Return to: Home | Politics | UK Politics

Power to the people?

Published 14 August 2007

Andrew Boff says his main goal is democratic renewal including allowing Londoners the right to draw up their own policies. He will also support small businesses and promote family housing

Another Livingstone term will be a victory for central planning and the political class. It will weaken Boroughs and communities. We'll have more diktats, more disengagement and more contempt for the opinions of the people. One thing you can guarantee, however, is that there will be more razzmatazz and more distractions for people to take their minds off the fact that more and more decisions about their lives will be taken at City Hall. The people of London need power, Livingstone gives them parties.

The prime aim of my mayoralty will be a democratic renewal. I will be a mayor who uses the Leadership of London to empower Boroughs, communities and individuals.

Londoners will have the right to draw up their own policies and have them voted on by fellow Londoners. On raising a petition of a proportion (10% to 30%) of voters any proposal within the remit of the Mayor would be put to Londoners at the next ordinary election. The result would be binding on me.

Communities who think that their Boroughs are too large and remote will have my support in drafting proposals to break them into smaller, more accountable units.

I'll continue and strengthen the move towards community-based policing. I will insist that the Boroughs invest heavily in providing rewarding activities for disengaged young people.

Regeneration has become a dirty word in many parts of London because many projects seem to ignore the interests of people who are already there. You cannot defeat poverty by just moving out the poor people. New Labour let large corporations call the tune on redevelopment proposals thereby contributing to the widening gap between London's poor and the rest.

Family housing will be promoted and there will be no subsidies for one and two bedroomed high-rise flats. The Housing Strategy will take into account the building of communities rather than just houses. London doesn't need any more wind-swept ghettos without shops or services.

I will draft legislation to protect small shops and independents against unfair competition from large retailers. This will include the power for planning authorities to be able to refuse applications that are anti-competitive and to enable “Small Business Conservation Areas” to be set up.

I will fight against the damage to the environment and valuable green areas that over development and the Olympics threaten. We need a massive house-building programme but not one that throws away the natural and built heritage of London. I will commission an accessible "Bus for London" designed for London streets, not just buy in buses designed for other cities.

I'll be reducing the size of City Hall from 688 posts down to 200. Senior administrative functions will be carried out by lead officers in the Boroughs. This will flatten the management structure and bring the Boroughs into the Government of London rather than being below it.

Post this article to

17 comments from readers

Robert Powell
17 August 2007 at 12:10

Andrew you say: "Londoners will have the right to draw up their own policies and have them voted on by fellow Londoners." Lovely idea but of course anything anyone suggests is subject to the law of England and Wales so the more interesting ideas such as euthanasia or legalising murder are automatically right out. Back to the drawing board?

AndrewBoff
19 August 2007 at 10:11

Robert,

Not at all. The propositions must be within the remit of the Mayor. The plan is outlined at

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/100policies/2006/08/to_giv...

As Mayr I would abide by whatever the outcome was.

tmarley
19 August 2007 at 17:14

"I will commission an accessible "Bus for London" designed for London streets, not just buy in buses designed for other cities."

What exactly is distinct about London streets which means that you would have to commission a costly bus design?

Is this not merely a pledge to remove the bendy-buses?

AndrewBoff
20 August 2007 at 01:25

If Baron Haussman had been a Londoner we may not have had this problem. London's labyrinthine Streets require vehicles to have tight turning circles; articulated buses don't manage this very well and can create congestion when trying to negotiate them. The need to turn so many times also causes problems for cyclists and other road users. The Routemaster, though inaccessible to many Londoners, was designed with the routes it was going to travel in mind. The new Bus for London will take into account the passengers as well. TfL is a large enough customer to be able to justify the research and development expenditure to provide it.

Anna
20 August 2007 at 13:11

Without funding from the large companies that you abhor how are you going to pay for the regeneration scheme you suggest? The petitions scheme that you put forward also sounds like it's going to require a large number of employees to run effectively and it seems to me that a lot of the impetus for running it might fall on the boroughs rather than the mayoral office, is that the case?

AndrewBoff
20 August 2007 at 20:08

I have no great love for big corporations but I do like the way their money can be used to regenerate areas. They would not get involved in regeneration if they didn’t see a buck or two in it for themselves and they will continue to commit to schemes even if local communities are in the driving seat of regeneration. New Labour seems to think that capitalists invest in regeneration out of sense of social responsibility. This looks very nice as a corporate press release but generally doesn’t bear much relation to their performance. “Year Zero” regenerations, where the local authorities allow developers to embark upon a bit of ‘social cleansing’ by shipping out the poor, do not exactly aid social cohesion. An example of this kow-towing can be seen in LDA development at Dalston where Livingstone has forced through a “regeneration” scheme despite huge local opposition and is delivering a pathetic 12% of homes for rent, a criteria he used for turning down a much more viable regeneration scheme in Hammersmith.

On the voters initiative procedure the cost estimate per petition is about £3 million. To minimise the costs they would run alongside ordinary elections. The first opportunity for Londoners to use this would be June 2009.

You are right to observe that most of the administration of these procedures will be via the Boroughs. I believe that they need to be a stronger part of the administration of London. There is too much duplication in City Hall. You may wish to read.http://andrewboff.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view...

AndrewBoff
20 August 2007 at 20:11

These links may be helpful regarding the above post:

http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News_and_Media/Press_office...

http://opendalston.blogspot.com/2007/05/greater-london-autho...

ronniescott
22 August 2007 at 13:19

Mr Boff, do you still believe that the dome should be turned upside and filled with tea? Or have you retreated from this bold policy?

AndrewBoff
22 August 2007 at 17:33

Mr Scott,

I knew that off the cuff remark at a hustings a few years ago would come back to haunt me. I was trying, and I believe succeeded, in indicating my complete contempt for the whole project which I still think is one of the best examples of why the political class needs a handbreak (see voters initiatives). How much better would it have been to have spent the lottery money on 603 local projects of £1 million rather than one monument to corporatist vanity?

As to it’s current usage? Well, I wish AEG well in their O2 venture. After all, we’ve paid for it with £603 million of sports facilities, youth funding and community initiatives that didn’t happen as a result.

Andrew

LowFidelityDisconnect
01 September 2007 at 09:36

Many communities identify themselves by the area they live, not just the building the inhabit. Regeneration schemes should aim to fund redevelopment of all aspects of local communities, i.e. shopping precincts, local music and entertainment venues, and recreational open spaces. Not a strip mall that creates no sense of locality or community identity, but small businesses run and owned by members of the local community. Not multiplex cinemas or vast dance club halls, but independent arts venues showing world cinema, and music alternative live music venues. How do propose to help encourage/fund such provision?

taghioff.info
01 September 2007 at 17:51

Let me see if I understand you correctly Andrew. You are a conservative who wants to reign in corporate power in relation to regeneration programs, and presumably other public sector work, and who also wants to cut back on city hall (600 people to run what amounts to a small country is not many, cut down to 200 sounds lunatic. London's population is larger than Sweden's.)

So who exactly is going to keep an eye on the corporations? Small shop owners? The invisible hand of the market?

It seems to me that your populist rhetoric rests on the assumption that society is somehow self-organising. Why is governing such a bad thing? London is better run now, than when it was neglected under Margaret's brand of laissez-faire , what is it about your brand of laissez-faire that will work so much better.

Are people more socially aware and motivated now, will community groups spontaneously assemble to run the city, singing "hi ho, hi ho" Are you a closet anarcho-syndicalist?

AndrewBoff
02 September 2007 at 00:18

LowfidelityDiscount

I've proposed the establishing of 'business conservation areas' which would allow local authorities to specify areas where only small independents would be permitted to trade. Apart from creating areas which are incubators for small businesses and ventures, once the chain stores are cut out of the equation this may also have the effect of bringing down the cost of commercial rents. It would need primary legislation to pass but the resources of the Mayor's office would be used to draft and lobby for this kind of change.

I also want to see a greater involvement by the local communities in the planning of regeneration schemes. I'm not discounting public funding for such schemes but to fund them all from public funds would soon bankrupt most local authorities. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with property developers being involved in regeneration; local authorities need well funded partners. It's who is in charge that matters. I see too many local authorities being seduced with the prospect of private cash to the point where they abandon any social objectives that they may have had and end up just tarting an area up and moving the poor out. Social cleansing is not the answer. Boroughs in London need to be much harder with developers and have a clearer vision of their social objectives.

Sustainable communities require vibrant local economies made up of the kind of things that you've mentioned.

I also want to see the powers for planning authorities to be able to take into account the effect of chain stores on the local economy. Sometimes chain stores can help a high street, too often they use their corporate muscle to destroy them.

taghioff.info

My plans for the size of City Hall are explained here. It is a model of government that is less hierarchical and centralised but will still manage to tackle London-Wide issues.

I think my responses to LowFidelityDiscount indicates that I am not a great believer in 'laissez-faire' as I do believe in intervention to prevent anti-competitive practices.

“London is better run now” ... for whom exactly? Not for the 200,000 families in overcrowded homes who see one-bedroomed flats going up all around them, not for the young who loiter on street corners with nothing to do, not for the young families who want to stay in the area they live in to set up home, not for small shopkeepers who have been forced out of business by chain stores, not for communities who fell like developments in their area are out of their control and certainly not for the poor.

Communities looking after each other is the natural order of things. It is only the imposition of over-centralised authority that has dis-empowered communities to the point where getting involved is made to appear like the preserve of the odd.

If I am selected as Conservative Candidate in the election for London Mayor there will be a clear choice for voters. Centralist or localist. If only every decision were that simple.

AndrewBoff
02 September 2007 at 00:19

taghioff.info

Sorry - missed the link out.

http://andrewboff.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view...

Andrew

taghioff.info
02 September 2007 at 04:31

OK Andrew, I have to say that you are making a good effort to engage and argue your case, which makes you a more credible candidate, to my mind, than Boris.

I looked at your proposal, and it strikes me that there is a flaw in your plan.

" * The Mayor's office will be reduced to under 50 (from 133);

* Media and Marketing will go down to 5 (from 64);

* Policy and partnerships will be reduced to 20 (from 136).

It will mean that the people who are doing the job are producing the strategies. Rather than a hierarchy, functional strategies will be produced co-operatively at the coal-face."

The assumption built into your proposal is that less staff necessarily correlates with more co-operation with London boroughs. But the staffing numbers you give are ludicrously low for running an entity the size of a small nation.

A small European country like Sweden, Luxemberg or the Netherlands will have a national government of far more then 600 civil servants, AND a layer of local government, that works to implement the strategies laid out at the national level.

The reason these two levels can co-operate is that there is enough staff time to allow for meetings between them. If you cut the already skeleton staff of the Mayor's office, how would the people making the strategies have staff-time available to co-ordiante with the boroughs?

Answer, they wouldn't. They would be running around like blue-bottomed flies trying to keep the plates sinning. End result? The capital would return to the chaos of the 80s and early 90s.

Please don't pretend that things are worse now than they were then. Absolute poverty levels for the worse off have fallen under labor. I wish there were more equality overall, but I don't think that will be the case under your fragmented approach.

Do you have a strategy for redistributing wealth that does not rely on the magic of an invisible hand?

taghioff.info
02 September 2007 at 05:15

"Communities looking after each other is the natural order of things. It is only the imposition of over-centralised authority that has dis-empowered communities to the point where getting involved is made to appear like the preserve of the odd."

Actually, centralised authority (i.e. state and local government) is another mechanism by which communities look after each other.

I like your statement about the natural order of things, it is nice and risky.

I am an Anthropologist doing fieldwork on development projects in South India. From where I am sitting the order of things is that the strong eat up the weak, unless someone intervenes.

Communities left to their own devices can rarely do this, they rarely have the resources and skills to organise themselves to fight back.

But if an outside agency provides resources it can help. It can also pacify them and make them dependent, true, but social activism and empowerment requires the commitment of resources. It does not spontaneously arise out of thin air, i.e. out of economic theories.

Those resources can be committed via civil society or via the state, but the best way is both. But you don't get something for nothing. That is the natural order of things.

AndrewBoff
03 September 2007 at 16:42

taghioff.info

The functions you mention will carry on, but they will do so without hierarchy.

Comparing London to Sweden is really not treating like for like. The GLA doesn't have a responsibility for defence, taxation is devolved to the Boroughs via the precept and doesn't, despite Livingstone's attempts, really require a foreign policy.

The root of poverty is exclusion: economic and democratic. London will be a MUCH more democratic place when I become Mayor and I will test the Boroughs rigorously on their policies for social cohesion and inclusion.

Centralised authority is there to lay down the standards of behaviour. Enforcement and allocation of resources is a local role backed up by the rule of law.

Allocation of resources is always going to be controversial.

For example, in Hackney we want Swimming Pools, Sports centres and Youth Clubs ... the Council is building a plush new Town Hall instead. And no, that isn't an argument for allocating such resources from the centre..Livingstone is equally deaf to locally expressed opinions.

We need to drive decision making further and further down the pyramid of Government and away from a political class that just wants to do good at people. Instead we should give people a voice.

Andrew

taghioff.info
05 September 2007 at 07:17

I appreciate your sentiment, but democracy does not emerge out of thin air, it requires a large and ongoing comittment of resources to make it work.

Why else is democracy generally seen to gradually emerge and strengthen as countries get richer? Democracy requires concrete institutions and thus my point about staff-time stands.

I take your point about London having fewer functions than a national government, but in many ways London is harder to manage than Sweden: The population is far more diverse, and crammed into tiny land area.

Also, I think you will find it very hard to run London with a resentful staff under you hating you for sacking two out of three of their colleagues. I note you work in IT, but I imagine not on the management consultancy side...