Blog

Vic Keegan’s Lost London 129: Brunel the elder’s wondrous tunnel

If you take the Tube between Rotherhithe and Wapping stations you will be travelling through the eighth wonder of the world which, in its time, was also the most successful tourist attraction on the planet.

That is what it became when it opened in 1843 as the world’s first underwater tunnel. Built by the redoubtable Anglicanised Frenchman Sir Marc Brunel – helped by his son Isambard – it was originally designed to convey horse-driven cargo under the Thames. The aim was to avoid the hassle of having to cross the surface of the river, with thousands of ships sailing along it in both directions each day.

Digging started in 1825 on the Rotherhithe side of the river, but soon ran into horrendous problems of fire, flooding, subsidence and foul air and was closed for seven years.Work started again in 1834 with the help of a loan from the Treasury. Five and a half years later, hugely over budget, it reached the other side of the Thames but it was not opened to the public until 1843.

The tunnel wasn’t wide enough to accommodate vehicles and the builders couldn’t afford the money for the ramps needed for lifting cargo onto trucks, so it began as a tunnel for pedestrians only.

Then came the surprise – an amazing 1.4 million people came to see the eighth wonder of the world in its first four months and two million in the first year, making it the most successful tourist attraction on the planet. Visitors came from around the world to see the first tunnel of its kind, even though the curmudgeonly Victorian essayist Augustus J Hare described it as “this long useless passage under the river”.

Img 3290

The tunnel was built with innovative building techniques involving a slowly advancing rectangular cage, the principle of which has continued to guide the construction of underground tunnels across the world, including the Channel Tunnel and Crossrail.

Miners would dig inside a protective frame, leaving bricklayers to construct a retaining wall as they moved very slowly forward. Incredibly, Marc Brunel based the design on how the shipworm Toredo navalis bores into ships’ timbers by excreting the bored wood and using it to re-inforce the tunnel as it moves along – a marvellous example of engineering mirroring nature.

The project was not without tragic consequences. The tunnel flooded five times. Six men died during the construction and Brunel Junior narrowly escaped with his own life during one of the floods.

In 1865 the East London railway company purchased it, and four years later trains started to run through the tunnel. In those days, the trains were steam-driven with no ventilation shafts, so it cannot have been a relaxing journey.

The tunnel is still there, more or less as it was, and you can journey through it on the train. If you start from the Wapping side of the river you can see the twin Victorian shafts at the end of the platform (photo above).

If you go to the nearby Brunel Museum – a must for anyone with an interest in Britain’s industrial history and the genius of the Brunels – you can tread on the floor of the large tunnel entrance shaft, where father and son were often to be seen. This was another Marc Brunel first. He built a large brick tower and allowed it to sink under its own weight, avoiding the need to dig a big hole and line it with bricks. On a side wall there is the original pipe which Thames water was pumped up to prevent the tunnel from flooding. It is still doing the same job today.

Img 3270

The museum is planning a major reconstruction, but it is absolutely worth a visit as it is now in order to get immersed in one of the amazing achievements of the Industrial Revolution. If you have time, walk a little way eastwards along the Thames and you will see the remains of the launching pad of Isambard’s Great Eastern, which was the largest ship in the world at the time and held that record for 40 years. This part of the river should be renamed Brunel-on-Thames.

Photographs by Vic Keegan. All previous instalments of Vic’s Lost London series can be found here.

OnLondon.co.uk is dedicated to improving the standard of coverage of London’s politics, development and culture. It depends on donations from readers. Can you spare £5 (or more) a month? Follow this link if you would like to help. Thank you.

 

Categories: Culture, Lost London

Rory Stewart campaign: energy, grip and the London of 700 villages

Resplendent in a suit of midnight blue, Rory Stewart arrived 15 minutes late, explaining that what he called his “strange and sinister” attire had been donned for an event he’d just come from that entailed sharing a stage with John Bercow – it seems the former House of Commons Speaker had had a lot to say. It’s safe to assume that the function to which Stewart now turned his attention was less grand and also, perhaps, more satisfying: a gathering of around 50 people at the home of the Azbuka Russian-English Bilingual School in Studland Street W6, near Ravenscourt Park Underground station. It was the former warzone diplomat’s latest staging post in his uphill City Hall charm offensive.

Stewart’s ten-minute opening speech reprised motifs he’s been deploying since early on in his London Mayor campaign, announced last October and cementing his uncoupling from the Conservative Party and re-birth as a roving Independent. The “key thing” about London is that it is “not one single place”, he said, but “700 villages, each with its own identity”. The challenge for him as Mayor would be “bringing those communities to life and bringing them together”. Underlying this, he continued, are “three fundamental things we need to get right for London before we can make the human city of which we dream”. He stressed that those three things are “quite basic”: safety, affordable housing and transport.

Elaborating, he drew on a unifying thread of his campaign pitch: a promise to bring a relentless practicality to bear on getting those “quite basic” things done. Violent crime of many kinds has become too prevalent in the capital, he said, but “we can turn this around” – as prisons minister (from January 2018 until May 2019) he had driven down the levels of violence in jails by “getting the basics right”. He said a public health approach is part of the answer, as is better ground-level engagement to turn people away from crime, but “don’t let anyone tell you this can be done without [more] police on the streets”.

On housing, his remarks were more limited and the more intriguing for it. He stressed the need for more affordable homes, for nurses and teachers, for families, for young and for old. “And we can deliver them,” he said. “The mistake that has been made is to try to deliver it exclusively through the private sector. We have huge resources: public land, and the public should be leading the programme in delivering that affordable housing.” Asked later to elucidate, he declined, explaining that a large housing policy announcement will be coming soon, and that he didn’t want to give too much away.

With transport, Stewart underlined that he would seek to be very hands on, especially on “basic issues of management of things like roadworks”. His “hero” and model for a good mayor is New York’s former boss Mike Bloomberg who, Stewart said, had “all the way around the walls, big screens” showing him what was happening on the city’s roads.

He then warmed to his “700 villages” theme. “I want to think of it in terms of creating a village hall in every one of those 700 villages,” he said. By that he meant “a place which can function as a youth club, or as a community centre, a place where children can go to do their homework who may find themselves unable to do it in a noisy home. A place where great local people – people that you know – that champion an area can bring it together and tap into the extraordinary desire for volunteering.” To close, he spoke of “delivering with energy and grip” and “laying the foundations to build a great new city. The way we do that is with you – with every single one of you – and above all, with less politics and more action.”

Img 1790

A youthful team of volunteers was on hand to recruit more to the cause – more door-knockers, leafleters, small sum donors. Stewart said he has 10,000 volunteers signed up, but he wants more and he needs them to be active. He told his audience, the bulk of it supportive, that “we are insurgents, we are underdogs,” but that he really can win the election if he get his campaign “in front of enough people”. The goal is to emerge as the main challenger to the incumbent, who, so far as can be told, looks to have a healthy lead: “If I come close to Sadiq Khan in the first round, the second preferences of the Conservative candidate are likely to come across to me and many of the Lib Dems’ and Greens’ votes. An Independent candidate is in a very strong position win in the second round”.

The analysis is sound: that path to victory is steep and narrow, but it exists. In past mayoral elections, too much has been made of the importance of “second prefs” under the supplementary vote system, as too few have counted to enable a second-placed candidate to overtake the first round leader. Last time, Khan mopped up most of them, probably because Zac Goldsmith’s shockingly negative Conservative campaign nauseated Liberal Democrat and Green Party first preference voters. This time, Stewart’s candidacy could well split the Tory-leaning first preference vote. But if he does finish second he might indeed take the lion’s share of what might be a much larger number of second preference votes in play.

His big problem, of course, is that although Tory candidate Shaun Bailey appears to be struggling and not having much fun, the Tory brand, albeit badly faded in London of late, is still a big one. The most recent opinion poll, published in November, found that Stewart, though new to the field, had made his presence felt, overtaking both Lib Dem Siobhan Benita and Green Siân Berry. Yet the gap between him and Bailey in second place was still large, with Khan bowling along way out in front. Benita and Berry will not be standing idly by either.

How far can Stewart go? The meeting in Hammersmith was both novel and familiar: novel, because Stewart himself is, with his background experience of yomping across his old parliamentary turf in Cumbria and pow-powing with all-comers in Iraq and Afghanistan; familiar, because Stewart is a professional political communicator – as polished as he is personable – and because some of the biggest and most persistent of London’s problems might prove as resistant to his proposed remedies as they have been to those of every Mayor so far.

A feature of the evening was Stewart criticising Khan for continuing to allow public land owned by Transport for London and the Metropolitan Police to be sold as a means of closing those two public bodies’ budget gaps (more on that here). He said he would prefer the land kept in public hands and a longer-term, perhaps less immediately lucrative approach, to developing those assets taken instead.

He also criticised London boroughs, Labour and Tory alike, of being too keen to extract “short term cash” from property deals, and was challenged about this by a clued-up audience member, who said that boroughs have become so starved of funds that they have little option about taking that route. And Mayors are dependent on government funds to help finance affordable homes themselves. Stewart replied that Mayors set down rules for housing heights, types and affordable ratios through the London Plan, but that wasn’t quite answering the question. There’s no escaping the dependency on high intensity private development to fund things the public purse struggles to cover – borough budgets, affordable homes, street improvements, even Tube extensions as in Nine Elms – only a debate about the terms of the trade-off.

Neither is there any avoiding the fact that London remains heavily dependent on national government for much else that it needs. Stewart bemoaned the aged state of Piccadilly Line signalling, but how will a new system be paid for if Boris Johnson doesn’t fancy coughing up? Not very easily. As for rationalising the digging up of roads, let’s just say Stewart wouldn’t be the first to try.

Much to probe then, but also plenty to enjoy. Stewart’s campaign is refreshing and his style, engaging. The patron of the school where the neighbourhood meeting took place is Chelsea & Fulham Tory MP Greg Hands, who just happens to be chair of Shaun Bailey’s campaign – an indicator of how embedded Conservatism continues to be in his part of the city, despite its position being eroded in recent years. Yet it also a part of town where Stewart’s pitch – localist, centre-ish, and often redolent of David Cameron’s long lost Big Society ideas – could hold great appeal.

An Independent has, of course, won a London Mayor election before – the inaugural one in 2000, when Ken Livingstone, another highly individual politician who was big on “bobbies on the beat”, triumphed over the big party machines. Khan is characterising the mayoral race as a two-horse one between himself and what he calls “Boris Johnson’s Tory candidate”. He might be right. But Rory Stewart cannot be counted out just yet.

OnLondon.co.uk is committed to providing the best possible coverage of the 2020 London Mayor and London Assembly election campaigns. The site is small but influential and it depends on donations from readers. Individual sums or regular monthly contributions are very welcome indeed. Click here to donate via PayPal or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thank you.

 

Categories: Analysis

Rory Stewart accuses Sadiq Khan of ‘daft’ public land sell offs to ‘subsidise’ police and TfL

Rory Stewart has described the disposal of land owned by the Metropolitan Police and Transport for London under Sadiq Khan as “short term and daft”, as “no way to finance things” and as “blowing” London public assets that ought to be preserved for future generations.

Speaking at a meeting in Hammersmith on Thursday, the former Conservative minister, who is running for Mayor as an Independent, said assets from the Met and TfL estates worth a total of £2 billion “have been sold off in about the last five years” as a means of alleviating budgetary pressures.

Responding to a question from an audience member, Stewart said: “Because these institutions are under financial pressure, that money is basically eaten. What was your asset for your children, your grandchildren, we’re blowing on subsidising the running costs of the Tube or the police. Eventually you’re going to run out of land.”

Khan has placed his own requirements on TfL under an approach that was begun under the previous Mayor, Boris Johnson. While the Met has been selling land outright for the highest possible return, notably the former Scotland Yard building in Whitehall, TfL has primarily entered into partnerships with developers and housing associations to build out sites for residential and retail use, thereby retaining a financial interest. Khan has insisted on 50 per cent of housing on schemes agreed under his mayoralty meeting his definition of “genuinely affordable”.

Stewart however asked rhetorically if Khan is “selling off the crown jewels”, and advocated instead “moving to a longer term model”, where public bodies under the control of the Mayor “continue to own that land, get perhaps a smaller but longer-term incremental income over 50 or a 100 years, and adjust their finances accordingly. He [Khan] has taken it from the capital account and put it in the current account. He should not have done that.”

The remarks, reminiscent of ex-Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s likening Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation policies to selling the family silver, precede a promised major housing policy announcement by Stewart in the coming days.

Describing improving the supply of affordable homes as one of “three fundamental things we need to get right” along with community safety and transport, Stewart said, “The mistake that has been made is to try to deliver them exclusively through the private sector.” He referred to London still having “huge resources” of public land and said “the public should be leading the programme in delivering that affordable housing”. Asked later by On London to enlarge on these points he declined, saying he would rather wait until the housing policy initiative is launched.

Stewart was also critical of London boroughs, both Labour and Conservatives, saying they have been guilty of “trying to get as much short term cash as possible” out of development projects and he expressed regret that a lot of these have taken place on what was “originally public land”.

He also took issue with Khan’s general approach to being Mayor, saying Khan appears to think “the point of the position is to symbolise London or to make a speech, not to run the city”. Stewart described leadership as being “about energy and grip and detail” and said he felt that Khan did not see the job of Mayor in that way.

OnLondon.co.uk is committed to providing the best possible coverage of the 2020 London Mayor and London Assembly election campaigns. The site is small but influential and it depends on donations from readers. Individual sums or regular monthly contributions are very welcome indeed. Click here to donate via PayPal or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thank you.

 

 

 

Categories: News

Mayor’s London Plan approved despite Tory ‘war on suburbs’ claim

Sadiq Khan’s draft London Plan has has cleared one of its final hurdles , with London Assembly members yesterday overturning a last-ditch attempt by Conservatives to reject the draft and force the mayor back to the drawing board.

The Plan is the development blueprint for the capital, setting out policies which must be taken into account when planning decisions are taken at borough level. Government approval, the last stage of a protracted process which began in 2017, is now imminent, with communities secretary Robert Jenrick to give his verdict by February 17.

While rejection of the Plan, requiring a two-thirds majority, was always unlikely given the Labour-dominated political make-up of the Assembly, the debate…unlikely given the Labour-dominated political make-up of the Assembly, but the debate highlighted some key themes for the forthcoming London Mayor and Assembly elections, with Conservative AM Andrew Boff accusing Khan of a “war on the suburbs” and fellow Tory Tony Devenish suggesting Khan would be known as the “skyscraper mayor”.

The Plan threatens “the character of our city”, Boff said, telling Khan: “With your encouragement of tall buildings, your lack of respect for the problem of overcrowding, your general encouragement to build on back gardens, lack of respect for the kind of housing and parking standards that are required in Outer London, does this plan not amount to little more than a war on the suburbs?”

Labour members were less demonstrative: “Most of us would agree that there are low density areas in Outer London where there could be an intensification of housing,” said veteran AM and former statutory deputy mayor Nicky Gavron. 

The Plan is a “bold attempt to recalibrate development,” she said, by reinstating the target in a previous Plan for half of all housing to be genuinely affordable, protecting the Green Belt, seeking to meet housing need within the city’s boundaries and transferring key decision-making to the boroughs.

“The boroughs will decide how tall their tall buildings will be and whether a particular density is in character with their area. It is the boroughs that will set the targets for all tenures in terms of size mix,” she said.

A “one size fits all” approach was not appropriate, added deputy mayor for planning Jules Pipe. Nor was the Plan about “tower blocks in the middle of Acacia Avenue”, he said. Instead, it envisaged “two or three-storey mansion blocks” on unused land instead of “two semis with four or five parking spaces”.

Pipe confirmed City Hall’s tough stance against development on London’s Green Belt – which comprises 22 per cent of the city’s land area – despite the inspectors who scrutinised the Plan last year finding that the Mayor’s approach was inconsistent with national planning policy that allows changes to the protected zone in exceptional circumstances.

The debate is at the heart of what Khan called London’s planning policy “conundrum” – how to meet the need for 65,000 new homes a year within the city’s boundaries, while simultaneously protecting the Green Belt in its entirety and not only retaining but also adding to industrial floorspace were necessary.

The policy, including its “no net loss” of designated strategic industrial floorspace, was inevitably “pushing developers towards the Green Belt”, said Tory AM and newly-elected MP for Orpington Gareth Bacon, echoing Tory mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey, who said last week that there were “enough brownfield sites in London so we don’t have to build on the Green Belt”. 

But it was a “myth” that there are “acres and acres of unused industrial land lying around that could be used for housing,” said Pipe. Industrial land was “at a premium”, more valuable in west London than land zoned for housing, for example, and population growth was fuelling demand for more distribution space in particular. “We can’t rely on big sheds in Luton and all those vans coming down the M1,” he said.

The Khan approach of “optimising rather than maximising density” through mixed uses as well as “intensification”, has already suffered under the inspectors’ recommendation that his “small sites” development targets for housing were unrealistic and that the overall housing target should be brought down from 65,000 to 52,000 homes a year, leaving the Mayor’s aspirations some way short of meeting the capital’s housing need as identified in City Hall analysis.

Conservative ministers have previously suggested that even Khan’s original targets underestimated London’s housing need. But with the inspectors warning of insufficient capacity both for housing and for industrial land and the mayoral election impending, they have a conundrum of their own: whether to uphold their own Green Belt policy in the face of blanket opposition from members of their own party on the Assembly, some of them representing Outer London areas.

And as Khan told the Assembly yesterday: “The bad news is that we are nowhere near even getting to the target of 52,000.”

Photo of house in Hammersmith by Omar Jan.

OnLondon.co.uk is committed to providing the best possible coverage of the 2020 London Mayor and London Assembly election campaigns. The site is small but influential and it depends on donations from readers. Individual sums or regular monthly contributions are very welcome indeed. Click here to donate via PayPal or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thank you.

Categories: News

New report confirms that London has UK’s highest poverty rates

A major report on poverty levels in the United Kingdom has underlined that many of the areas most badly affected are in its capital city. The report, compiled by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) and published today, finds that in recent years London has had “a higher poverty rate than any other UK area” at 28 per cent, followed by the north east and west midlands of England and by Wales, all on 24 per cent.

Londoners who work part-time are found to have “significantly higher rates of poverty” than those in other areas of the country, with the rate in that category lately rising to 34 per cent, which is 11 per cent higher than part-time workers in the next worst-affected region. London also has the joint highest poverty rate for full-time workers, according to the report, running at 13 per cent along with Wales.

Poverty rates for people in “pensioner families” are also the highest in London at 23 per cent. The report says that this has been the case since 2002/03 with the gap widening since then, except by comparison with Wales. A greater proportion of such families, 58 per cent, claim an income-related benefit than anywhere else in the UK, with the next highest figure, 50 per cent, in the West Midlands.

Households in poverty in London also have the least affordable housing available to them, along with those in the South East and East of England. London social renters are among those most likely to be in poverty, with 49 per cent calculated to fall into the category – the third highest rate in the UK after the West Midlands and Wales.

Responding to the JRF figures, Muhammed Butt, executive member for welfare, empowerment and inclusion with cross-party body London Councils, said: “In contrast to the simplistic myth-making about London, the streets here aren’t paved with gold. London has among the highest poverty rates in the UK, with the most severe pensioner and in-work poverty and two-thirds of the national homelessness total. The government is making positive noises about levelling up the country but needs to boost support for deprived communities everywhere – including the capital.”

The JFR report’s conclusions are in line with analysis produced last year by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which found that London has the highest rate of poverty in Britain, including the most severe levels.

OnLondon.co.uk is dedicated to improving the standard of coverage of London’s politics, development and culture. It depends on donations from readers. Can you spare £5 (or more) a month? Follow this link if you would like to help. Thank you.

Categories: News

Caroline Russell: London needs smart road-pricing now

Road transport in the capital is a high speed car chase, hurtling us towards climate catastrophe, belching toxic air pollution as we head towards the point of no return. We need to hit the brakes hard on this out-of-control vehicle.

While the congestion charge and ultra low emission zone (ULEZ) have dampened demand on our roads, traffic has started to creep up again. Bus, Tube and train trips are down and the growth in cycle journeys has decelerated. The car is still clinging on to its crown as king of the road.

To really reduce the amount of unnecessary vehicle trips on our roads, we need smart, fair road pricing. I have been asking the Mayor since 2017 to introduce this on our roads to curb unnecessary vehicle journeys, without penalising people making infrequent trips.

Currently, the flat rate fee for the congestion charge or ULEZ means there are no time restrictions on driving within the zone, so once a driver has paid for the day there’s no penalty for driving more, leading to clogged-up roads and more harmful emissions. London’s drivers lose up to £1,680 or 227 hours per year due to congestion, making it the bottleneck capital of the UK and the sixth most grid-locked city globally.

Smart, fair road pricing is an idea whose time has come and London should be leading the way in transport innovation, as it has for the last 150 years. London was the first city to have an underground railway and the first to electrify it. The start of the 21st century brought in the capital’s unified transport system under Transport for London, which has enabled successive Mayors to bring in the Oyster card, hire bikes, congestion charging, cycleways and now the ULEZ.

TfL would have the perfect opportunity to collect movement data and, using the rapid technological advances in app-enabled transport, they could be far more clever about charging drivers to use roads. This would, of course, only be supported when proper privacy protection is in place to ensure any data was completely secure and anonymised.

It would be entirely possible to charge drivers for the distance they travel and by how polluting their car is, while taking into account the time of day and surrounding levels of congestion and pollution, as well as the availability of public transport. This would mean that if you chose to drive around in a polluting 4×4 in an area with good transport links and high pollution, you would be charged more than someone in a small car making a journey that couldn’t be done using the Tube or rail network instead. 

London is trailing Singapore, Stockholm, Gothenburg and Milan, where versions of such road charging are already happening. Their experiences show that quite modest charges can stimulate significant change, with cuts in traffic ranging from nine percent in Gothenburg (a city already quite keen on active travel and cycling) to 47 per cent in Milan.

Think tank Centre for London found that if drivers on the most congested streets are charged the equivalent of a bus ticket, emissions and air pollution could be reduced by up to a fifth. It is the very fact of having to pay that makes people reassess their options, as the number of people actually charged can be very small. In Stockholm, 75 per cent of the congestion charges paid by private vehicles come from just over one per cent of residents.

The money raised from smart, fair road pricing would bring in much-needed revenue to TfL which could be spent on improving public transport and conditions for walking and cycling. 

London bus speeds have fallen to below nine miles per hour for the first time ever, and cutting congestion would make bus journeys more reliable – and more popular than the Mayor’s hopper fare has managed. Reducing the volume of vehicles on our roads also has an immediate and substantial health benefit: a report by the Forum of International Respiratory Societies’ Environmental Committee found that the number of air pollution related deaths goes down within weeks. Incidences of asthma attacks, premature births and work and school absenteeism also decrease.

It could also save lives, as roads with less traffic become less dangerous and the number of crashes reduces. Smart, fair road pricing should be part of the Mayor’s Vision Zero transport strategy, with its aim of eradicating road deaths and serious injuries from our roads by 2041.

Finally, reducing traffic on the capital’s roads would also bring down CO2 emissions. We have just ten years to keep global warming within safe levels and we cannot wait any longer before putting a foot on the brake. The next Mayor must be bold enough to take the final step before it is too late. Any mayoral manifesto that doesn’t include smart, fair road pricing is not only not fit for purpose, but also marching us further towards a climate catastrophe. 

Photograph by Omar Jan. Caroline Russell is a Green Party member of the London Assembly and chair of its environment committee. Follow Caroline on Twitter.

OnLondon.co.uk is committed to providing the best possible coverage of the 2020 London Mayor and London Assembly election campaigns. The site is small but influential and it depends on donations from readers. Individual sums or regular monthly contributions are very welcome indeed. Click here to donate via PayPal or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories: Comment

Lewis Baston: London needs friendships with fellow European cities as it faces a rough ride with Boris Johnson

Brexit itself is bad enough for London. Putting up trade and travel barriers is never going to be good for a cosmopolitan world city that lives on its wits and thrives on interaction with different cultures. But the particular way it is being done is likely to make it even worse. The government’s forecast of the impact of Hard Brexit on the economy showed that London would be hit less badly than other regions, but the political climate means it would be rash to imagine that would be the end of it.

A more resilient London would exacerbate the anti-metropolitan politics of resentment within England and probably result in increasing demands to make the capital poorer in order to cushion the landing for regions that voted for the Brexit project. The Johnson/Cummings government’s impatience with scrutiny and with following rules and conventions, and the impotence of anyone post-election to do anything about it, promise a rough ride for London.

Even though the UK as a whole has left the EU, there are different ways of going about what happens next. Sadiq Khan has struck a consciously different note from the UK government, stressing London’s openness and the links that will (or should) survive the process. London still has its European friends among the big cities. There is friendly rivalry with places such as Paris, Berlin and Amsterdam as they try to attract financial and creative businesses that are feeling the cold in London. But there are also allies further east who might have fellow feelings that go even deeper.

In December 2019 the capital cities of the “Visegrad Four” – Budapest, Warsaw, Prague and Bratislava – formed a pact. While several national governments in central and eastern Europe espouse authoritarian nationalism, their cities have seen a rebirth of liberal politics. Even though the mayors of the four are a Green, a notionally centre-right liberal, a Pirate and a liberal independent, they have formed a grouping based on common values that London’s government shares. According to the Mayor of Warsaw, quoted in the Financial Times: “We have difficult governments but we are very much committed to European values, to democracy, openness and freedom. We’ve all fought for inclusiveness of our cities… In [these] difficult days when some of our governments are turning lukewarm towards European integration, we need a strong signal that when it comes to local government and strong cities, we want to do something together.”

The Visegrad capitals are concerned by the way national governments handle the financial flows between EU, centre and locality. The national government in Hungary in particular has funnelled EU funds to areas that are politically supportive and has threatened to cut off assistance to opposition-controlled municipalities. Friends, relatives and supporters of the ruling party have also received more than their share of the funds. EU monitoring has been slow and often ineffective, although the Hungarian government was forced to repay EUR1.5 billion of its 2014-20 support because of mismanagement. The new Commission and the Green Deal offer opportunities for direct funding of cities which are the delivery agencies for transport and housing, bypassing the national governments.

The UK was always a law-abiding recipient of EU funds, which were spent as required in deprived areas or along the border in Ireland. But post-Brexit there are no guarantees that objective criteria for the provision of assistance to regions will still be respected or that the process will be rule-governed rather than corrupt or politicised. Ventures such as the “Towns Fund” – engineered to channel sums towards marginal parliamentary seats – do not give grounds for confidence. The Visegrad capitals, like London, face centralised states that use them as cash cows to redistribute funds to politically-favoured areas while at the same time denouncing them as cosmopolitan anti-national elements in the body politic.

In the context of the London Mayor election campaign, it is worth keeping an eye on how much central government will try to coerce London into conforming. On 11 January Shaun Bailey’s press office tweeted:

“So, do you want a candidate who will make it their number one priority to tackle crime? Or do you want Jeremy Corbyn’s man in London? Someone who isn’t delivering and will never get a good deal from the government.”

One tweet doesn’t make a strategy, but the undertone of this statement from the Conservative mayoral campaign is a little perturbing. It hints that the government will punish London for electing the wrong kind of Mayor. This would not be out of character for Tory ministers: in 2013, the now former transport secretary Chris Grayling opposed incorporating south London railway lines into the Overground for the overtly partisan reason that he wanted to “keep suburban rail services out of the clutches of any future Labour Mayor”. Withholding money from local authorities worked extremely well in redistributing blame for austerity cuts to urban areas in the north and midlands, and explicitly bashing London will work with the grain of the anti-metropolitan politics that has become commonplace in England. In some ways, the process is further advanced in Britain than it is in the Visegrad countries.

Later this month, Mayor Khan will greet his visiting Budapest counterpart Gergely Karacsony to reaffirm the ties that bind London to Europe. London has been a friend of Hungarian liberty for many years. One of my favourite London stories is the humiliation of the visiting Austrian general von Haynau by angry working-class Londoners in Southwark in 1850 in revenge for his repression of the Hungarians the previous year. Khan and Karacsony have much to talk as leaders of liberal cities finding their way in the cold climate of nationalism.

Photograph from TfL. Lewis Baston is writing a book about the borders and borderlands of Europe.

OnLondon.co.uk is dedicated to improving the standard of coverage of London’s politics, development and culture. It depends on donations from readers. Can you spare £5 (or more) a month? Follow this link if you would like to help. Thank you.

 

Categories: Comment

Watchdog calls on London Mayor candidates to ‘put transport users first’ in election manifestos

The official watchdog for transport users in and around the capital has challenged London Mayor candidates to “put transport users first” when they compile their manifestos by drawing on its priorities for improving the experience of passengers and pedestrians. It calls for:

  • Increasing the speeds of bus journey by addressing road congestion and giving buses greater priority on roads.
  • Ensuring London’s streets and pavements are level and clear of obstacles such as “A-boards“.
  • Securing “delays repay compensation” as a standard entitlement for every occasion when an Underground, Overground or National Rail service is delayed by 15 minutes or more.
  • Ensuring better public transport access to London’s airports.
  • Introducing better “instant communication” with passengers through social media channels when journeys are disrupted.
  • Extending contactless fare payments to all rail stations including those serving London airports.

London TravelWatch, a body sponsored and funded by the London Assembly, is keen to discuss these proposals and the six broader priority areas they are an expression of with candidates.

Last month, it urged Transport for London to take “urgent action” over a decline in average bus speeds across the capital, which it believes accounts for a fall in ridership and a resulting significant loss of revenue from the capital’s most-used public transport service.

The call to clear and level pavements is in line with the wishes of charity Living Streets, which promotes the interests of pedestrians and has already asked mayoral candidates to  to look at improving the experience of getting around the capital on foot.

Writing for On London, former TfL surface transport chief Leon Daniels has advanced the case for a “self-healing city”, a concept that includes people being quickly informed about alternative routes if their journeys are interrupted.

London TravelWatch director Emma Gibson said: “The Mayor has a huge influence on our transport system, and transport is likely to be a big theme in the election and beyond. Our six transport priorities are based on what transport users are telling us they want, and many of them could be brought in cheaply and implemented quickly.”

Photograph by Omar Jan.

OnLondon.co.uk is committed to providing the best possible coverage of the 2020 London Mayor and London Assembly election campaigns. The site is small but influential and it depends on donations from readers. Individual sums or regular monthly contributions are very welcome indeed. Click here to donate via PayPal or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thank you.

 

 

 

Categories: News