Blog

Caroline Pidgeon to speak at London Brexit debate

Dave Hill

Liberal Democrat London Assembly Member and former London Mayor candidate Caroline Pidgeon is to speak at the forthcoming debate about what Brexit will mean for the capital organised by On London and the London Society.

Pidgeon will join Labour peer, former minister and leading anti-Brexit campaigner Andrew Adonis in making the case that Brexit will be bad for London at the event to be held on 13 September at Conway Hall.

Also already booked to speak is Daniel Moylan, a senior London Conservative who worked for leading Brexiter Boris Johnson when he was London Mayor, largely on transport issues. Moylan has argued that a successful Brexit will make London more global.

Pidgeon, who is a member of the Assembly’s EU Exit Working Group, has warned that pulling out of Europe could result in London losing billions of pounds in investment in major infrastructure projects, because it will no longer have access to the European Investment Bank. Like London Mayor Sadiq Khan, she has also expressed concern that Brexit could undermine the security of London and the rest of the UK.

The London Brexit debate is the second event On London and the 100 year-old London Society have organised together. The first, on regeneration, took place in June and was sold out. Reduced price tickets for the London Brexit debate are available for a limited period here.

Categories: News
Tags: Andrew Adonis, Boris Johnson, Brexit, Caroline Pidgeon, Daniel Moylan, European Union

Haringey: ‘Corbyn Council’ set to kill off plans for multi million pound youth activities scheme

Charles Wright

Haringey’s new “Corbyn Council” was in the news last week for pulling the plug on the previous Labour administration’s proposed development vehicle, which would have delivered 6,400 new homes across the borough, 40 per cent of them affordable. Ditching the plan will cost the council at least £520,000 and there is a threat of a legal claim for “loss of profits and costs”.

Under the radar, however, another costly decision has slipped out quietly. In a written answer to a question tabled at the full council meeting on 16 July, Mark Blake, the new cabinet member for communities, safety and engagement, revealed that a report would be presented in September “recommending that we halt the proposals for a Youth Zone in Haringey”.

The announcement appears to kill off plans which were approved in March this year – shortly before the borough elections which brought about the change in the council leadership – for a £6.5m investment in youth facilities in Wood Green, comprising £3.5m capital investment and £900,000 a year revenue via the charity OnSide, plus a further £3m capital and £250,000 a year revenue contribution from the council itself.

The purpose-built Youth Zone, on unused school land, would have offered daily affordable activities for more than 200 young people each evening, including “open access” sports, arts and social activities alongside targeted support in employment, mentoring and physical and emotional wellbeing, according to a council report.

The then council leader Claire Kober said the Youth Zone would have provided facilities the council would have been unable to supply alone and would have run in addition to the existing council-owned youth centre in Bruce Grove, Tottenham.

Launched in 2008, OnSide has a network of 10 similar Youth Zones mainly in northern England, but with projects also underway in Barking & Dagenham, Barnet, Croydon and Hammersmith & Fulham. In London, OnSide is supported by the Lord Mayor’s charity.

Blake’s written answer says the council will be considering other options “which will better meet our strategic objectives,” but no further information is provided. Objections raised previously included concerns about a “single base” model, the accessibility of the proposed location and impact on other youth services spending.

Charles Wright is a former Haringey councillor.

LONDON AND BREXIT: Will leaving the EU be good or bad for the capital? On London and the illustrious London Society have jointly organised a debate about this crucial question. Anti-Brexit campaigner Andrew Adonis, former Boris Johnson adviser Daniel Moylan and Lib Dem AM Caroline Pidgeon have been booked to speak. Buy your tickets here.

Categories: News
Tags: Barking & Dagenham, Barnet, Claire Kober, Croydon, Hammersmith & Fulham, Haringey, Haringey Council, Lord Mayor of London, Mark Blake, Wood Green, youth crime

Private hire vehicles might soon have to pay the London congestion charge. What difference would it make?

Dave Hill

The short answer to the headline question is “not very much” in terms of reducing congestion, according to a study conducted for Transport for London (TfL) by financial policy consultants Cambridge Economic Policy Associates (CEPA). Why, then, do TfL and Sadiq Khan want to do it?

At present, private hire vehicles, are, like London taxis, among those exempt from current daily congestion charge of £11.50 (or £10.50 with auto pay) which must be paid on weekdays between 07:00 and 18:00. The recent boom in the number of private hire vehicles licensed has made them prime suspects for the increase in congestion levels in Central London.

TfL says there were nearly 50,000 PHVs licensed ten years ago, with around 120,000 licensed today, of which about 90,000 are actually working. TfL is presently consulting on proposals for changes to the congestion charge, including removing the exemption for PHVs. They argue that “removing the PHV exemption would help to reduce traffic and congestion within the zone”.

And yet the CEPA study forecasts that this beneficial effect would be small. “Traffic would fall slightly,” it concludes. Its broad estimate is that PHV traffic would fall by about 6% per day, bringing about an overall reduction in all motorised traffic in the congestion charge zone of just 1%. However you look at it, that isn’t very much.

The CEPA study formed the basis of inquiries made by Gareth Bacon AM, current leader of the London Assembly Conservative group, at last Thursday Mayor’s Question Time. The Mayor, drawing on TfL’s figures, said that when the PHV exemption was introduced it was expected that about 4,000 PHVs would would enter the zone each day, but that by 2017 the number of these “unique entries” had risen to an average of 18,000 a day during charging hours. This, though, would fall to 10,000 a day if the exemption were removed, the Mayor said, which is line with CERP’s estimate of a fall charging hours unique entries of about 45% (see slides 22 and 26).

However, CEPA study also anticipates that, as Mayor Khan acknowledged, PHV operators in the Central London area, who tend to be the larger firms, will respond to the loss of the exemption by distributing the bookings they receive differently among their drivers, resulting in a reduced number of drivers who’ve entered the charging zone picking up more passengers there than before and therefore spending more time than before on the area’s roads. That’s a big reason why CEPA’s calculation of the reduction in PHV traffic levels (6%) in the congestion charge zone, is much smaller than their calculation of the number of PHVs that would enter it (45%).

TfL concedes that the estimated one per cent reduction in traffic levels overall “appears modest”, but still contends that it would represent “an important step in managing and reducing congestion in Central London”, with consequential improvements in air quality too. But Gareth Bacon argued that any “very minor” reduction in congestion would also add to cumulative TfL policies enacted in the Mayor’s name, including hikes in licensing fees, that “are going to have an absolutely devastating impact on the private hire industry,” which has seen the number of firms licensed by TfL – as distinct from the number of drivers – fall in recent years, with smaller operators in particular disappearing

“Can you see why the private hire industry could be forgiven if it believes that Transport for London is deliberately setting out to destroy it?” Bacon asked. “The only upside that I can see for this is that it will raise an extra 30 million quid that TfL can chuck into the [financial] black hole they’ve got.”

What should the Mayor and TfL do? It should be stressed that CEPA themselves point to uncertain outcomes “in various areas” that their study did not factor in. Bear in mind too that London Assembly Tories, traditional champions of small business, tend not to be big fans of the congestion charge in any form. Even so, it’s hard to get excited about the prospect of a 1% reduction in traffic levels overall, given how acute congestion has become.

Perhaps an extra £30m a year in revenue for TfL is justification enough, but the whole business underlines how fraught the issue of road traffic management in London is, not least politically. Boris Johnson halved London’s congestion charging zone by doing away with its Western Extension, but he also increased the level of the charge. Mayor Khan, never one to offer a hostage to electoral fortune, ruled out any hike in his manifesto. Really serious solutions to traffic congestion and poor air quality in Central London would require measures far more radical than he is likely to propose.

See the Mayor and Gareth Bacon’s PMQ exchanges in the webcast from about 46 minutes in. TfL’s consultation on changes to the congestion charge is open until 28 September.

LONDON AND BREXIT: Will leaving the EU be good or bad for the capital? On London and the illustrious London Society have jointly organised a debate about this crucial question, featuring anti-Brexit campaigner Andrew Adonis, former Boris Johnson adviser Daniel Moylan and others to be announced. Buy your tickets here.

Categories: Analysis
Tags: congestion, congestion charge, Gareth Bacon, London taxis, private hire, Sadiq Khan, transport, Transport for London

Islington: senior member of Jeremy Corbyn’s constituency party resigns over ‘tolerance’ of antisemitism

Dave Hill

A senior member of Jeremy Corbyn’s Islington North Constituency Labour Party has resigned over what he describes as the Labour leader’s “often tolerant” attitude towards antisemitism, claiming that the party has become “somewhere where antisemites feel comfortable and many Jews feel uncomfortable.”

Russell Smith-Becker, who served for several years as Islington North CLP’s treasurer and as chair of Islington’s local campaign forum, describes leaving as “a wrench” after 28 years of membership, which began before he was old enough to vote.

Referring to an exchange of letters he instigated with Corbyn about the antisemitism issue  in March, Smith-Becker says that Corbyn “acknowledged the problem of antisemitism in the party” and that he had pledged to be its “militant opponent”.

But after listing a series of subsequent “antisemitic incidents” in the party, including the decision by its ruling national executive committee not to adopt in full the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, Smith-Becker writes:

Perhaps I was unclear in my previous letter to you on this topic. When I encouraged you to listen to the JLC [Jewish Leadership Council], BoD [Board of Deputies] and other community groups I meant with a view to doing as they ask rather than the opposite. When I encouraged you to take swift action on antisemitism I meant against it rather than to increase tolerance of it.

Smith-Becker also says he believes that Corbyn himself is not antisemitic but that “merely saying this is not enough”. He tells Corbyn he “should be providing leadership” on the issue and asks: “Would you fight antisemitism if you were Prime Minister or would you ask the numerous public bodies which use the IHRA definition of antisemitism to dilute it?”

The resignation follows a spokesman for Corbyn saying there would be “action” taken against Barking MP and former Islington Council leader Margaret Hodge after she confronted Corbyn in parliament over the NEC’s decision.

Labour-run Islington Council has adopted the IHRA definition without controversy, but Corbyn supporters heckled and demonstrated against Labour-run Haringey’s leadership when it did the same thing a year ago. A different Labour administration, dominated by members of the Corbyn-supporting pressure group Momentum, took power at May’s borough elections.

Smith-Becker has posted his resignation letter on Facebook. It is reproduced in full below:

A number of people have left comments on Smith-Becker’s Facebook page celebrating his departure from Labour and defending Corbyn.

LONDON AND BREXIT: Will leaving the EU be good or bad for the capital? On London and the illustrious London Society have jointly organised a debate about this crucial question, featuring anti-Brexit campaigner Andrew Adonis, former Boris Johnson adviser Daniel Moylan and others to be announced. Buy your tickets here.

Categories: News
Tags: antisemitism, Haringey Council, Islington Council, Islington North, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour, Margaret Hodge, Momentum, Russell Smith-Becker

Haringey threatened with legal action over ‘loss of profits and costs’ arising from HDV rejection

Dave Hill

Regeneration giant Lendlease has told Haringey’s new Labour council that abandoning the joint venture company it had been close to forming with the previous Labour administration would expose it to “a significant loss of profits claim” and a further one for the recovery of costs accrued for work already done on the proposal.

In a letter to the council’s leader Joseph Ejiofor and its chief executive Zina Etheridge, Dan Labbad, chief executive of Lendlease Europe, described as “fundamentally flawed” an officer’s report to Haringey’s cabinet, considered on 17 July, which set out the grounds for cancelling the procurement exercise which was set to result in the HDV being formed.

Accompanied by a legal opinion provided by James Goudie QC, Labbad’s letter says that two reasons for abandoning the HDV are put forward in the officers’ report and that neither of them “stands up to any scrutiny”.

One reason, that the new administration disagrees with the transfer of its assets from 100 per cent public ownership, is described as “a concern driven by political considerations” which “would amount to an illegitimate fetter on the council’s discretion” when making decisions.

A second, concerning the degree of financial risk the HDV project was considered to entail, is described as “not new” and as amenable to further consideration without cancelling the procurement, due to flexibilities within the arrangements already made.

Citing Goudie’s opinion, Labbad lists three variations on the HDV plan “formulated by Lendlease” which would “address, in particular, concerns in relation to control by the council of the delivery and ownership of affordable housing by the council.”

Dated 16 July, the day before the cabinet took its decision, the letter also reprises points made in previous correspondence about the council’s past recognition that it does not have the financial means to deliver its housing and estate renewal strategy its own, and challenges the figure of £520,275 given in the officers’ report as the sum the council would have to reimburse Lendlease for, stating that “our costs to date are in excess of £5m.”

In overview, Labbad’s letter asserts that “legally, it is not open to the cabinet to abandon the procurement,” because it would: “frustrate Lendlease’s legitimate expectation that the council had committed to conclude the contracts for the HDV, leaving it “susceptible to judicial review; “fail to take into account relevant considerations” and be “irrational” in law; expose the council to a damages claim by Lendlease for depriving it of the opportunity to make the money it had reasonably expected to make as the confirmed successful bidder for the contract; and create a “liability for costs far in excess of the amount referred to in in the [officers’] report.”

Unlike its predecessor Labour administration, Haringey’s current leadership is dominated by members of Momentum, the hard left campaign group formed to support the leadership of Labour by Jeremy Corbyn, and others who back the direction Corbyn has taking their party in. The previous leadership was effectively overthrow by a candidate reselection campaign in advance of May’s borough elections, which was centred centred on opposition to the HDV, led by momentum members with support from non-Labour activists and from the Guardian.

LONDON AND BREXIT: Will leaving the EU be good or bad for the capital? On London and the illustrious London Society have jointly organised a debate about this crucial question, featuring anti-Brexit campaigner Andrew Adonis, former Boris Johnson adviser Daniel Moylan and others to be announced. Buy your tickets here. 

Categories: News
Tags: affordable housing, Haringey, Haringey Development Vehicle, housing, Jeremy Corbyn, Joseph Ejiofor, Labour, Lendlease, The Guardian, Zina Etheridge

Sharp rise in number of London’s ‘working homeless’ says Shelter report

Dave Hill

Sixty percent of London families living in temporary accommodation also contain at least one member in employment, according to figures compiled by housing charity Shelter.

Analysis based on replies to Freedom of Information (FoI) requests to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) concluded that 26,000 London families are now in this situation, a rise of 63% from just over 16,000 compared with 2013.

The charity attributes the change to a combination of a high private rents, the continuing freeze in housing benefit levels and a shortage of homes for let at social rents.

It adds that high housing costs are a “major area of concern for many working families” with losing a tenancy “now the single biggest cause of homelessness in London”, accounting for 31% of all London households officially accepted as homeless in the past year.

Shelter chief executive Polly Neate described as “disgraceful” a situation where “in many cases parents who work all day or night” are living in a cramped hostel or bed and breakfast dwelling with not enough room to lead a normal family life.

The DWP provided data for each year from 2013 to November 2017 – the most recent year for which it was available at the time of the FoI request – which showed the number of housing benefit claimants flagged as living in “temporary or short-term accommodation”. Figures of the same detail prior to 2013 were not available.

The national data were then subjected to comparisons with other housing benefit statistics and considering by housing benefit experts to derive an estimate of the situation in the capital, where the rate of “working homelessness” is higher than the 55 per cent for England as a whole.

Shelter has commission a study into social housing called the Big Conversation which will publish recommendations later this year.

BREXIT DEBATE: Will leaving the EU be good or bad for the capital? On London and the illustrious London Society have jointly organised a debate about this crucial question, featuring anti-Brexit campaigner Andrew Adonis and former Boris Johnson adviser Daniel Moylan. Buy your tickets here. 

 

 

 

Categories: News
Tags: homelessness, housing, low pay, Shelter

London Tories name their mayoral candidate shortlist. Why we should care.

Dave Hill

The Conservatives have drawn up a shortlist of three candidates to be their challenger to Sadiq Khan in the 2020 London Mayor election. A longlist of 10 was whittled down following interviews yesterday and party members in London will choose between London Assembly Members Shaun Bailey and Andrew Boff and Ealing councillor Joy Morrissey to lead their bid to recapture City Hall.

Let’s get the statements of the obvious out of the way: none of the trio are big names and whichever of them prevails is going to start as an outsider against Khan. But dismissing the Conservative line-up as irrelevant no-hopers will not do. It will be bad for the city if Mayor Khan strolls to a second term with no credible and testing opposition. Providing that should be the Tories’ first priority, for their own good as much as London’s. Whoever becomes the party’s candidate will have a serious job to do and what they offer should be taken seriously.

Part of that person’s task will be repairing the damage done to the Tories’ reputation by their repulsive campaign two years ago. Run by Lynton Crosby’s organisation, specialists in fear-mongering negativity, it tried – and miserably failed – to turn anxiety about Muslim extremism to electoral advantage by feeding smear stories about Khan to Tory press supporters.

The Conservatives might have done less badly had they kept their sewage to themselves. Their candidate Zac Goldsmith, who did himself no favours by stubbornly defending the tactics used on his behalf, several times showed himself a match for candidate Khan when it came to debating policy approaches to the core mayoral responsibilities of transport, housing, planning and policing. Had the Tories fought the election solely on that ground, Goldsmith might at least have lost with honour and left a post-Boris Johnson legacy that could have been built on.

Instead, his successor will have the task of restoring the party’s fortunes in the capital pretty much from the ground up. The selection process so far suggests that the Tories’ London operation is very aware of this. Revealing the longlist last week, Conservative Home reported that “the party is keen to note the diversity of the longlisted candidates, stating that 80 per cent are from a state-school background, 40 per cent are women and 40 per cent are black Asian and minority ethnic candidates.” A final three comprising one black male, one gay male and one female seems to confirm a desire to consign to history the calamity of 2016 and all it was taken to reveal about Conservatism’s bedrock character.

However, as Daniel Moylan has argued, there must be much more to the Tory mayoral bid than an appearance of alignment with London’s liberal social values and demographic diversity. There also need to be distinctive and distinctively Conservative approaches to the key areas of mayoral power and influence, to City Hall’s relationship with London’s boroughs and with national government, and to the implications for the city of Brexit. All of this needs to be woven into a compelling story which the candidate can tell persuasively and be seen to personify – no simple task, but the minimum requirement if Mayor Khan’s dominance is to be significantly dented.

Which of the three runners will do this best? Bailey, two years an AM, is often eloquent on youth crime but may need to demonstrate to the Tory selectorate that there is more to him than that. Boff, a contributor to this website, has long and varied experience in London government and a set of ideas that fit together philosophically. For him, the main challenge might be convincing grassroots Tories that his libertarian views will look convincing when exposed to mainstream scrutiny. Morrissey, being the least well-known of the three, will probably have the most difficulty standing out. She has stressed a need for a social justice message and that a “core vote” strategy won’t be enough. Perhaps these arguments can help her make an impact.

On London will give closer attention to the three Tory hopefuls in the weeks to come as each sets out their stall in more detail. In the meantime, take a look at how Bailey, Boff and Morrissey answered questions from Conservative Home and the list of policy proposals Boff provided here.

BREXIT DEBATE: Will leaving the EU be good or bad for the capital? On London and the illustrious London Society have jointly organised a debate about this crucial question, featuring anti-Brexit campaigner Andrew Adonis and former Boris Johnson adviser Daniel Moylan. Buy your tickets here. 

Categories: Analysis
Tags: Andrew Boff, Boris Johnson, Brexit, Conservative Home, Conservatives, Daniel Moylan, housing, Joy Morrissey, Labour, planning, policing, Sadiq Khan, Shaun Bailey, Zac Goldsmith

Dave Hill: Westminster’s new Oxford Street plan had better be good

Dave Hill

For half a century London’s planners and politicians have been trying and largely failing to solve the problems of Oxford Street, the most famous retail avenue in the world. In 1971, a study commissioned by Westminster Council identified a tension between rising pedestrian use and growing traffic flow that was addressed but did not go away. The initiative was spurred by Colin Buchanan’s 1963 description of Oxford Street as “a travesty of conditions as they ought to be in a great capital city”, a verdict that has stood the test of time miserably well.

No wonder the recent decision of today’s Westminster Council to pull the plug on a pedestrianisation plan it had spent two years drawing up in partnership with Transport for London (TfL), Sadiq Khan’s transport deputy, major retailers and local community organisations has caused such anger and despair.

Khan and TfL say they’ve invested £8m and been involved in many dozens of meetings to develop the scheme, only for Westminster’s Conservative leadership to make known shortly before May’s borough elections that they would be bailing out. Labour’s campaign challenge, especially in the West End, is widely believed to have influenced the move, which was unilaterally declared, adding to the annoyance the Mayor.

Having created this mess it is now down to Westminster’s Tories to clear it up. If a tweet by Tony Devenish, the London Assembly Member for the area and a Westminster councillor for Knightsbridge & Belgravia, is any guide, we shouldn’t get our hopes up. According to him, Khan “admitted” at Thursday’s Mayor’s Question Time that £8m of TfL money has been wasted on “his dodgy plans for Oxford Street” – a quite breathtaking denial of Westminster’s own close involvement in devising those plans and the casual way it used its power as the street’s highway authority to pull the plug on them out of what looked very much like an electoral blue funk.

The comments by Khan that Devenish misrepresented came in answer to questions by Liberal Democrat AM Caroline Pidgeon, a strong supporter of taking road traffic out of the Oxford Street area. Khan was candid about his anger with Westminster, saying that contact with its relatively new leader Nickie Aiken had been restricted to written correspondence due to a feeling at City Hall and TfL that there is “lack of goodwill” on Westminster’s part and that “it’s clear you can’t put too much weight on what politicians and officers from that council say”.

His conclusion? “The ball’s in their court now.” He is right. Having jettisoned the plans it had been central to devising since mid-2016, Westminster has published a schedule for producing its own “place based” alternative to that pedestrianisation programme. But while Khan has seen to it that the council must proceed without £400,000 of TfL money it initially earmarked for the work, that doesn’t mean his influence on Westminster is curtailed. Whatever Aiken and her colleagues decide they want to do, delivering it will be impossible without the Mayor, TfL and others coming on board.

Pidgeon also pressed the Mayor about other levers he might pull to get Westminster to co-operate. Had he looked at the scope of his powers under the GLA Act to take control of Oxford Street from Westminster or to use a mayoral direction to make the council meet the requirements of his transport strategy? Pidgeon pointed out the latter document’s clear commitment to transforming Oxford Street and its environs to the benefit of walkers and cyclists too. If Westminster’s strategy doesn’t match up to that ambition, could he force the issue? Khan replied that, pending the council’s next moves, “we’re considering all options.”

Taking Oxford Street under mayoral control would not be quick or straightforward, but Westminster’s Tories should remain mindful of the Mayor’s desire to fulfil his manifesto pledge to work with others, including them, to “pedestrianise Oxford Street”. Doing so would be a hallmark first term achievement – perhaps, given his difficulties in other policy areas, the biggest and best that he could claim. If successful, it would also be a blessing for London and its economy, not to mention that of Brexit Britain.

Mayor Khan does not lack muscle where Oxford Street is concerned. Should he end up using it to push Westminster around, Aiken’s administration will only have itself to blame. It says its strategy will be produced by the autumn. It had better be good.

Categories: Comment
Tags: Caroline Pidgeon, Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Mayor's Transport Strategy, Nickie Aitken, Oxford Street, pedestrians, planning, Sadiq Khan, Tony Devenish, walking, West End, West End Partership, Westminster Council