressing eligibility under Labour locally for a reduction of 90 percent in Council Tax. The Greens, she’s saying, support closing more roads and higher taxes.

Even before experiencing the Starmer Labour government, voters’ interest in the Greens in Hackney had been stirring. At the 2024 general election, their candidate finished second to Labour in Hackney South & Shoreditch, one of the safest Labour seats in the country. Labour’s winning incumbent, Meg Hillier, secured over 59 per cent of the vote. But the nearly 10,000 votes won by Green runner-up, Laura-Louise Fairley, was the largest number achieved by a Green candidate in London, representing a nearly 24 per cent share – an increase of 17.5 per cent compared with 2019.

Fairley is now standing in the council elections, excited by the Green popularity surge but keen to stress how hard it will be to shift Labour, embedded in Hackney for decades: “Labour being the established party, there are so many people here who will vote how they always voted, so we have to work 10 times harder to get our message across.”

The Greens’ chances appear to have been bolstered by an alliance with – and agreement not to stand against – candidates from the Hackney Independent Socialist Collective, three former Labour councillors who resigned over Gaza. They even appear together in some leaflets.

Photo 2026 01 20 11 24 44

The hopes of the Greens’ first mayoralty rest with Zoë Garbett (above), one of borough’s three Green councillors and, like Russell and Polanski, a member of the London Assembly. Garbett has stood twice before for Hackney Mayor and contested the London mayoralty in 2024. The stars, she feels, are aligning. “The moment of Zack getting a much bigger platform and being bolder in what we stand for, combined with accelerating our local campaigns, has become a perfect blend.”

Few can dispute the impact of Polanksi, a leader who had the rare distinction recently of being asked to appear on two of the BBC’s flagship programmes, Have I Got News for You and Question Time, in the same week. There is talk of him standing for Mayor of London in 2028 if he has not managed by then to win a parliamentary seat. There local speculation that if, as is rumoured, Diane Abbott, Labour’s veteran MP for Hackney North & Stoke Newington stands down before completing her current term, a resulting by-election in Polanski’s own backyard could provide that route to Westminster.

Tim Donovan is the former political editor of BBC London and now a trustee of Centre for London. Follow him at LinkedIn. Top photo and Zoë Garbett photo by Matt Payne for the Green Party. Rival greetings cards photo by Dave Hill. Other photos by Tim Donovan.

OnLondon.co.uk is funded by sales of publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To start receiving it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s personal Substack or follow any Support link on this site. Thanks.

Categories: News

John Vane: Resolution 26

I have three creative writing projects on the go, all of which I will complete this year. I have made similar vows in previous Januarys – more of them than I like to think about. The difference this time is that I’m vowing in public. High stakes. Imagine if, bit by bit, later in 2026, I honour the pledge I’m rashly making here and get to wildly exult about it. Imagine, if you prefer, my disappointment if no one cares.

Those are just some of the possibilities thrown up by my risk-ridden strategy, and many more may be realised as the months unfold, including me simply giving up and looking back on these few words with shame, dismay and a lurking urge to furtively erase them. For now, though, let me metaphorically show you my orderly notebooks and newly-sharpened pencils and describe each of the three projects in brief.

One of them is another novel – a follow-up to Frightgeist, though very different in subject matter and tone. This one will concern three young people, each an outsider in different ways, trying to find their grown-up feet in an unglamorous part of Greater London. History, fashion, music and suburban shopping streets will be bedrock themes, as will friendship, fibbing and not fitting in, sometimes all at the same time.

I intend it to be 50,000 words long. If we’re being posh, we might say it’s going to be at the fat end of the novella range. Whatever, I’ve been picking up, putting down, warming to and going off this bit of work for far too long. The shorter it’s going to be, the greater is the chance of me at long last finishing the thing. Such is the way Great Artists think.

The second project is a novel too, and also intended to weigh in at 50,000 words. That’s the beginning and end of any similarity. One of the larger differences is that I’ve been starting, stopping, tearing up and sticking back together this particular work of fanciful imagination for at least twice as long. Another, is that it is a story for children, probably aged between roughly eight and ten.

It will, naturally, have lots of London in it too, but it is also set elsewhere – a place called Outer Space. At this point in its gestation it has a large cast of characters (perhaps too large) including several zany robots (perhaps too many) and an evolving allegorical layer (perhaps overdone). I’ve already got unwieldy drafts of this Great Unfinished Opus that run to 30,000 words, so a large part of my task is deciding which of those words are rubbish, which aren’t and then plotting a path to the finish line.

The third and final project is the one I am the most weedily insecure about. For that reason, I’m not going to reveal anything about it until I’m absolutely sure it is going to get done. I trust this shock disclosure hasn’t ruined your day.

More news on all of the above as and when I have some to report. In the meantime, I’m still engaged by William Boyd’s London-set novel Armadillo (page 263 out of 374) and still enjoying spotting clues about how things have changed since its publication in 1998. I’ve already mentioned how very much pre-smoking ban it is. Here’s another passage that might need to be written differently today:

“He drove straight up Holland Park Avenue through Notting Hill Gate and the Bayswater Road to Marble Arch, then down Park Lane, Constitution Hill, left at Westminster Bridge and on to Victoria Embankment. Lorimer could not explain why he decided to turn off the Embankment, but the idea came to him suddenly and he decided to follow it at once.”

No Congestion Charge? No bike lanes? Not yet.

This article was originally published at John Vane: London Stories. Frightgeist is available here and only here

OnLondon.co.uk is funded by sales of publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To start receiving it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s personal Substack or follow any Support link on this site. Thanks.

Categories: Culture, John Vane's London Stories

Richard Brown: AI will be big in London. How can we make its growth good?

Sir Sadiq Khan was right to highlight the potentially “colossal” impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on London and its economy in his Mansion House speech last week, but “controlling” this still-emerging technology may be a tall order.

As the Mayor argued, the dominance of knowledge economy sectors in the city puts London “at the sharpest edge of change”. Three such sectors – information and communication, finance and insurance, and professional, scientific and technical services –  account for 31 per cent of jobs in the capital, almost twice as many as across the UK.

These are the roles that are most exposed to AI. Human-centric, a report written by me and published by University of London in October, argued that generative AI’s ability to “precis, to research, to generate ‘ideas’, to structure arguments and data, and to produce text and images make it a close fit for tasks that are core to knowledge economy roles”. AI boosters and think tanks alike predict that these sectors may be as dramatically shaken up as agriculture and manufacturing were during previous spates of technological change.

However, the impact is hard to discern at the moment. There may have been a fall in graduate recruitment, but the evidence is contested and the impact of AI hard to disentangle from other factors. And corporate adoption of generative AI has been slow. This is partly about accuracy and accountability, but also reflects the ways in which generative AI use is spreading: individual workers are using chatbots on mobile phones and desktops rather than technology introduced through complex, top-down corporate roll-outs.

But it is still early days, only three years since ChatGPT 3.5 was launched, even if it seems longer. And so, while things may feel calm for the moment, there could be a storm coming, with London’s economy directly in its path. The impact on employment could, as the Mayor said, be dramatic.

It bears repeating that generative AI does not simply “take jobs”. The technology can be used to support particular tasks (“augmentation”) or to fully automate those tasks (“substitution”). If this saves time and money, it boosts productivity: more output for the same input.

Productivity gains may be realised by redeploying workers to build more products or serve more customers, or to develop new products and services. Such gains can also be shared with workers in the forms of reduced hours or higher pay. But they can also be cashed in, to return money to shareholders or taxpayers, through “efficiency savings” – that is to say, job losses.

There are ways to slow this down, but they are not necessarily desirable. The US think tank Brookings has proposed a “robot tax” on automation to tip the balance in favour of keeping humans in work (and to create revenues that could support workers who lose out).

Regulations could also be used to slow AI adoption. But keeping humans working on tasks that could be done more efficiently by AI makes productivity gains much harder to achieve and poses a particular threat to cities like London, which export and compete globally. We can throttle back AI adoption here, but will Singapore, New York and Dubai follow suit?

London is actually well-placed to seize the opportunities that come with AI: the city is a world leader for AI investment and innovation, with a highly educated, cosmopolitan population and a bedrock of world-class universities. The city is also a centre for innovation, for creating new products and services, and for the highly personalised and specialised professional services that may be most resistant to automation.

Even if AI adoption in London leads to job losses, history suggests that technological change leads to the creation of as many jobs as it destroys. We have done this before: automation of London stock market transactions – part of the Big Bang of 1986 – took work away from hordes of back-office clerical staff, who previously had to reconcile every trade on paper. These jobs went, but new jobs – in IT, as analysts, in compliance – led to a net growth in financial services employment.

That said, there is a time lag, and the net gain in jobs can obscure the traumatic impact on those people who lose out. The Mayor’s commitment to offer AI training to all Londoners will be valuable. Human-centric argues that universities should play a part too, helping workers to develop the skills they will need to thrive in and shape the new world– part of the much vaunted shift towards lifelong learning.

Universities can also ensure that the next generation of graduates has the resilience and skills to thrive. This is partly a matter of technical skills, but also about knowing how to use a deceptively “easy” resource critically and ethically, putting this in the context of a wider understanding of citizens and society, and nurturing the human skills – of judgement, understanding, collaboration – that employers still see as paramount.

The Mayor’s Mansion House speech touched on a bigger issue too: the “unprecedented concentration of wealth and power” that could result from AI adoption. The risk is that productivity gains from the use of AI flow mainly to big tech companies and their shareholders, rather than to workers and the public at large. This is beyond the reach of city or even national governments, but will become increasingly urgent if AI adoption does create a boom. What good is growth if its fruits flow to a few people in Silicon Valley?

There are ideas out there – from a levy based on how many hours of computational time individuals and firms use, to an endowment that takes a proportion of the value of AI companies launching on the stock markets and uses it endow a “universal basic income” that enables everyone to share in the benefits of AI.

However, adopting any of them will require a level of international cooperation that seems almost impossibly remote in today’s fractured geopolitical climate. Perhaps this is an issue where cities can take the lead, hoping that their national governments will catch up over time.

Follow Richard Brown on Bluesky.

OnLondon.co.uk is funded by sales of publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To start receiving it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s personal Substack or follow any Support link on this site. Thanks.

Categories: Comment

True London Podcast: The 2026 borough elections landscape

This doesn’t need a lot of introduction. Readers of On London and many other outlets will be familiar with the work of Lewis Baston, who is one of the country’s very best elections analysts and has a richly detailed understanding of the capital’s complex electoral landscape.

Lewis and I will be working closely together to provide what we hope will be top-drawer coverage of the 2026 London borough elections, following on from our joint efforts in 2018 and 2022.

We will be collaborating closely with others too, all with the aim of providing Londoners (and everyone else) with an in-depth and enjoyable understanding of the forthcoming democratic contests to win control of the capital’s 32 councils, culminating in voting on 7 May.

Big theme? Voter loyalties shifting away from the old “big two” parties towards an array of others in different quantities in different places with unpredictable and possibly chaotic effects. Let Lewis talk you through it.

Follow Dave Hill on Bluesky. Follow Lewis Baston on Bluesky too. Subscribe to Dave Hill’s YouTube channel here.

OnLondon.co.uk is funded by sales of publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To start receiving it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s personal Substack or follow any Support link on this site. Thanks.

Categories: Analysis