> A row has broken out between Sadiq Khan and chancellor Rachel Reeves on the eve of Labour’s first spending review for 16 years, with allies of the London mayor claiming he is being short-changed. Senior figures in City Hall said Khan was increasingly convinced that London would not get the green light on any of its key “asks” in the government’s spending review on Wednesday — and could also lose out on economic growth funds.
> The Financial Times revealed in February that the mayor was seeking funding to extend the Bakerloo line further into south London and for a £1bn project to expand the driverless Docklands Light Railway to Thamesmead in south-east London. But Khan’s allies have said that at a recent meeting with the Treasury it was made clear that these demands would not be met by central government.
> That is despite the fact that this is the first time in his nine years in City Hall that Khan, a Labour Party politician, has been dealing with a Labour government. “Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review,” said one City Hall figure.
> Transport for London has asked for greater financial certainty after having muddled through six short-term bailouts during the previous Conservative government, triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Khan is concerned that London could be among regions losing out from cuts to economic and anti-poverty funds such as the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, Growth Hub Funding and the Levelling-Up Fund. Three senior council figures based outside London said the future of the Shared Prosperity Fund was uncertain. The £2.6bn pot of cash, originally launched by the Conservatives in 2022 to replace EU structural funding, has been extended by Labour until next March.
> One ally of the mayor said cuts to such schemes would be “incredibly short-sighted”. “They say that they want economic growth but their actions in failing to invest in new infrastructure in the capital and cutting local growth funds will actually damage our economy, not improve it,” they said. “They say they want regional mayors to be the drivers of growth but then remove their levers to achieve growth.”
> But one central government aide described the criticism as “nonsense”. “[Khan’s] settlement remains one of the most generous of any mayor across the country,” they said. The Treasury declined to respond on any of the specifics of the claims from Khan’s office. However, one Treasury official said the government had already given London support for the expansions of Gatwick, Luton and City airports as well as backing for a third runway at Heathrow. Khan is opposed to a new Heathrow runway. The official said the government had also approved the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street and expanded late licensing in the capital.
> The spending review will also include more than £1bn of funding for the Lower Thames Crossing, a major infrastructure scheme to the east of the capital between Kent and Essex. The spat comes after Reeves unveiled a £15.6bn pot of investment for transport projects in regional cities last week, a key request of mayors outside of London. Research by the left-leaning think-tank IPPR this week found that over the decade to 2022-23, London had received £1,183 per person per year of transport spending, twice as much as the English average and three times more than the East Midlands.
If London loses we all lose. Sir Khan right to challenge the government.
It is one of the awkward facts of British life that despite everyone hating us and and thinking we’re over-funded, we subsidise almost the entire rest of the country and if your goal is short term economic boosts, pouring even more money in to London is your best move.
A longer term project is rebalancing things across the nations, but that costs even more money and requires 1) hard work and 2) waiting around for a decade as it pays dividends, which are not British fortes anymore.
edit: you’re welcome, and I do want the government to raise my personal taxes to pay for better services for London and also to pay for better services for non-London also
Again, the Treasury ruins the lives of the people.
To be fair the Bakerloo and DLR extension are pretty low on the national, and even London priority list. I’d be happy for other parts of the country to get this cash. We’re only just got Crossrail which was Europe’s largest infrastructure project after all.
On the one hand I sorta *get* it, but on the other hand, shouldn’t the government be supercharging the only productive asset that the country has?
I get that it ultimately comes down to the ludicrous fiscal rules the government chooses to chain itself to, but surely investment in London drives growth that in turn pays back the original investment with interest?
Why do they hate so much London, London economy provides for everyone.
This is a terrible mistake from the Labour government, they are not going to gain any voters in the north and they are going to lose voters in London.
Usual moronic management by the Treasury insisting we cant improve and heavily invest in a major city like London alongside other cities across England (devolved countries seem to be doing better).
A nonsense of course that’d be looked at with bafflement in other nations. Imagine the Chinese, Germans, French etc. thinking they can only improve one part at a time. We can improve London and Manchester as well as Leeds and Bristol. It should not be either/or.
Sad to see Labour following the same failed path the Tories did with Treasury dead end thinking.
All money raised in London should remain in London, no exceptions.
World’s smallest violin playing.
This has royally miffed me off. I threw my spoon down haughtily!
Stuff the city full of pensioners.
Then we’ll get money.
I don’t often agree with Sadiq Khan, but on this he is right
I think that’s good. Money isn’t unlimited so should be spent building up elsewhere.
14 comments
> A row has broken out between Sadiq Khan and chancellor Rachel Reeves on the eve of Labour’s first spending review for 16 years, with allies of the London mayor claiming he is being short-changed. Senior figures in City Hall said Khan was increasingly convinced that London would not get the green light on any of its key “asks” in the government’s spending review on Wednesday — and could also lose out on economic growth funds.
> The Financial Times revealed in February that the mayor was seeking funding to extend the Bakerloo line further into south London and for a £1bn project to expand the driverless Docklands Light Railway to Thamesmead in south-east London. But Khan’s allies have said that at a recent meeting with the Treasury it was made clear that these demands would not be met by central government.
> That is despite the fact that this is the first time in his nine years in City Hall that Khan, a Labour Party politician, has been dealing with a Labour government. “Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review,” said one City Hall figure.
> Transport for London has asked for greater financial certainty after having muddled through six short-term bailouts during the previous Conservative government, triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Khan is concerned that London could be among regions losing out from cuts to economic and anti-poverty funds such as the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, Growth Hub Funding and the Levelling-Up Fund. Three senior council figures based outside London said the future of the Shared Prosperity Fund was uncertain. The £2.6bn pot of cash, originally launched by the Conservatives in 2022 to replace EU structural funding, has been extended by Labour until next March.
> One ally of the mayor said cuts to such schemes would be “incredibly short-sighted”. “They say that they want economic growth but their actions in failing to invest in new infrastructure in the capital and cutting local growth funds will actually damage our economy, not improve it,” they said. “They say they want regional mayors to be the drivers of growth but then remove their levers to achieve growth.”
> But one central government aide described the criticism as “nonsense”. “[Khan’s] settlement remains one of the most generous of any mayor across the country,” they said. The Treasury declined to respond on any of the specifics of the claims from Khan’s office. However, one Treasury official said the government had already given London support for the expansions of Gatwick, Luton and City airports as well as backing for a third runway at Heathrow. Khan is opposed to a new Heathrow runway. The official said the government had also approved the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street and expanded late licensing in the capital.
> The spending review will also include more than £1bn of funding for the Lower Thames Crossing, a major infrastructure scheme to the east of the capital between Kent and Essex. The spat comes after Reeves unveiled a £15.6bn pot of investment for transport projects in regional cities last week, a key request of mayors outside of London. Research by the left-leaning think-tank IPPR this week found that over the decade to 2022-23, London had received £1,183 per person per year of transport spending, twice as much as the English average and three times more than the East Midlands.
If London loses we all lose. Sir Khan right to challenge the government.
It is one of the awkward facts of British life that despite everyone hating us and and thinking we’re over-funded, we subsidise almost the entire rest of the country and if your goal is short term economic boosts, pouring even more money in to London is your best move.
A longer term project is rebalancing things across the nations, but that costs even more money and requires 1) hard work and 2) waiting around for a decade as it pays dividends, which are not British fortes anymore.
edit: you’re welcome, and I do want the government to raise my personal taxes to pay for better services for London and also to pay for better services for non-London also
Again, the Treasury ruins the lives of the people.
To be fair the Bakerloo and DLR extension are pretty low on the national, and even London priority list. I’d be happy for other parts of the country to get this cash. We’re only just got Crossrail which was Europe’s largest infrastructure project after all.
On the one hand I sorta *get* it, but on the other hand, shouldn’t the government be supercharging the only productive asset that the country has?
I get that it ultimately comes down to the ludicrous fiscal rules the government chooses to chain itself to, but surely investment in London drives growth that in turn pays back the original investment with interest?
Why do they hate so much London, London economy provides for everyone.
This is a terrible mistake from the Labour government, they are not going to gain any voters in the north and they are going to lose voters in London.
Usual moronic management by the Treasury insisting we cant improve and heavily invest in a major city like London alongside other cities across England (devolved countries seem to be doing better).
A nonsense of course that’d be looked at with bafflement in other nations. Imagine the Chinese, Germans, French etc. thinking they can only improve one part at a time. We can improve London and Manchester as well as Leeds and Bristol. It should not be either/or.
Sad to see Labour following the same failed path the Tories did with Treasury dead end thinking.
All money raised in London should remain in London, no exceptions.
World’s smallest violin playing.
This has royally miffed me off. I threw my spoon down haughtily!
Stuff the city full of pensioners.
Then we’ll get money.
I don’t often agree with Sadiq Khan, but on this he is right
I think that’s good. Money isn’t unlimited so should be spent building up elsewhere.
We’re too reliant on London.
Comments are closed.