London – Page 3 – Richard Brown

How do they expect to be taken seriously?

The 2024 Conservative Manifesto, like the RMS Titanic’s Spring 1913 entertainment programme, should probably be seen as “aspirational” at best. There’s an insouciance in the way it raises the quota for annual housing delivery in England to 320,000 from the 300,000 promised in 2019 – a target that has been undershot by at least 50,000 in each of the past five years – which suggests they are not really engaged.

The manifesto is not all bad. There are glimmers of light in the housing section. Leasehold reform and the abolition of Section 21 evictions are good ideas, just as they were in 2019, though the fact that the pledges need to be repeated does not reflect well on the government’s record in office.

The manifesto also proposes temporary Capital Gains Tax relief for landlords who sell to their tenants – a good incentive for those who want to quit the sector, though some mechanism for sharing the benefit with tenants would help bridge the huge deposit gap that renters face, in London above all.

The document’s references to London are sparse and generally weird. They largely focus on attacking Sadiq Khan (recently re-elected with an increased majority) and his deputies: Night Czar Amy Lamé is held culpable for the closure of 3,000 pubs bars and nightclubs since March 2020, as if nothing else of note has happened since then.

But on housing the manifesto’s grasp of reality becomes shakier still. To achieve its super-Stakhanovite target for housebuilding, it promises “gentle densification” of urban areas – apart from inner London, where densities will be raised to “those of European cities like Paris and Barcelona”.

I’m a big fan of density, and of Paris and of Barcelona, but this is loopy. Comparative density is tricky to measure, but a rough read-across is possible using Tom Forth’s Circle Populations website, which calculates populations around particular points. The 5km radius around London’s centre, traditionally the statue of King Charles I at Charing Cross, has around 1.1 million residents.

The equivalent area in Paris, drawn from outside Notre Dame, has around 2.1 million. Barcelona is harder to compare because of its position on a strip between mountains and sea, but scaling up a 3km-radius circle around Eixample, which includes most of the city centre, yields a population of around 2.4 million.

The idea of doubling the number of people living in central London within five years seems even more of a stretch than the national housing target, and the manifesto contains no clues about how this would be achieved.

The population of the capital’s Central Activities Zone (an area slightly smaller than a 5km-radius circle) only increased by a quarter between 2010 and 2020. Even looking at a wider, 10km-radius, circle would require population growth of around 30 per cent to match Paris compared to ten per cent population growth in inner London between 2011 and 2022.

Central London could certainly be denser. Delivery on some opportunity areas has been slow – though in the case of Euston the government is hardly clean-handed – and as working patterns change there are opportunities to re-allocate some lower-grade commercial space. But short of razing the City of London – which the manifesto pledges to “support as the leading global market” – and other business districts, or lifting conservation area restrictions from the capital’s historic core, it is hard to see how these uplifts are achievable in the next decade, let alone the next Parliament.

In any case, who will be able to afford to live, or at least to buy their own home, in the capital? The manifesto also pledges to relaunch the Help to Buy scheme, which offered government loans to help first-time buyers of new builds to afford their deposit. The scheme’s subsidies have been much derided for boosting house prices and/or being scooped up by developers.

Personally, I think the scheme could be refocused to help those without family wealth, rather than to boost new build, but that’s another issue. The previous scheme allowed a maximum loan for 20 per cent of value across England. This was raised to 40 per cent in London from 2016, following very low take-up. The new version makes no such special provision, so it is hard to see who will be able to use it to buy property in any newly tower-lined streets of the city centre.

Perhaps the plan is for a cataclysmic property price collapse so that London’s house prices are levelled down to those beyond the capital? Perhaps all the buyers would be those few lucky foreigners who the new “legally binding” cap on immigration allows in? Yes, we know the Conservatives will struggle to win seats in inner London, but treating the capital and its housing crisis so casually seems irresponsible. If this is all they can come up with, how on earth can they expect to be taken seriously?

First published by OnLondon

Licence too ill

London’s nightlife has been taking a pasting: a recent (not very scientific) survey suggested that the city has the worst nightlife in the UK; pubs and clubs are being closed down, their numbers falling by eight and 30 per cent respectively since 2010 according to UK business counts; industry bodies say that London is losing nightlife faster than other regions; and social media reports frequently bewail empty pubs, dead streets and early closing times.

What is to blame for this thinning out? There is a grim alignment of factors: changing drinking habits, higher prices and constrained wages, staff shortages following Brexit, changed working and commuting patterns following the pandemic, cautious licensing authorities and the rise in take-away (or delivery) culture.

Some critics point the finger at Amy Lamé (pictured, front left), the Night Czar appointed by Sadiq Khan in 2016. How, they ask, can her six-figure salary can be justified when London’s nightlife is crumbling? More recently, Conservative mayoral candidate Susan Hall has weighed in, presenting Lamé’s appointment as symptomatic of Khan’s “chumocracy” approach to administration and promising to bring in “real experts committed to reviving our city’s night economy” if she is elected.

Lamé has mounted a vigorous defence of her record, both in keeping venues open and making nightlife safer for all. And I don’t think it is fair to blame her every time the shutters roll down on another London venue (full disclosure: I don’t really know Lamé, but I did spend many 1990s Saturday nights at Duckie, the arty club night she co-founded). But there is a deeper problem too: neither she nor Khan have access to the levers that can keep venues open or close them.

This seems strange, given the wide-ranging remit of London’s Mayors. Nightlife is an essential part of a city’s economy and culture, but licensing late night entertainment and hospitality remains a local authority function.

Licenses are granted by the 33 local authorities in London and governed by central government policy objectives focused on preventing crime, nuisance and negative impacts on children or public health rather than on fostering cultural or economic vitality.

Furthermore, substantial areas of central London are subject to “cumulative impact” policies, which restrict the opening of new premises and extensions of opening hours in order to minimise strains on local infrastructure and the risks of disorder.

The deck is stacked against the hospitality industry. Some boroughs, such as Camden, have sought to relax policies in response to headwinds that have battered the sector since the pandemic, though this has been controversial. In many other cases, restrictions either haven’t been reviewed since 2020 or have been reaffirmed. At the heart of the issue is a balancing act. How does licensing weigh the concerns of local residents, who vote, against the interests of local businesses and visitors, who don’t, and the representations made by the police, who are in the front line when things go wrong?

There’s a similar challenge in town planning – balancing local community interests and the strategic needs of the city. This is why the Mayor was given powers to set policies on issues such as density and use mix, and to intervene in significant cases where local decisions might undermine those policies. Indeed, Khan has already used his planning powers to support London’s nightlife through the “agent of change principle”, which makes developers rather than pre-existing entertainment venues responsible for sound insulation and other mitigation measures.

Should London’s Mayors, who already have oversight of the capital’s police force, take a greater role in licensing, setting a framework for local decisions and perhaps intervening where there is a strategic case for doing so? Giving them more power in this area could take the heat out of local debates and allow for a more consistent and strategic approach to the capital’s night-time economy.

Such an extension of mayoral power might be restricted to central London, where nightlife serves capital city and world city functions, as well as the needs of local communities. Again, there’s a read-across to town planning: the Mayor already has an enhanced planning role in the Central Activities Zone, though interestingly many of London’s nightlife hotspots are distributed around its fringe.

All that said, licensing is difficult. I’m not sure whether the current Mayor or his successors would welcome responsibility for decisions that almost invariably annoy someone. But if we want London to be a successful, liveable and thriving 24-hour city, intelligent licensing has a vital part to play.

First published by OnLondon.

Density – free riders and secret sauce

Russell Curtis, architect, On London contributor and one-man spatial think tank, published a new paper, Towards a Suburban Renaissance, on his blog last week. Reflecting on their generally low and static densities, Curtis argues that London’s suburbs could accommodate many more homes near stations, by gentle densification of existing residential streets – an upwards extension here, a replacement of a house with a low-rise block of flats there, a new build in a back garden there.

Without even encroaching on protected industrial land or open spaces, Curtis calculates that London could accommodate around 900,000 more homes in this way. Current completions are much lower than the current London Plan target of 52,000 homes a year, and both government ministers and London think tanks say that target should be set higher still. Realising even a small part of the potential that Curtis identifies would be a big boon.

You might think that in a city with a rampant housing crisis and record levels of homelessness, such a modest proposal would be enthusiastically debated by mayoral candidates in an election year. Or…you might not actually, because if you are the sort of person who reads On London, you are probably aware just how politically tricky suburban densification is in a contest where every Outer London vote counts.

Politics confounds any attempt to boost housing supply in the capital through suburban densification. The result is that any vacant site is developed to the max and everything else remains untouched, leading to a lumpy cityscape and eerie juxtapositions such as the transition from towers around East Croydon Station to the two-storey terraces of surrounding streets. Everybody can see the dysfunctional results of this approach, but the politics of changing tack are too tough: as Curtis has written for On London before, both the Mayor of London and Croydon Council have backed down from suburban density-friendly policies.

There are ways to open up the conversation, at least. The “Street Votes” proposal, developed by Policy Exchange and championed by the Nicholas Boys Smith, chair of government’s Office for Place, proposes empowering local communities to redevelop their own neighbourhoods, sharing in economic benefits and ensuring that redevelopment is seen locally as an enhancement rather than a blow to quality of place. A government consultation on making this idea a reality has recently closed, and Street Votes could make a difference where communities can see the potential benefits.

But I think there’s a bigger strategic issue too, about how we talk about density and amenity. I was thinking about this recently over lunch in a small village on the edge of London. Our hosts, heavily involved in the parish council, were discussing how they hoped to use tree preservation orders to scotch any danger of new homes being built on adjacent land.

Their other big campaign was to find a way of re-opening the local pub, which was shutting down owing to dwindling trade. They were prospective clients of my partner so I bit my lip, but in my mind’s eye I was shaking them by the lapels and shouting, “Don’t you see the connection? No more people means no more pub!” To which you might add, no more primary school, no more bus service, no more local shop…

When I look on borough planning consultation portals, I can always find an option to comment on loss of amenity from a development. It’s much harder to comment on loss of amenity from not developing. Across London’s and other cities’ suburban high streets, shops, restaurants and bars are struggling to survive in the face of changing consumer habits and constrained spending.

One answer to this is to shrug, feel a twinge of sadness and let the market find more economically viable uses for the space. Another is to try to make sure these services have enough customers to keep going. You don’t have to go to the pub every evening or ride the bus every day yourself, but you shouldn’t prevent the people who might do so from moving into the area and then complain when the landlord shuts up shop or Transport for London cuts service frequencies.

In urban areas we are all free riders, locked into relationships of mutual reliance on other citizens, and their use of public and private services. If we seal off our neighbourhoods from newcomers, we don’t preserve their character so much as undermine it. We need more homes in London to address the housing crisis for sure, but also to sustain the urban services, quality and vitality that bring people here in the first place. Density is the secret sauce of our cities. We need to sing its praises.

First published by OnLondon.

Come together

Interviewed on Radio 4 for the launch of his re-election campaign on Monday, Sadiq Khan said this year offered “a moment of maximum opportunity for Londoners, for there’s the prospect not just of a Labour Mayor, but of a Labour government working together [with a Labour Mayor].”

Even if the tone was more bullish than the Labour leadership might like, Mayor Khan has a point. Since he was first elected in 2016, he has lived with a chaotic kaleidoscope of Conservative governments. When these have shown any interest in the capital, it has generally been to frame it as an overheated reservoir of “wokery”, or to attack Khan’s record on policing and planning – most recently through directing a review of industrial land and opportunity area policy, announced the day before the pre-election period formally began.

Khan’s predecessors were luckier. Ken Livingstone’s first term started with him politically homeless, expelled from Labour for running as an Independent against their official candidate, Frank Dobson. The early days, when I was working in the Mayor’s office, were notably scratchy: Livingstone’s first meeting with Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott was cryogenically chilly, his battle against the London Underground public private partnership poisoned relations with HM Treasury, and I remember the air turning blue as he offered London minister Keith Hill his frank thoughts on provisional spending settlements.

But Livingstone benefitted from coming to power when the public spending taps were being turned on, and when the Labour government led by Tony Blair wanted to show that its new devolutionary settlement was a success. By 2004, following back-channel discussions with Number 10 and a more publicly visible collaboration with culture secretary Tessa Jowell over the London 2012 Olympics bid, he was back in the party.

Buoyed by London’s unexpected success in winning the Games, Livingstone’s second term saw substantial public spending in London, government and parliamentary approval for Crossrail – today’s Elizabeth line – and new legislation that extended the Mayor’s powers on housing, planning, culture and waste.

Boris Johnson benefitted from this legacy following his election in 2008. And from 2010 Livingstone’s Conservative successor had the following winds of a Conservative-led coalition in his sails.

He too secured more powers, through the Localism Act and and the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act, both passed in 2011. And although London boroughs’ budgets were cut heavily – as were those of other urban councils – the government was surprisingly generous in investing in the Olympic Park legacy, including Johnson’s pet project, Olympicopolis (now East Bank), perhaps aware that just as a successful Olympics can show off a city, a tumbleweed-strewn legacy can show it up.

The only initiative that failed to make any headway was the London Finance Commission, a deliberately non-partisan campaign for fiscal devolution, which was beached on the sands of Treasury insouciance in 2013, and again in 2017 when Khan had a second go.

Khan came to power in spring 2016, as the five years of public spending cuts started to take their toll and the European Union referendum campaign slouched to its self-harming conclusion. The years since have been dominated by a grim procession of crises – Brexit contortions, the Covid pandemic and spiralling inflation – which have seen the Mayor and the government on the opposite sides of arguments, with spending decisions marked by public spats and denunciations rather than the private haggling and public consensus that operates between political allies.

While the “metropolitan elites” of London became useful villains, “levelling up”, the regional policy boondoggle Johnson wielded in the 2019 general election campaign, has little to show by way of results apart from cancelled and delayed projects, funding and tax decisions that do down the capital, and occasional outbreaks of opportunistic culture war posturing.

So Mayor Khan can be forgiven for believing, in words that still carry a faint resonance from the 1990s, that “things can only get better” if he wins a historic third term. Labour have said little about their plans for devolution beyond a promise of legislation and speeches focused on bringing some consistency to the patchwork quilt of devo deals spread across England. Furthermore, the UK’s dismal fiscal outlook suggests that “turning on the taps” of public spending is still a distant prospect. But Labour’s economic growth mission cannot pass over the opportunities London offers.

There could be a golden moment ahead. By the end of the year, a Labour Mayor and a Labour Prime Minister could be simultaneously in post, short of cash but rich in political capital. Starmer and Khan have their differences – on relations with the EU and Green Belt development, for example – but must be able to agree a shopping list of measures that are cheap and capable of having a real impact on growth and prosperity, even if some are controversial.

Such measures might include selected urban extensions in the Green Belt, more fluid European work permit arrangements for young people, performers and professionals, rail devolution in London, and maybe one more push for a system of fiscal devolution that enables London (and other English cities) to manage local taxes and local development.

Sadiq Khan has been quick – on occasion too quick – to point the finger at central government for everything wrong in London. A double win in the capital this year would give Labour a chance to show just how much better the relationship between City Hall and Whitehall could work.

Originally published by OnLondon.

Movin’ on up

London’s universities are big players in the capital’s economy as well as a visible presence on its streets. They account for 85,000 jobs – more than in the advertising, and architecture and engineering sectors, and almost as many as in accountancy and law – and their economic impact has been valued at £27 billion every year.

Our leading universities are truly global institutions: University College London (UCL) and Imperial regularly feature in global “top ten” rankings, and foreign students make up a large proportion of London’s student population – a success in terms of exports and soft power.

But London’s universities also have a good story to tell about their local impact, and in particular their offer to students from less advantaged backgrounds. Two recent exercises, which I reviewed for University of London, have sought to evaluate how the UK’s universities compare in terms of supporting social mobility by attracting and boosting the careers of students from poorer families or places.

Two years ago, the Sutton Trust and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) analysed how well universities did in attracting students who had been on free school meals at age 16 and how many of these were in high-earning jobs at age 30. The ten highest-performing universities by these measures were all in London, with Queen Mary University of London, University of Westminster and City University of London taking the top three slots.

A slightly different approach was taken by Professor David Phoenix from London South Bank University. His English Social Mobility Index, which has now been published for three consecutive years, looks at how well students from deprived places perform in terms of access to courses, continuation and completion rates, and then earnings and “graduate employment” one year after graduation.

The 2023 index shows Bradford and Aston universities in the top spots but five of the top ten are London institutions: City, King’s College London, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), Queen Mary and UCL.

Neither approach is perfect. No, graduate earnings are not the only measure of the value of higher education. Yes, London is at an advantage because graduates who stay in the city will earn higher salaries (even if most of those evaporate in rent and travel costs). And, yes, focusing on the deprivation of places rather than people does not reflect the differing geographies of poverty inside and outside London.

However, the indices do seem to show London universities – both established institutions with global brands and newer former polytechnics – doing relatively well. This is partly because Londoners from poorer backgrounds are more likely to go to university: 44 per cent of London pupils on free school meals go on to university compared to 27 per cent across England, and eight per cent go to more demanding “high tariff” institutions, compared to four per cent across England.

This is partly a tribute to the performance of London schools, which have shifted from being the worst performing in the country to the best over the past 20 years, particularly for pupils from poorer backgrounds.

The reasons for this have been intensively debated, with some analysis pointing to the investment and focus that came with the London Challenge, and others arguing that it is the ethnic make-up of London’s young population that is driving success – put bluntly, white British pupils drag down the results in other parts of the country.

Some of London’s most successful universities certainly have an intake that reflects the high levels of aspiration in many minority communities: Queen Mary, City, LSE, Imperial and Westminster all have disproportionately large intakes of students from UK Asian backgrounds, though fewer universities (East London, West London, London Met and Middlesex) do so well in recruiting UK Black students. These broad categories also gloss over any differences within different groups, for example between Indian and Bangladeshi, and Black Caribbean and Black African students.

But London’s universities also do well in offering courses that attract students from poorer backgrounds, particularly those looking for a stable and well-remunerated career. Pharmacology, computing, law, economics and business offer the strongest social mobility dividend, according to the IFS/Sutton Trust research.

Nineteen of the 20 top courses in these subjects are in London, with Queen Mary and City universities in the vanguard. And universities work to tailor their courses to student circumstances: in interviews for University of London, teaching staff at Queen Mary emphasised the flexible approach they took to timings and teaching approaches to support students with caring responsibilities, of whom they have a relatively high number.

High participation rates in London show how far university attendance has been normalised here for young people from all backgrounds (in contrast to apprenticeships, where the capital has the lowest take-up of any English region). This may partly result from the widespread presence and visibility of universities, but is also driven by the demands of London’s job market: in 2016, 53 per cent of jobs in London were held by someone with a degree, compared to 30 per cent in the rest of the UK; for senior managerial jobs, the proportions are 64 per cent in London and 38 per cent elsewhere.

But it’s not just the managers. People working in administrative or elementary manufacturing roles are also more highly qualified in the capital. These graduates working in such “non-graduate” jobs may account for London having the lowest proportion of graduates saying that their work was meaningful, fitted with their plans and used the skills they developed in university. Scores were particularly low for those graduates who had lived in London before going to university.

So, London universities play an important part in London’s success as a “social mobility hotspot”, showing how access to higher education can be widened for all classes. There may be opportunities to widen the hotspot: universities from across the UK have opened outposts in London; perhaps London universities could work with local partners to open satellites elsewhere. However, low job satisfaction levels for London graduates also suggests that more needs to be done outside universities, to make work fulfilling for all and to help young Londoners to access a diverse range of post-18 education and training.

Originally publcished by OnLondon

Remote control – AI and hybrid working

This decade is likely to see the biggest transformation of the workplace since the widespread adoption of the personal computer. Hybrid and remote working patterns adopted during the pandemic appear to be sticking, and a wave of disruption from artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) is following rapidly behind.

London is at the epicentre of these twin “workquakes”. The capital has persistently had the highest levels of home-working in the UK, with two thirds of Londoners saying they worked at home at least one day a week last summer. This reflects hybrid working’s dominance among professional and managerial staff, who make up 63 per cent of London’s resident workers, compared to 50 per cent of all England’s.

These people enjoy the flexibility, work-life balance and personal productivity that working from home can offer, though the impact on organisational or inter-organisational productivity is more contested. Nonetheless, speakers at a London Assembly meeting last week said that the era of “five days a week in the office” had gone for good, and that the task was to adapt central London to new ways of living, working and playing.

The accelerating pace of AI adoption looks likely to add turbulence. A recent UK government report found that workers in London were twice as exposed to AI as the UK average. This was not because of LLMs’ appetite for the diversity and vitality of the capital, but (like the prevalence of home-working) is largely a result of London’s occupational make-up. Unlike previous waves of automation, which affected manufacturing and routine clerical work, AI is coming for the professionals.

The report suggests that the most affected occupations include management consultants, financial managers, psychologists, economists, lawyers, project managers, market researchers, public relations professionals, authors and, perhaps surprisingly, clergy. The “safest” are jobs are those of such as sports professionals, roofers, plasterers, gardeners and car valets. The former occupations are over-represented in London, the latter are not.

However, before soft-handed metropolitan knowledge workers like me rush to retrain, ignoring our lack of aptitude, there are some caveats. The first is that the government report’s projections make no distinction between jobs that are augmented (those where workers can deploy AI to dramatically enhance their productivity), and those that are likely to be substituted (replaced, sooner or later, by new technology).

The second is that the analysis takes no account of the new jobs that will be created. We can see those that are at risk, but it is harder to identify the opportunities that will arise. A year ago, few people had any idea what a “prompt engineer” was. Today, demand for them is booming. And we can be re-assured by historical experience: the majority of jobs that Americans do today did not exist in 1940.

In any case, most professional jobs involve more than one activity, which is where the interaction between working from home and AI gets interesting. A management consultant, for example, may spend time meeting clients, preparing pitches, interviewing workers, analysing data, workshopping ideas and writing reports. A PR professional may write press releases, manage staff, research markets, pitch to clients and journalists, develop concepts, devise guest lists, plan and host events.

Some of these tasks are intrinsically social and best undertaken face-to-face. Others are more easily undertaken remotely, away from distraction and other people. Those in the latter group are also those that can be most easily supported by AI.

From this perspective, AI adoption and hybrid working will complement each other. Hybrid working has already accustomed us to working remotely with less social interaction; AI can provide a sounding board for ideas and be an orchestrator of collaboration, without the hassle and cost of a commute. Similarly, intelligent use of AI can boost productivity, improve co-ordination and reduce the “digital overload” of online meetings, emails and collaboration spaces that built up during lockdown.

But there may be a sting in the tail. Over time, people working remotely with AI support may find themselves edged out by their machine collaborators. Cost-conscious employers are already exploring whether some jobs undertaken remotely might be outsourced internationally. A task that can be completed in Leamington Spa rather than London can also be exported to Lisbon or Kuala Lumpur. Over time, it may also be undertaken by an AI.

Oxford University professors Michael Osborne and Carl-Benedikt Frey, who published a highly influential analysis of the potential impact of automation on the workforce in 2013, recently wrote a (very readable) update reflecting on the explosive growth in AI and how it may affect their original projections.

In 2013, they argued that tasks requiring social intelligence were unlikely to be automated. Now, they write, AI has challenged that “bottleneck” to automation: “If a task can be done remotely, it can also be potentially automated.” However, for sensitive tasks and relationships, face-to-face would retain primacy:

“The simple reason is that in-person interactions remain valuable, and such interactions cannot be readily substituted for: LLMs don’t have bodies. Indeed, in a world where AI excels in the virtual space, the art of performing in-person will be a particularly valuable skill across a host of managerial, professional and customer-facing occupations. People who can make their presence felt in a room, that have the capacity to forge relationships, to motivate, and to convince, are the people that will thrive in the age of AI. If AI writes your love letters, just like everybody else’s, you better do well when you meet on the first date.”

What does this all mean for cities like London? To start with, while we do not know precisely what new jobs will be created by the AI revolution, London is already one of a handful of hotspots for AI start-ups, so it is likely to be the location for many of the new jobs too. The capital is already home to Google Deepmind and many other high growth AI firms, and OpenAI have announced plans for their first international outpost in London.

The combination of AI and hybrid working may ironically strengthen London’s role as one of a few genuine global centres for face-to-face interaction. If remote work is increasingly dispersed or automated and in-person workers with social skills remain in demand, then diverse, globally-accessible, sociable cities such as London will provide the ideal setting for their relationships and collaborations.

There is a bigger picture too. A recent paper by Richard Florida and others talked of the rise of “metacities” based on long-distance networks of collaboration and intermittent commuting. This identified London and New York as the world’s two leading “superstar” hubs, sitting at the heart of networks of talent and interaction. London’s network, as measured by talent flows, includes Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh and Bristol, but also Dublin, Paris, Lagos and Bengaluru.

Florida and colleagues argue that the constellation of satellite cities will shift over time, but the importance of superstar cities will persist. This suggests that in coming years London will need to plan for growth in housing, in offices and in new forms of collaborative and social spaces.

The city will also need to be open and welcoming to global talent while helping local workers adapt to change, and to work more closely with its satellite cities to ensure that economic transformation can deliver prosperity and economic growth across the UK.

This is likely to be a turbulent decade for London’s economy, but it could also be one in which the capital’s national and global profile increase.

First published by OnLondon.

Spare us the cutter

To misquote Hunter S Thompson, “Levelling up is hard to know because of all the hired bullshit”. Is “levelling up” about the north-side divide, about regional infrastructure, about social inequality or about “London-centrism”? The concept is so slippery that there is plenty of space to pick your own perspective. So it’s a relief when the august Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) sheds some light on how money is being spent around the country.

Its report on public spending, published this week, looks at allocations for health services, police, local government, public health and schools across England – in total, around £245 billion in 2022/23. This is where the real money is. Spending on these services dwarves, for example, the £3 billion of Levelling Up Funds provided to England in the first two rounds.

The report breaks down spending by 150 local authority areas (with an interactive map), analysing expenditure per head but also as measured against need. At first glance, the capital’s boroughs fare relatively well, with six in inner London – Camden, Hackney, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Southwark and Westminster – among the ten highest-funded areas, each receiving more than £5,000 per head alongside Blackpool, Knowsley, Liverpool and Middlesbrough.

There are, of course, good reasons why spending in London is higher. For a start, wages, which make up around 45 per cent of NHS spending, 50 per cent of local government spending and around 75 per cent of police spending, reflect the city’s higher living costs. London weightings added to wages (seven per cent for police, 2-20 per cent for NHS workers, and 3-18 per cent for council staff) are set accordingly. So, you would expect higher costs in London for equivalent staffing and service levels elsewhere.

There’s a bigger issue too: the figures are based on 2021 population estimates. We know that London saw a sharp fall in population during the pandemic, and this was particularly acute in central London. The IFS shows how different spending per head would be if the calculation used 2020 estimates instead (which would also be more in line with the estimates used to allocate funding). It would fall by an average of £160 per head across London boroughs, and by more than £1,000 per head in Camden and Westminster. Mid-year estimates for 2022, due out next month, will give us some indication of how far London’s population has rebounded.

All that said, it’s no great surprise that urban areas in general spend more: they have higher levels of deprivation and higher levels of need (with a few countervailing areas such bin collections, where rural authorities spend more). This is why central government funding is allocated according to complex formulas intended to reflect need (and the cost of delivering services) as well as population levels. The IFS team has updated these formulas – the government has not done so for ten years – and compared them to spending per head.

Here the picture is a lot more mixed for London. The capital receives slightly higher funding relative to need for NHS services, though this is largely attributed to the differences between the GP registrations used to allocate NHS funding and the much lower 2021 ONS population estimates. Funding for the police is slightly lower than need, but not as low as it is in other large urban areas. But London’s local government looks very under-funded. Nine out of the ten councils with the biggest relative funding gaps are in London, forming an arc stretching from Barking & Dagenham to Hounslow.

Defunding deprived urban areas is at least partly the result of political choice. As Centre for London and the IFS have explored, cuts in central government funding for councils during the 2010s were applied as fixed percentages, which hit urban areas – with higher need and more dependency on grants rather than Council Tax – particularly hard. As the IFS report observes, needs assessments for local government have not been updated for a decade. But this too is a political choice.

You could conceivably argue that urban areas, which tend to vote Labour, have been over-funded in the past. The Prime Minister hinted at this at an event in Kent (funding eight per cent above relative need) last year when running for the Conservative Party leadership. In fact, the IFS report shows a swathe of well-funded local authorities in the Conservatives’ deep blue Home Counties and midlands heartlands.

Whether this is the result of reasonable policy or low politics is a matter of opinion. But you have to ask if it makes sense in the light of the government’s own proclaimed policy of building in city centres, including London’s. Cutting back public services in city centres, while seeking to grow their populations, does not seem like a sustainable approach to growth, let alone to “levelling up”.

First published by OnLondon

You Gove to see it?

In the sense that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about, Michael Gove’s big housing speech had some grains of good news for London and Sadiq Khan.

Sure, there was a slightly formulaic spot of Khan-bashing – the allegation that “the Mayor’s failure on housing, like his failure on crime and his failure on transport, undermines the vitality and attractiveness of our capital.” We are coming up to an election and presenting Khan’s mayoralty as a cautionary example of Labour’s inability to deliver was clearly just too tempting, especially in the wake of the Uxbridge & South Ruislip by-election.

But alternately attacking and ignoring London and its Mayor have been a consistent government theme in recent years. Gove’s predecessor Robert Jenrick took more than a year to agree Khan’s 2020 London Plan, describing his housing delivery as “deeply disappointing”, demanding he water down protections for the Green Belt, open spaces and industrial sites, and allow lower densities and more car parking in suburban locations. And two years ago, in articulating his “levelling up” agenda, London’s previous Mayor, the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, spoke of the capital only as the engine for an overheated housing market and as a drain on talent in the rest of the country.

So, while Gove may have been stating the obvious when he said making the most of the capital’s potential is “critical to the nation’s success”, the statement was nonetheless welcome. What’s more, the Secretary of State committed to working with the Mayor to “unlock all the potential of London’s urban centre, while preserving the precious low-rise and richly green character of its suburbs such as Barnet and Bromley”.

There’s quite a lot going on there, both lofty principles and low politics. At one level, Gove’s was a classic urban renaissance prescription: focusing new development in highly accessible central locations, where infrastructure such as school places is already present. But there was also electoral calculation. Ever since Johnson ran for Mayor in 2008, pledging to save the suburbs from the encroachment of high-rise apartment buildings, protecting the suburbs – and London’s safest Conservative seats – from new development has been at the heart of Conservative policy.

To unlock potential, Gove proclaimed the launch of “Docklands 2.0”, invoking Michael Heseltine, the patron saint of urban renaissance (who lost the Conservative whip in 2017 as a result of his opposition to Brexit). This “mission of national importance” would see 65,000 homes built in east London’s riverside, from Beckton and Silvertown to Charlton and Thamesmead.

Such plans have a rich heritage as part of the original Heseltine vision for the East Thames Corridor, as the heart of London Thames Gateway, and as the focus for the City East scheme developed by my former colleagues in Mayor Ken Livingstone’s architecture and urbanism unit.

Current London Plan targets already suggest that 65,000 homes are achievable in these “opportunity areas”, but realising that potential has been slow. Many sites lack the infrastructure needed to develop at scale, or need investment in remediation to make them suitable for housing. In that respect, Gove’s commitment to look at the transport investments needed, and to invest government money where it can make a difference, will be welcomed.

There is a catch, though. Gove offered the carrot of working with Khan, but also issued an explicit threat in bellicose terms: “I reserve the right to step in to reshape the London Plan if necessary and consider every tool in our armoury – including development corporations.” It doesn’t sound as if these would be mayoral development corporations, such as those set up by Johnson to oversee the Olympic Park and Old Oak projects, but 1980s-style impositions from Whitehall.

Gove’s political jabs at the Mayor have been reciprocated. Tom Copley, Deputy Mayor for Housing, has defended Khan’s record and described the government’s commitments as “thin gruel”, with funding decisions for vital infrastructure lost in the long grass of Treasury tactics. London Councils housing lead Darren Rodwell, also leader of east London borough Barking & Dagenham, has called for more funding for affordable housing and a permanent relaxation of rules on using Right-to-Buy receipts.

But behind the point-scoring and alongside genuine arguments about resource allocation, the Secretary of State’s speech does seem to mark a dawning awareness that ignoring the UK’s capital when seeking to grow the nation’s economy is a dead end. If Gove can back his vision for Docklands 2.0 with funds and facilitation, and can resist the temptation to take over and micro-manage, he may find himself in an awkward alliance with Khan, even as general and mayoral elections approach.

First published by OnLondon

I love you, you fix my rent

The Renters (Reform) Bill, which had its second reading in the House of Commons last week, should be particularly good news for Londoners. Twenty-nine per cent of households – just over one million – in the capital are private renters, compared to 17 per cent in the rest of England, so the measures in the Bill, including its centrepiece abolition of “no fault” evictions, will be welcomed by many.

The legislation has been a long time coming. The reforms were first announced by Theresa May in April 2019, towards the end of her government’s lifespan. Toby Lloyd, former Head of Policy at Shelter, had been recruited as the Prime Minister’s special advisor on housing the previous year, and he helped make the case for the reform.

“There was definitely interest in the problems in the private rental sector, both moral and electoral,” Lloyd says. “Morally, there were people at Number 10 who really cared about the ‘burning injustice’ of how the housing market operated, and electorally there was growing awareness of the difficulty the Conservatives had in attracting young people. And occasionally, when the clouds cleared on Brexit, the government was keen to advance social reforms, especially if they could also wrong-foot the Labour Party, who hadn’t declared their policies at that time.”

Four years and three prime ministers later, we have the Bill. One of its central measures will be ending “Section 21 evictions”, which allow landlords to terminate a tenancy for any reason after six months. These are currently one of the driving forces behind homelessness in London: just under half of the 5,850 households at risk of homelessness at the end of last year were in that position because of the end of an assured shorthold tenancy was approaching, and in more than half of these cases the tenancy was ending simply because the landlord wished to sell up or rent the property to someone else (presumably for a higher rent).

Under the reforms, landlords will still be able to end tenancies if they wish to live in their property or sell it, and will have enhanced rights to evict tenants who fall behind with their rent or display “anti-social behaviour”. Otherwise, tenancies will be open-ended, with landlords allowed to raise rents annually. To avoid “eviction by rent increase”, tenants will be able to challenge any proposed rent rises above “market value” at a tribunal. This provision always existed in theory, but the risk of arbitrary eviction made it toothless: landlords could simply use the Section 21 process to boot out any truculent tenants.

Taken together, these reforms begin to sound like a version of rent control, though Lloyd’s experience of selling the measures to sometimes sceptical Conservative ministers leads him to prefers the term “rent stabilisation”. They certainly falls short of what Sadiq Khan is calling for – a two-year rent freeze and a rent control commission to set rents thereafter (not least because market rents have begun to rise sharply in recent months after a period of slower growth). However, the Bill’s measures should act as a curb on the most egregious rent rises.

Not everyone is happy, however. Landlord representatives warn that the complexity of evicting tenants under the new rules may combine with a loss of tax breaks to push landlords to sell their properties. However, Toby Lloyd is sanguine: “Landlords have been saying this since I started to work in housing, but the truth is that the sector is still growing.”

And, if landlords did quit, would it matter? They would presumably sell their property, either to another landlord or to an owner-occupier. When I asked about this on Twitter recently, several respondents made the sensible point (Twitter isn’t what it used to be) that moving property from rental to owner-occupation might support a different market. One recalled, “when we sold our rental flat in Hackney, it went from being occupied by a young Bangladeshi family to a single white guy with a taste for modernist architecture.” And, she added, landlords might be more demanding in terms of references if they felt tenants would be harder to evict, which could “effectively bar a cohort of people on the financial margins.”

One solution, of course, would be to build more social housing, so that people at the margins had other options. But there are already different private rental models. Some professionalised “build-to-rent” landlords have endorsed the abolition of Section 21 evictions: Grainger, the UK’s largest listed landlord, welcomed the reforms, saying that “many of the proposals in the Bill align with Grainger’s business model.”

And maybe there is also room for what Lloyd, Rose Grayston and Neal Hudson called in a report published earlier this year an “ethical private rented sector” in which not-for-profit providers could buy property from smaller landlords who wanted to sell up, as community-based housing associations did in the 1960s.

The transition to the new system will inevitably be bumpy, leading to particular problems in specific cases (for example, for student rentals), and Londoners still need more homes and a better choice of affordable rental flats and houses. The Renters (Reform) Bill does not solve all of London’s housing problems, but remodelling the rental market to support responsible private landlords and squeeze out those whose behaviour is little short of criminal is a good start.

First published by OnLondon

Talking to the taxman about demographics

Recent figures suggest that London may already be bouncing back from the twin shocks of Brexit and the pandemic. The figures, based on pay-as-you-earn (PAYE) tax data, suggest that the number of working people living in London increased by just over three per cent between December 2019 and December 2022, an increase of around 138,000.

Tagged as “experimental statistics” by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), they count the “payroll population” – that is, the number of people on payroll, including those on furlough or sick leave, based on their home address. Therefore, they do not show the number of jobs in London (some of these people will commute out, while others commute in) nor do they show the whole population (they exclude self-employed people and people who are not working for whatever reason).

All that said, they provide another strong indication that whatever population exodus London saw during the first year of the pandemic has since gone into reverse. The chart below shows the trajectory of this change. March 2021, the month of the 2021 Census, is at the lowest point of the dip.

The composition of London’s payroll population has changed over this period, reflecting the implementation of Brexit in 2020 and new immigration rules in 2021. London’s EU worker population has shrunk by about ten per cent (80,000 people), while its non-EU worker population grew by around 20 per cent (150,000 people). The UK national workforce fell by about five per cent during the pandemic, and is now two per cent higher than it was in late 2019. The chart below shows how the three populations have changed.

The rest of England also saw growth in its non-EU workforce. Though this growth was largest in numerical terms in London, the proportionate increase in North East and North West England was much sharper: the number of non-EU workers living in these regions increased by 65 and 47 per cent respectively (and the number of EU workers fell less). This largely accounts for faster payroll population growth rates in these regions, as shown in the chart below. London’s growth is just above the English average, but higher than its southern neighbours’.

At the moment, the rise in the number of workers from outside the EU has been spread across the country, reflecting the fact that growth has been sharpest in “nationwide” sectors such as health, construction and transport. As the economy recovers, that trend may continue or else immigration will become more concentrated in London (as suggested in a previous article).

What does this tell us? Despite their limitations, these ONS figures suggest that London has begun to adapt to and recover from the double whammy of the pandemic and Brexit. And they confirm the need for caution urged by the Greater London Authority and others over using the Census figures to argue against investing the capital’s services – 2021 was a very odd year.

First published by OnLondon