Next week, Londoners vote for the capital’s next mayor. Herpreet Kaur Grewal looks at what the candidates’ policies hold for regeneration.
In any political election, a lot rides on image. During the London mayoral contest, Boris Johnson, the Tory candidate, has been described as a “chaotic” and “ineloquent buffoon” unable to grasp policy detail, but also as an affable joker. Incumbent mayor Ken Livingstone has been presented as experienced, but weary and arrogant. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrat contender, Brian Paddick, has been portrayed as sensible, but lacking presence. Recent polls have shown Livingstone and Johnson running a tight contest, with Paddick a distant third.
With the London mayor having significant powers over planning, transport and housing – and managing an annual budget of more than £9 billion – the outcome of the election will affect the path of regeneration in the capital.
Housing is one area on which there is some consensus among the main candidates. All three agree there is a need to build 50,000 more affordable homes in London over the next three years, although their methods for achieving this target differ. Paddick says he will turn London’s empty properties into homes at affordable rents and release surplus public sector land to form new community land trusts that will provide long-term low-rent housing without the need to build on London’s precious green spaces. Livingstone vows to maintain his policy that 50 per cent of new homes should be sold or rented at affordable levels, as well as prioritise housing subsidies so they reach the neediest.
Johnson pledges to scrap Livingstone’s 50 per cent target – instead allowing London’s councils to set their own targets – but has spoken about his plans to help those on moderate incomes onto the housing ladder. His proposed shared-ownership First Steps housing scheme would be open to first-time buyers with a single or combined income of at least £60,000 who are nonetheless priced out of the capital’s property market, but are excluded from current government schemes.
A spokeswoman at trade body the National Housing Federation (NHF) said the organisation welcomed the housing policies of all three main candidates, but added that there was more they can do. She says it is “interesting (Johnson) is taking on the First Steps scheme”, but hopes he also focuses on homes for lower earners. “We hope he can deliver (homes) for both,” she says.
Paddick has promised to deliver a five per cent cut in crime every year, even saying that if he fails to reach his target to cut crime after four years, he won’t stand again. He has also pledged to chair the Metropolitan Police Authority to get “knives and guns off the streets in London” and to stop the closure of small police stations to build a stronger police presence in communities.
Johnson has vowed to put an extra 1,500 police on the capital’s streets, cracking down on thuggish behaviour on public transport, banning the consumption of alcohol on the tube and putting money into the voluntary groups that help to keep young people out of gangs. Livingstone says he will swell the number of police in London by a further 1,000 officers.
But Will McMahon, policy director at think-tank the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, says it’s “a shame” that the main candidates have used crime and the behaviour of young people as a “political football” instead of engaging in a more subtle debate about deep-seated social problems. “(The candidates) could have engaged in a public discussion about what’s driving harmful behaviour in the capital,” he says. The candidates need to talk more about the inequalities that can lead to crime, McMahon says. Tackling child poverty in London has not been a staple of debates or the candidates’ campaigns. This is despite more than 650,000 children in the capital living in poverty.
Livingstone is the only candidate with a proven track record in doing the job for which he is standing for re-election. Paddick also has a respectable public sector record as a former senior policeman. Johnson, however, can only point to his role as MP for Henley and his editorship of the Spectator magazine as prior experience for managing London.
Nonetheless, while his lack of in-depth knowledge on policy issues is one of his biggest weaknesses, use of figures and anecdotal evidence in debates has improved as the mayoral campaign has progressed. Whether this will be enough to unseat the incumbent remains to be seen.