Changing London. David Robinson

his citizens to imagine three things that they could do for their community and then to persuade three friends to do the same. Calgarians embraced the innovative approach with great enthusiasm and returned him to office for a second term with an impressive 74 per cent of the vote.14

      A younger generation that is disillusioned with mainstream politics identifies with issues, not tribes. A same-old versus same-old contest in London in 2016 will not ignite the passions of an electorate that is young, substantially unaligned and increasingly bored – if not terminally disaffected – by business as usual. For mayors and would-be mayors, breaking new ground is very smart politics.

      A New Approach to Politics: Do or Die

      ‘In this century, metropolitan areas, rather than nation states, will shape the world’s social, cultural and economic agendas’ says the international think tank the City Mayors Foundation.15 City mayors don’t have the power of prime ministers but nor do they have the constraints, or the distractions that come with that wider responsibility. When once threatened by an opponent who claimed to ‘have a plan’, boxing champion Mike Tyson replied ‘everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.’16 So it is with national governments. Every new PM has a plan, then events fight back. City mayors are in a different ring, less affected by the unforeseen.

      Changing London has focused on the areas where mayoral candidates have been short on ideas in the past. This isn’t to say that bus fares and congestion charging and inward investment aren’t important, they assuredly are, but we believe London needs candidates who think beyond the points of marginal difference.

      We need contenders who raise the debate, leaders who inspire and stretch us all and push at the boundaries of the possible.

      And without wishing to be too alarmist, we look at the figures from the last election and we look around us now, and we fear it’s do or die.

      For the last fifty years the mainstream parties have been haemorrhaging membership and core support as the big voting blocs based on social class have steadily declined. ‘The mass membership parties of postwar Europe’, says Nick Pearce, ‘not only represented the political demands of their core constituencies, they helped to frame and organise their social lives and civic engagement… Voting for a party was not just a rational choice but an expressive act through which ties of loyalty and belonging were given meaning.’

      ‘Increasingly, however, as the communities of social class fractured, parties came to lose these moorings. They became more professionalised and narrowly composed, with recruitment and promotion mechanisms increasingly focused on access to, and advancement within, the hierarchies of public office. As the realm of the state became more important, the special adviser took over from the shop steward.’17

      This loss of identity and the consequential sense of powerlessness have contributed, according to Jon Cruddas and Jonathan Rutherford, to ‘growing levels of anxiety, addiction, depression and loneliness. Problems that have a social cause are experienced as humiliating personal failures. Individuals are left alone to cope with these problems as best they can and public services treat the poor like supplicants and victims.’1

      Politics and politicians no longer provide the answers or even offer hope, something to believe in. Add in the expenses scandal and an apparently ever-increasing disappointment in the conduct and integrity of people in high places, top it off with some deeply divisive policies like the Iraq war, tuition fees and the deficit-reduction strategy, and it is unsurprising to discover that public support for politicians has never been lower: just 18 per cent of the British public now have any trust in the people who govern us.18

      Inevitably, people stop voting or they find a party that appears to represent something completely different. Immigration dominates the agenda, ‘refracting voters anxieties’ say Cruddas and Rutherford, ‘into a brittle politics of loss, victimhood and grievance’. A positive political discourse is displaced by blame and recrimination. Romanians, benefit claimants and single parents, ‘troubled families’, young people, old people, teachers and social workers are variously offered as the scapegoat. ‘Brittle politics’, small minded, self-serving, mean spirited and unattractive. So it is that party members find better things to do and voters look away.

      Changing London is very small, but within this tiny initiative there are the seeds of an approach that has the potential to better serve a large and diverse electorate and to reinvigorate democracy for a new generation.

      Our contributors aren’t mindlessly happy but they are optimistic. They recognise very clearly the challenges and the problems in this city at the moment, but all of the ideas here are about making London better in the future – anything that was just a whinge did not make it onto the blog.

      Clement Atlee famously believed that Labour won the stunning victory in 1945 because ‘we were looking to the future. The Tories were looking to the past.’ Similarly, our contributors believe it is by dreaming new dreams that we improve the lives of Londoners, rebuild interest in the political process, and win the mayoral election in 2016.

      A Time for Ideas

      Two wider developments make this a particularly timely moment for crowdsourcing and debating new ideas for the next mayor.

      First, the Labour Party has introduced selection primaries for members, registered supporters and affiliates to choose the standard bearer. At the time of writing it looks likely that the opportunity will attract at least half a dozen candidates and probably more. It also seems probable that the other main parties will adopt a comparable process. A faithful and undifferentiated incantation of the Westminster line on every issue won’t enable anyone to stand out from the crowd. Bold distinctions will be debated, refined and selected or rejected. Ideas will be needed.

      Second, devolution will be a major point of discussion in both the selection process and the subsequent election. As cities and regions across the UK pitch for enhanced powers, London has so far been unconvincing in its response. Specifics are thin on the ground, and at the moment it is only a bullish sense of entitlement that seems to unite London politicians, commentators, lobbyists and cheerleaders.

      The deal for Greater Manchester, the first in the wake of the Scottish referendum, gave the mayor control of a new housing investment fund, enhanced planning powers, increased responsibility for local transport, welfare-to-work programmes, existing health and social care budgets, business support and further education and up to £30 million a year from the Treasury in recognition of the extra growth – and tax revenues – that Manchester will generate.19 It’s a big deal for the city.

      So why Manchester, some Londoners wondered, and not London?

      At a meeting shortly after the Manchester announcement the responsible minister, Greg Clarke, supplied the answer with visible exasperation: ‘Manchester came to me with a plan for what they would do with more power’ he said, ‘Londoners keep telling me why they are entitled to more power. That doesn’t wash.’

      Nor should it, and if the discussion hasn’t gathered substance by the time of mayoral selections and elections it must do then. Our next mayor needs to earn new powers. They need a plan for London that inspires popular and cross-sector support and that demonstrably merits government approval. Once again, they need big bold inclusive ideas.

      Here are ours.

      Changing London: The Headlines

      There is much to admire in London, but it isn’t perfect. Our city tops the tables on ‘technology readiness and economic clout’ but is way down on health and fairness and work–life balance.20 Leading is good but ensuring that no one is left behind is even more important. An explicit commitment to fairness and equity has been a running theme in the Changing London discourse.

      We live in an age of new technologies disrupting and changing relationships and behaviour. An internet sensibility infects all that we do, online and off. We expect customised service and user involvement. Changing London has been less about what the mayor can do for us – we no longer trust the promise anyway – and more about what we, with the right mayor, can achieve together.

      These