However London votes today, not enough will change
Whether Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Greens, or Reform – all local politicians are all incentivised by the system that elects them. Every party promises to protect “green spaces”, all councillors perform lip service towards supporting affordable homes, while campaigning vociferously against what they arbitrarily determine to be “inappropriate development”, says Tom Harwood
While London (and much of the rest of the country) goes to vote today, I’m left wondering how much might actually change. Call me a curmudgeon, but in many boroughs the incentives for local politicians remain broadly the same no matter who ends up winning.
Just as Labour somehow found the gall to fight the Uxbridge by-election on an anti-ULEZ ticket, in Wandsworth they boast about keeping council tax the lowest in the country. Meanwhile over in Westminster the Labour Party has taken precisely the same attitude to Soho pedestrianisation and outdoor dining as their previous Conservative counterparts.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Every party promises to protect “green spaces”, all councillors perform lip service towards supporting affordable homes, while campaigning vociferously against what they arbitrarily determine to be “inappropriate development”.
Sure, there are some changes at the margins. When Labour took control of Westminster for the first time in 2022, the party soon changed the council’s social housing allocations scheme, to no longer prioritise people in work. A cynic might say that some political parties believe they gain electoral advantage from more workless voters in their patch.
It remarkably rhymes with the old Westminster “homes for votes” scandal – which was punished, eventually and spectacularly. Shirley Porter, who sadly died last week, ultimately paid £12.3m over the sale of council homes in marginal wards. She believed that owner occupiers were more likely to vote Conservative. The underlying lesson remains awkward: councils of all colours can shape not just policy, but the future electorate to which they are accountable.
Misaligned incentives
But I digress, the truth is that whether Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, Greens, or Reform – all local politicians are all incentivised by the system that elects them. The councillors representing the few ageing residents of Soho aren’t concerned with the night time economy or ability for businesses to thrive and grow. Those councillors are not elected by the people who work in their ward, or by those who enjoy visiting it. Instead, the voices they are overwhelmingly incentivised to listen to (to the exclusion of all other concerns) are those who would rather less noise, light, and frankly fun outside their windows.
Equally, local councillors see all of the electoral costs, and little of the financial reward for consenting new development. Just 30 per cent of business rates are retained by a London borough that grants permission for a new development or licenses a new business. That’s little financial reward for the council in the face of likely significant opposition from those who elect them.
This problem continues, when councillors are accountable to those who live in their wards, but not those who work in them (or even those who might like to live in them). Incentives become overwhelmingly weighted in favour of keeping things as they are, of standing still. Is it any wonder that across the whole of London last year, construction began on just 5,547 homes. For a city of almost 10 million people.
One part of London, however, has not fallen victim to the anti-growth trap. And it is the only part of London with where no elections are being held today. I am talking, of course, about the City; where it’s not just residents who each have one vote – but businesses are allowed to vote too. The more employees a business has, the more individual voters that business can nominate.
Is it any wonder that the City has the most gleaming skyscrapers in London? The most effective police force? Rapidly improving pedestrianisation and urban planning?
It’s time to think about how we can spread the magic success of Canada governance to more parts of the capital. When voters have more of a stake in growth, more politicians suddenly care about growth. You show me the outcome, and I’ll show you the incentive.
Tom Harwood is deputy political editor of GBNews