No party, no national politician and few commentators, have done any thinking or developed any ideas as to how we can get a better government of London. This needs to change but probably won't
Yet another post with you discussing something you know very little about and telling others who are widely experienced over many years that they are wrong.
You should run as a Conservative MP, you'd tick all the boxes.
Late to the party but I think this is an excellent essay.
One thing I'll add - from the position of a lowly functionary within it - is that the general ineffectiveness of the public sector is (ironically) effective at stifling attempts to do better. I work in a school: it's a good school, providing a perfectly decent education for those students who want one, and its merits are recognised by the local community and by Ofsted. It's nowhere near as good as it could be, but the leadership are, understandably if disappointingly, seemingly content to be comfortably better than our peers, and vastly better than anything run by the council. With the bar to relative competence so low, there's not much in the way of incentive to push on and be truly great.
The question us, what can we do about it? How can we get enough people of genuine energy, vision and talent into state service to turn things around?
I’m not sure how I can agree more with this. Goodwin uses a hyped narrative to hit the points he wants to hit: too much immigration, the wrong sort of immigration, collapse of standards (which is at least half imagined: crime shot up during the Blackout, Victorian London was often feral). But nothing will improve until the basics work properly and people regard politicians as able to bring that about. The centre attempts too much and too often fails. And at least two of London’s three mayors have been grandstanders who can’t or won’t knuckle down to the hard slog.
Ultimately this comes back to taxation. We want Scandinavian services with US taxation. We get what we pay for. Yes taxation has risen to over past govt errors.
We then wring our hands on how bad public services are but as soon as an election presents itself vote with our pockets.
In an ideal world I'd like more money for public services too but we have to be honest and acknowledge there is more to it than this.
Inefficiency and ineffectiveness are barriers to quality services too. That's not to say the DOGEcrats are right that any half-competent chainsaw-wielding plutocrat can just waltz in and save us billions with no downside - the reality is it's vastly more complex than that.
But there are too many people spending too much time doing too many things that ultimately don't make enough of a genuine difference.
"If we want to do something about the things Matt Goodwin ranted about then we need to start arguing for the reinvention of genuine local government, for the radical decentralising of much that public administration delivers, for police, health, social care and much else to face more democratic accountability, and for a system of local services that controls its own budgets and makes its own policy choices."
And its own funding. Historically, local government made most of its money from rates. Which acted as a counterweight to any NIMBYs. Building 500 homes made the town better off. When you have a grant, more people is a cost (until the grant is adjusted)
Making a town nicer also encouraged more people to come to the town so that petty crime, graffiti and so forth are treated seriously. A bad environment would make people leave, so income would fall.
And really, the Mayor of London is little more than The Mayor of London Transport. Go down the list and remove any sort of "produces a plan" or "advises". What does the Mayor actually have power to decide? It's not much more than transport, Fire and I think some planning.
Nearly everything that the mayors have done, of all parties have been around transport. What did Boris deliver under his watch? Routemaster buses, a cycle scheme (not even a cost, as sponsored), the Thames cable car (again, sponsored, not cost), a plan for the Garden Bridge (TFL), banning alcohol on the tube (TFL, later tube hours (TFL). If you take out various showmanship and propaganda, there is very little but transport.
Khan, Boris, Shaun Bailey can say they are going to deal with bike crime in London, but no, they can't. Because they can't fire the chief of the met. They can recommend to the home secretary to fire them. But the actual power rests with the home secretary.
I get very tired of the rants about London, and more than tired when they're racist. I live in an area with a very diverse population. We may not always get to know each other but on the whole we don't kill each other. London is expensive, especially for young people looking for housing; house prices are going up all across the country, and that certainly needs attention. But London is still a beautiful city; you can still get into the National Gallery for free; you can walk along the river and eat out of doors and get the bus home at midnight. That's what you expect in a capital city.
London has a significantly lower average age than the rest of the UK so the argument that local authorities struggle in London due to adult social care costs doesn't wash (if that was part of the argument).
Agree about decentralisation of competencies and budgets of course. If dictator for a day, every single competence the States or the Cantons have in USA and SWI would be devolved to LAs in the UK. It would smash the overtly secessionist parties too which would be fun.
It's funny but you seem to have missed the point that uncontrolled immigration, especially illegal and/or unskilled, has contributed to many of the problems you say just need a local government tweak. Petty crime, expensive housing, no money to take care the basics--all have very strongly been influenced by the immigration of people that don't have the same social mores and/or have no way to support themselves. As well, the lack of enforcement of laws has a lot to do with 'not wanting to cause a race riot' and the message that a two tiered justice system projects.
The native English, when they were the all of that country long, long ago (30 years ago), did not act this way. There were problems, but not like this. And I guess you didn't delve into the Pakistani rape gangs because they aren't London-centric. At least there's that.
Um no. Never said there was no crime or messed up people in Britain before massive immigration. What I did say was that the overall social fabric held together in a way it does not now. And that bonkers immigration has fueled nearly every social problem to the point where it's unavoidable to the average person. It's a matter of degree.
If you need to do a binary thing, go ahead. But you'll miss the point.
I agree with you more than with Goodwin, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on housing supply and rents – I think beyond the generalised "immigrants are bad because they play their phones out loud on the train" stuff he was saying, he does point out correctly that nearly half the social housing in London has a foreign-born head of household. Surely that is an undeniable ill which comes from mass, uncontrolled, low-skilled immigration? And surely the nature of that immigration is something which has changed recently, post-Covid, with the so-called "Boriswave", no?
The seats are tatty, agreed. Stabbing victims will go and bleed all over the place.
In my European country a 4 hour train trip with guaranteed seat to the capital costs 13.50 euros, about 12 GBP, one way. Beer is a euro. We speak the same language as Carlos Santana.
A fish starts to rot from the head. The culture and mismanagement flow from the top, and local authorities either struggle with that they don't have, or just partake in the system, because what else is there to do?
Good to read your rebuttal. I live in London, as I have for 40 years, broadly manage to navigate the pitfalls and continue to find much here that is wonderful. On balance, perhaps less so nowadays, but it's certainly not fallen off a cliff.
I’m not sure how I can agree more with this. Goodwin uses a hyped narrative to hit the points he wants to hit: too much immigration, the wrong sort of immigration, collapse of standards (which is at least half imagined: crime shot up during the Blackout, Victorian London was often feral). But nothing will improve until the basics work properly and people regard politicians as able to bring that about. The centre attempts too much and too often fails. And at least two of London’s three mayors have been grandstanders who can’t or won’t knuckle down to the hard slog.
“And trains are expensive because, unlike other places, Britain tries to make them pay their way.”
Not sure that this can be the whole story. I’m always puzzled by why I can fly across Europe with Ryanair for less than the price of the train to the airport. What makes trains so damn expensive?
Trains have to pay for a whole load more physical infrastructure than planes. You need a long field for planes and hundreds of miles of steel track for trains. I simplify a bit here. Of powered transport systems flying is by far the least infrastrictuse intensive (although it doesn't feel that way if you live near Heathrow)
Putting down hundreds of miles of track isn't that hard, or even that expensive. It's inspection and maintenance that costs the big bucks. People have to go out and constantly check the tracks. Do you know how much it costs to repair or replace tracks? £2bn per annum, nearly 20% of passenger revenue.
Because the big problem with trains is that they're sensitive things. They're hand-made, driven by expensive specialists and sensitive to conditions. Too much snow, leaves, too much of a hill, can't go. If you get a bit of damage to a rail track, bad things can happen. So, rails have to be constantly checked for damage and constantly repaired.
Buses and cars are about resilience. Hills? Small floods? bad road surface, leaves, it gets through. Made in factories, so cheap. Driven by anyone with a PSA. They may not be as quick, but there's generally a better trade off.
Main reason is that is impossible to sneak into airplanes without paying for a ticket. People who travel by train pay for all the people who refuses to pay.
Yet another post with you discussing something you know very little about and telling others who are widely experienced over many years that they are wrong.
You should run as a Conservative MP, you'd tick all the boxes.
Late to the party but I think this is an excellent essay.
One thing I'll add - from the position of a lowly functionary within it - is that the general ineffectiveness of the public sector is (ironically) effective at stifling attempts to do better. I work in a school: it's a good school, providing a perfectly decent education for those students who want one, and its merits are recognised by the local community and by Ofsted. It's nowhere near as good as it could be, but the leadership are, understandably if disappointingly, seemingly content to be comfortably better than our peers, and vastly better than anything run by the council. With the bar to relative competence so low, there's not much in the way of incentive to push on and be truly great.
The question us, what can we do about it? How can we get enough people of genuine energy, vision and talent into state service to turn things around?
I’m not sure how I can agree more with this. Goodwin uses a hyped narrative to hit the points he wants to hit: too much immigration, the wrong sort of immigration, collapse of standards (which is at least half imagined: crime shot up during the Blackout, Victorian London was often feral). But nothing will improve until the basics work properly and people regard politicians as able to bring that about. The centre attempts too much and too often fails. And at least two of London’s three mayors have been grandstanders who can’t or won’t knuckle down to the hard slog.
Painful to admit that the horrible Ken Livingstone was probably London's best mayor so far!
Yes and maybe the "brown people" he saw were tourists!
Ultimately this comes back to taxation. We want Scandinavian services with US taxation. We get what we pay for. Yes taxation has risen to over past govt errors.
We then wring our hands on how bad public services are but as soon as an election presents itself vote with our pockets.
Voters get the government’s they deserve.
In an ideal world I'd like more money for public services too but we have to be honest and acknowledge there is more to it than this.
Inefficiency and ineffectiveness are barriers to quality services too. That's not to say the DOGEcrats are right that any half-competent chainsaw-wielding plutocrat can just waltz in and save us billions with no downside - the reality is it's vastly more complex than that.
But there are too many people spending too much time doing too many things that ultimately don't make enough of a genuine difference.
"If we want to do something about the things Matt Goodwin ranted about then we need to start arguing for the reinvention of genuine local government, for the radical decentralising of much that public administration delivers, for police, health, social care and much else to face more democratic accountability, and for a system of local services that controls its own budgets and makes its own policy choices."
And its own funding. Historically, local government made most of its money from rates. Which acted as a counterweight to any NIMBYs. Building 500 homes made the town better off. When you have a grant, more people is a cost (until the grant is adjusted)
Making a town nicer also encouraged more people to come to the town so that petty crime, graffiti and so forth are treated seriously. A bad environment would make people leave, so income would fall.
And really, the Mayor of London is little more than The Mayor of London Transport. Go down the list and remove any sort of "produces a plan" or "advises". What does the Mayor actually have power to decide? It's not much more than transport, Fire and I think some planning.
Nearly everything that the mayors have done, of all parties have been around transport. What did Boris deliver under his watch? Routemaster buses, a cycle scheme (not even a cost, as sponsored), the Thames cable car (again, sponsored, not cost), a plan for the Garden Bridge (TFL), banning alcohol on the tube (TFL, later tube hours (TFL). If you take out various showmanship and propaganda, there is very little but transport.
Khan, Boris, Shaun Bailey can say they are going to deal with bike crime in London, but no, they can't. Because they can't fire the chief of the met. They can recommend to the home secretary to fire them. But the actual power rests with the home secretary.
I get very tired of the rants about London, and more than tired when they're racist. I live in an area with a very diverse population. We may not always get to know each other but on the whole we don't kill each other. London is expensive, especially for young people looking for housing; house prices are going up all across the country, and that certainly needs attention. But London is still a beautiful city; you can still get into the National Gallery for free; you can walk along the river and eat out of doors and get the bus home at midnight. That's what you expect in a capital city.
So you are perfectly happy with the demographic and cultural vandalisation of England then?
Give us a break. Yawn.
In addition to your example of expensive train tickets, there is also the question of why has fare dodging become so prevalent in London?
https://anotherdabblingdilettante.substack.com/p/london-tube-fare-evasion
London has a significantly lower average age than the rest of the UK so the argument that local authorities struggle in London due to adult social care costs doesn't wash (if that was part of the argument).
Agree about decentralisation of competencies and budgets of course. If dictator for a day, every single competence the States or the Cantons have in USA and SWI would be devolved to LAs in the UK. It would smash the overtly secessionist parties too which would be fun.
It's funny but you seem to have missed the point that uncontrolled immigration, especially illegal and/or unskilled, has contributed to many of the problems you say just need a local government tweak. Petty crime, expensive housing, no money to take care the basics--all have very strongly been influenced by the immigration of people that don't have the same social mores and/or have no way to support themselves. As well, the lack of enforcement of laws has a lot to do with 'not wanting to cause a race riot' and the message that a two tiered justice system projects.
The native English, when they were the all of that country long, long ago (30 years ago), did not act this way. There were problems, but not like this. And I guess you didn't delve into the Pakistani rape gangs because they aren't London-centric. At least there's that.
Yeah. The was absolutely no crime when Britain was all white. It was a paradise. I guess Jimmy Saville et al were just "misunderstood"
Um no. Never said there was no crime or messed up people in Britain before massive immigration. What I did say was that the overall social fabric held together in a way it does not now. And that bonkers immigration has fueled nearly every social problem to the point where it's unavoidable to the average person. It's a matter of degree.
If you need to do a binary thing, go ahead. But you'll miss the point.
I agree with you more than with Goodwin, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on housing supply and rents – I think beyond the generalised "immigrants are bad because they play their phones out loud on the train" stuff he was saying, he does point out correctly that nearly half the social housing in London has a foreign-born head of household. Surely that is an undeniable ill which comes from mass, uncontrolled, low-skilled immigration? And surely the nature of that immigration is something which has changed recently, post-Covid, with the so-called "Boriswave", no?
It’s entirely deniable that it’s an ill, actually
The seats are tatty, agreed. Stabbing victims will go and bleed all over the place.
In my European country a 4 hour train trip with guaranteed seat to the capital costs 13.50 euros, about 12 GBP, one way. Beer is a euro. We speak the same language as Carlos Santana.
A fish starts to rot from the head. The culture and mismanagement flow from the top, and local authorities either struggle with that they don't have, or just partake in the system, because what else is there to do?
Good to read your rebuttal. I live in London, as I have for 40 years, broadly manage to navigate the pitfalls and continue to find much here that is wonderful. On balance, perhaps less so nowadays, but it's certainly not fallen off a cliff.
I’m not sure how I can agree more with this. Goodwin uses a hyped narrative to hit the points he wants to hit: too much immigration, the wrong sort of immigration, collapse of standards (which is at least half imagined: crime shot up during the Blackout, Victorian London was often feral). But nothing will improve until the basics work properly and people regard politicians as able to bring that about. The centre attempts too much and too often fails. And at least two of London’s three mayors have been grandstanders who can’t or won’t knuckle down to the hard slog.
Is there a way to reform local government without prior national reform of how we finance adult social care and children's services?
P.S. You're right about Goodwin.
No. Need reform of the local government pension schemes too.
“And trains are expensive because, unlike other places, Britain tries to make them pay their way.”
Not sure that this can be the whole story. I’m always puzzled by why I can fly across Europe with Ryanair for less than the price of the train to the airport. What makes trains so damn expensive?
Trains have to pay for a whole load more physical infrastructure than planes. You need a long field for planes and hundreds of miles of steel track for trains. I simplify a bit here. Of powered transport systems flying is by far the least infrastrictuse intensive (although it doesn't feel that way if you live near Heathrow)
Putting down hundreds of miles of track isn't that hard, or even that expensive. It's inspection and maintenance that costs the big bucks. People have to go out and constantly check the tracks. Do you know how much it costs to repair or replace tracks? £2bn per annum, nearly 20% of passenger revenue.
Because the big problem with trains is that they're sensitive things. They're hand-made, driven by expensive specialists and sensitive to conditions. Too much snow, leaves, too much of a hill, can't go. If you get a bit of damage to a rail track, bad things can happen. So, rails have to be constantly checked for damage and constantly repaired.
Buses and cars are about resilience. Hills? Small floods? bad road surface, leaves, it gets through. Made in factories, so cheap. Driven by anyone with a PSA. They may not be as quick, but there's generally a better trade off.
Main reason is that is impossible to sneak into airplanes without paying for a ticket. People who travel by train pay for all the people who refuses to pay.