Boris's dilemma

Mayor still has ambitions for David Cameron's job. But his chances -- always slim in reality -- have

"He was stuck between a rock and a hard place," said a London Tory councillor of Boris Johnson's dilemma over whether to stand again as mayor of the capital. My source, who knows Johnson, explained that Johnson knew that had he pulled out, he risked being branded a "bottler" in the inevitable subsequent attempts to find a Parliamentary seat. His ambition to return to the Commons, compete with the current Tory leadership and climb the greasy poll, would also have been fully exposed at last.

On the other hand, there are real risks in his decision to run again. Labour did especially well in London in May, and senior Tories in the city are worried about Johnson's chances of winning again amid cuts and transport hikes. Different Tories say different things about who Boris fears most of his potential Labour opponents Ken Livingstone and Oona King. But there are always bluffs in that game, as there were when Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell deliberately put it about that Michael Portillo -- not Kenneth Clarke -- was the opponent they feared, as confirmed in Campbell's diaries.

My hunch is that Johnson has come very reluctantly to this decision. There was something unusually flat in his normally Wodehousian tones today. He maintains that he has "more chance of being decapitated by a Frisbee" than reaching Number Ten. He still wants it. But the reality may be sinking in that the plan has taken a knock back now. "He didn't really have a choice in the end," concludes my source. Johnson's best hope now is fighting Cameron and George Osborne on cuts and Crossrail, distancing himself perhaps a little more subtly than he has up to now, and remaining one of the most powerful Tories in the country. The fresh dilemma for him is that if he wins, he is locked into London for another term. if he loses his reputation will have been damaged before the early re-entry into the Commons that some say he seeks.

Whatever happens, there will be further clashes between this particular Tory and the Cameron top team, almost certainly starting at the Conservatives' conference in a few weeks' time.

James Macintyre is political correspondent for the New Statesman.
Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.