As tens of thousand use the opportunity to walk along a part of Oxford St being pedestrianised with cyclists, buses and taxies barred from using it again, many await its longer term impact on the West End and in particular Mayfair, Marylebone & Soho. It will undoubtedly help tourism, though we have to see at what cost to the suburban high streets or not, and other outside Central London retail centres, only time will tell. 

As a regular cyclists into the West End, l don’t think it will be a problem at all, as l just cross over Oxford St and not go along it ever which will still be permitted at several points along with cars!  The more important road works to the West End though is being delayed by the council with full explanation, along Regents St from the top BBC HQ to Waterloo, as Nash intended. I would argue that this would be a far more significant pedestrianisation between the Council and the Crown Estate, as its North South movement is more critical to locals in Marylebone certainly. 

The skyline of Paddington is set to change again along two parts of Paddington, along the Westway. Almost above Paddington Railway Station at the rear of Bishop Bridge Rd opposite the infamous Brunel Building we see two 20 storey towers rising above the taxis rank entrance. And the other site is on the old Paddington Green Police Station, on the second phase of West End Green, another two residential towers are going up at the foot of the Marylebone flyover.

Whilst all these towers are literately rising right now out of the ground, the only one with outstanding planning permission for over a decade maybe and change of use to residential away from offices, is yet to be built out as the main building in Paddington Basin, 1 Merchant Square, otherwise known as the ‘Cucumber’.

Your recent coverage on school uniforms over the past weekend ( What the blazers – long fight over school uniform costs )overlooks a vital piece of British educational history: the successful, widespread absence of them.

Growing up in Central London during the 1970s and 1980s under the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA), many of us attended primary and secondary schools with no uniform at all. Far from descending into chaotic fashion contests or social division, our classrooms functioned seamlessly.

The standard arguments in favour of uniforms—that they enforce discipline, promote equality, and reduce cost—do not hold up against our lived experience. Ditching rigid dress codes did not erode respect or academic focus. Instead, it allowed young people to develop individuality, self-expression, and personal responsibility in a realistic, multi-cultural environment.

Furthermore, the claim that uniforms act as a financial equaliser is increasingly hollow. Modern branding rules often force parents into buying expensive, single-supplier blazers and badges, whereas non-uniform policies allow families to buy affordable, practical everyday high-street clothing.

If thousands of London school children managed to receive a rich, cohesive education without a standardized dress code forty years ago, why are we still so rigidly attached to uniforms today? It is time to question whether this practice serves children’s education or merely caters to an outdated fixation with conformity.

0ver the past weekend, l attend the celebrations of Brick lane mosque in the heart of the East End. Where l was asked to say a few words along the following lines; 

This building has huge history for London, having been a church, synagogue and now a mosque over the past few hundred years. Showing the diversity of faiths in London today and in the past as well. 

Brick lane became the centre of Bangladeshi community in the teeth of opposition in 1976 when many Bangladeshi could not even walk along Brick lane because of the attacks by fascists. 

So let us not forget those founding members huge contribution at those difficult times.

It has also been at the centre of many peoples lives, including my own families, during the life, death and marriage. I had the funeral of father here 16 years ago and more recently prays for my mums recovery at hospital.  

So long may it continue to be at the centre of Bangladeshi community and continue to have a huge place in our family lives. 

The Edgware Road, the Middle Eastern streets of London, is under siege from the right, and needs to be defended, particularly next weekend.

UKIP have announced a march next Saturday the 29th of August in front of Edgware Rd station though it not clearly which one, clearly showing they don’t know the locality at all. Its in the heart of a community of businesses from the Middle East many locating along the Edgware Rd for this reputation as it attracts many Middle Eastern tourists. 

Tenconi wants to spread his islamophobic lies, hate and to whip up violence in West Central London. We say fascists OUT of Edgware Rd, as we have done before in Paddington almost 50 years ago, when locals kicked out the National Front. 

In the meantime, the Tory spokesperson for Home Affairs, Chris Philp, has been in the neighbourhood on the Church Street side on social media, saying “We found parts of London where 76% of social housing has a head not born in the UK. We need social housing to be for British citizens only ”  As the graph below shows, almost all the foreign born households heads in Church St Ward will be naturalised British citizens. Are they and their families not entitled to Council housing if they meet the criteria’s for need at all?  So denying council housing to naturalised immigrants. I wonder what all the naturalised British citizens in his Croydon constituency will make of this?  

Chart by Fraser Nelson | Source: ONS Census 2021

With both these attacks on the locality, the Edgware Rd needs to be defended well firstly next Saturday. Join us to show Tenconi and his thugs they are not welcome. I trust many will be there to do so. 

The re-nationalisation of the Royal Mail is the best means of economic growth in every post code in UK, as the new PM desires.

Reclaiming the Delivery Network: Why Renationalising Royal Mail is the Catalyst for Regional Growth

For decades, the standard response to regional economic decline in the United Kingdom has focused on large-scale infrastructure projects: high-speed rail links, regional development funds, and technology hubs. Yet, the essential arterial system of the everyday economy—the infrastructure that connects every farm, high street trader, and home business—remains the humble postal service.

As the performance of a privatised Royal Mail continues to degrade, a growing consensus is forming around a radical reset: bringing the nation’s postal service back into public hands. Far from being a nostalgic throwback, re-nationalisation is increasingly viewed as a vital strategy for regional economic revival. By restoring a fully funded, public-interest Universal Service Obligation (USO), the UK can deliver balanced economic growth across all 124 postcode areas.

The Failure of the Privatisation Experiment

When Royal Mail was sold off between 2013 and 2015, the promise was clear: private capital would drive innovation, lower costs, and modernise the network for the digital age. A decade later, the reality experienced by households and businesses tells a very different story.

Ofcom has repeatedly issued multi-million pound fines against Royal Mail for systematically failing to meet basic delivery targets. In communities across the UK, first-class and second-class delivery timelines have slipped, while entire delivery routes are routinely missed due to severe understaffing.

The core issue stems from structural misaligned incentives:

• Profit over Service: A privatised entity inherently prioritises high-margin urban parcel routes over less lucrative letter routes and rural drops.
• Erosion of the Universal Mandate: Private operators view the requirement to deliver six days a week to every corner of the UK for a uniform price as a financial burden rather than a public duty.
• Workforce Strain: Postal workers face worsening conditions, reduced headcount, and extreme performance metrics, undermining the reliable workforce needed to sustain local communities.

The Andy Burnham Model: Public Control for Public Good

The political momentum for returning public services to public oversight has found its most articulate champion in Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham. By pioneering the re-regulation of regional bus networks under the Bee Network and advocating for local political accountability, Burnham has demonstrated that key public utilities perform best when managed as economic enablers rather than standalone profit centres.

Applying this philosophy to Royal Mail provides a clear template for national policy. Under Burnham’s approach to regional governance, public transport and connectivity are treated as foundational “social infrastructure.” When transport networks are run in the public interest, unviable routes are cross-subsidised by profitable ones to ensure no neighborhood is left behind.

Applying this principle to the postal network transforms Royal Mail from a struggling corporate carrier into an active engine for regional economic policy.

Why Uniform Delivery Means Universal Growth

Economic growth cannot occur if the basic cost of doing business varies wildly by geography. In rural, coastal, and former industrial regions—areas often overlooked by private couriers—the Universal Service Obligation acts as a crucial equaliser.

Renationalising Royal Mail directly supports local economic growth across all postcodes through three key mechanisms:

1. Levelling the Playing Field for E-Commerce: Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) outside major cities rely heavily on uniform, affordable delivery rates. Private parcel operators frequently attach steep surcharge fees to “remote” postcodes—a practice that penalises businesses in places like the Scottish Highlands, rural Wales, or Cornwall. Public ownership guarantees that an e-commerce micro-business in an isolated rural postcode pays the exact same rates to reach customers as a corporation based in Central London.
2. Re-linking Post Office Infrastructure with Local Banking: A public Royal Mail can be systematically re-integrated with the Post Office network, creating a robust civic banking and logistics hub on every high street. As commercial banks abandon local branches, a unified, publicly owned post-and-banking network ensures cash accessibility and financial services remain available to high street traders in every postcode.
3. Restoring Reliability for Local Supply Chains: Modern businesses cannot operate on unreliable schedules. Delays in legal contracts, medical supplies, and localized retail inventory stifle trade. Re-establishing strict public delivery standards restores certainty to daily logistics.

Investing in Shared Prosperity

The privatised postal model has demonstrated its limits: cutting services to protect margins ultimately damages the wider economy. Renationalising Royal Mail acknowledges a simple truth: a reliable, universal postal service is not an expensive luxury, but the baseline infrastructure required for a thriving modern economy.

By shifting the focus from shareholder dividends to economic enablement, a publicly owned Royal Mail can act as the connective tissue for UK commerce. Guaranteeing high-quality, reliable delivery to every postcode ensures that every community—regardless of geography—has the foundation required to build, trade, and grow.

After attending an Open Day at Paddington Fire Station today – my local fire station –  l have been persuaded more than ever that we need to expanding the London Fire Brigade (LFB) into a broader climate adaptation and resilience force. Involving shifting from a purely reactive emergency response to a proactive climate-resilient civic defender.

As London Fire Service (LFB) responds to heatwaves, flash flooding, and urban wildfires become more frequent and intense, expanding the Brigade’s statutory and operational mandate involves key structural and strategic approaches:

1. Statutory Mandates & Legislation

Currently, the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 obligates fire services to respond to fires and road traffic collisions, but flooding and major climate events are not statutory duties across England.

• Statutory Duty for Flooding: Making flood response and climate adaptation legally binding statutory duties for LFB would unlock earmarked central funding, mandatory cross-agency integration, and defined resource minimums.
• Reform the Civil Contingencies Act: Strengthening the local framework through the London Resilience Forum would mandate fire services to participate directly in multi-hazard climate adaptation strategies, rather than acting only when a disaster escalates.

2. Operational Adaptation & Specialised Assets

Responding to climate-driven emergencies requires distinct operational tools and tactical expertise compared to structural fires:

• Targeted Fleet & Gear Investment: Introduce lightweight off-road wildfire response vehicles, high-capacity water pumping appliances for urban flash flooding, and heat-adapted personal protective equipment (PPE) tailored for extreme temperatures.
• Predictive Modelling & Micro-Risk Mapping: Partner with environmental agencies and universities to integrate real-time satellite data and predictive heat-island/flood models into LFB dispatch systems.
• Dedicated Climate Resilience Units: Establish specialised teams within fire stations focused specifically on wildfire management, surface water flooding, and structural collapses caused by extreme weather.

3. Expanding the Prevention & Protection Framework

The LFB’s existing Prevent & Protect framework (which traditionally handles home fire safety checks and building compliance) can be broadened into a broader community resilience program:

• Climate Safe Home Visits: Expand standard home safety checks to assess vulnerabilities to flash flooding, extreme indoor heat, and poor ventilation—especially for vulnerable populations.
• Building Safety & Retrofitting: Audit urban developments for climate hazards—such as green roof fire safety, sustainable drainage integration, and heat resilience in high-rise buildings.

4. Workforce Upskilling & Community Engagement

• Mandatory Climate Emergency Training: Roll out comprehensive modules across operational staff covering environmental impact, flood rescue, and wildfire suppression techniques.
• Community Resilience Volunteers: Train local volunteer networks attached to neighbourhood fire stations to act as first-line community responders during extreme heatwaves or storm surges.

Expanding the London Fire Brigade (LFB) into a climate resilience force requires navigating a complex financial environment. The LFB faces a structural core funding gap alongside a multi-million-pound shortfall specifically earmarked for achieving its Net Zero 2030 climate goals.

Funding this expansion cannot rely on standard operational budgets alone. It demands a combination of statutory reform, localised revenue generation, and innovative green financing.

1. Statutory & Central Government Funding

The most sustainable path to funding requires central government alignment, shifting climate response from an “ad-hoc emergency” to a legally mandated duty.

• Statutory Flood & Wildfire Grants: Currently, the LFB campaigns to make flood response a statutory duty under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. If formalised, this would legally compel the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to provide dedicated, ring-fenced national grant funding for specialised equipment (like high-volume pumps and all-terrain wildfire vehicles).

• The UK National Resilience Framework: Accessing central funding via the Cabinet Office’s resilience budgets. By integrating the LFB deeper into the London Resilience Forum, the brigade could draw from national emergency preparedness capital grants rather than its standard localised budget.

2. Devolution & Local Tax Mechanisms

Under the Greater London Authority (GLA) model, the Mayor of London has mechanisms to generate regional revenue specifically for the capital’s safety.

• The Council Tax Precept (Climate Safety Levy): The Mayor currently funds the LFB largely through Retained Business Rates and the Council Tax Precept. To fund climate adaptation, the GLA could introduce a temporary “Resilience Precept” or maximise the allowable annual increase (historically capped around 3% without a referendum) specifically ring-fenced for climate assets.

• Business Rate Levies on High-Risk Sectors: A fraction of a percent surcharge on business rates for large commercial properties in high-risk zones (e.g., surface-water flood zones or the Wildland-Urban Interface along London’s edge lands) could directly fund localised mitigation and protection assets.

3. Innovative Green Financing & Insurance Partnerships

Rather than relying solely on taxpayers, the LFB can leverage the financial value of the risk reduction it provides.

• Insurance Industry Levies (The “Resilience Dividend”): Commercial and property insurers benefit directly when the LFB successfully mitigates flash floods or prevents urban wildfires from spreading. A partnership model—similar to the UK’s Flood Re scheme—could see a micro-levy on property insurance policies in London funnelled directly to the LFB to fund preventative infrastructure and protection teams.

• Municipal Green Bonds: The GLA could issue dedicated “London Climate Resilience Bonds.” Institutional and retail investors buy these bonds to fund green capital projects. For the LFB, this capital would fund the heavy upfront costs of transitioning to an eco-friendly fleet (like Zero Emission Pumping Appliances) and retrofitting fire stations into climate-resilient community hubs.

4. Cross-Agency Shared Budgets

Climate adaptation crosses institutional boundaries, meaning budgets should too.

• Co-Funding with Utilities (Thames Water): Because surface water management involves both drainage infrastructure and emergency pumping, joint capital funds can be established. Thames Water and the LFB could co-fund specialised multi-agency units that handle flood prevention and real-time mitigation, spreading the operational cost.

• Developer Contributions (Section 106 & CIL): The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charged on new London property developments could be adjusted. A portion of these developer fees in vulnerable areas would be automatically allocated to the LFB to offset the increased climate risk profile of new high-density districts.

The Reality Check: Frontline costs and statutory requirements already absorb roughly 86% of the LFB’s annual expenditure, leaving almost no room for internal savings to fund new initiatives. Expanding into climate resilience cannot happen via internal restructuring; it fundamentally requires new revenue pipelines.

The London Fire Brigade’s Sustainable Development Strategy (2026–2030) builds on the Mayor of London’s goal of making the capital carbon net zero by 2030.

Instead of treating environmental sustainability as a secondary concern, the strategy embeds climate decision-making directly into everyday operations, estate upgrades, procurement, and emergency response.

Strategic Pillars & Key Priorities

1. Estate Decarbonisation & Electrical Upgrades

The LFB operates 103 fire stations across London. To achieve operational net zero by 2030:

• Power Grid Expansion: Upgrading electrical infrastructure across stations (boosting average capacity from ~140 amps to 800 amps per station). This 600% capacity increase provides the backbone needed to phase out fossil fuels.

• Eliminating Gas Dependency: Phasing out gas-powered bay heaters, boilers, and cooking equipment in favor of air-source heat pumps, induction cooking, solar power, and LED systems.

• Net-Zero Station Model: Building on pilots like Walthamstow (London’s first net-zero carbon fire station featuring green roofs and air-source heat pumps), retrofits are being rolled out across the wider estate.

2. Fleet Decarbonisation & Next-Gen Assets

Transportation is a primary carbon source for the Brigade.

• ZEPA (Zero Emission Pumping Appliances): Expanding trials and deployment of zero-emission electric fire engines tailored to urban response.

• EV Charging Infrastructure: Installing rapid charging points across fire stations to power both operational response vehicles and support fleets.

• Shared GLA Charging Network: Station charge points are being designed to allow access by partner agencies (such as the London Ambulance Service) to maximize public land utility.

3. Operational Climate Readiness

• Station-Level Hazard Plans: Developing localised station plans tailored specifically to emerging climate hazards in each borough—such as Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) risks in outer London and flash-flood zones in low-lying inner-city areas.

• Specialised Training: Rolling out mandatory climate emergency and “Environment Matters” training across operational crews to adapt tactics for extreme heatwaves, wildfire suppression, and flood rescue.

• Pre-Decision Impact Assessments: Every major policy, project, and budget proposal must undergo a Sustainable Development Impact Assessment (SDIA) to evaluate environmental and social impacts before funding is approved.

4. Circular Economy & Sustainable Procurement

• Green Supply Chains: Requiring key contractors and equipment providers to meet strict social value and low-carbon standards, utilising Cabinet Office tools (like MSAT) to ensure ethical and sustainable sourcing.

• SME & Local Business Spend: Directing spending toward local small and medium-sized enterprises (targeting over one-third of total supplier spend) to drive regional green economy growth.

• Cross-Sector Partnerships: Collaborating through the UK Emergency Services Sustainability Charter and the London Anchor Institutions’ Network to pool purchasing power and share climate resilience best practices.

Key Operational Takeaway: The core philosophy of the 2026–2030 strategy is that sustainability directly enhances operational resilience. Eliminating gas reduces station reliance on vulnerable supply chains, upgrading local power capacity ensures energy security during extreme weather power cuts, and preparing crews for severe weather directly protects firefighters on the front line.

Why Thames Water’s Demise Must Lead to a Mutual Water Future

During a punishing cost-of-living crisis, local residents are being asked to digest a bitter pill: Thames Water is seeking a staggering 53 per cent hike in customer bills. Why? To prop up a failing financial model, pay off mountain-sized interest bills, and protect shareholder returns.

The utility has gone back to court to secure £3 billion in emergency high-interest loans, pushing its debt pile towards £20 billion. Think about what that means for your household: a third of every single water bill you pay now goes straight to paying interest on debt, rather than fixing the pipes under our streets.

Here in our own backyard, we know all too well what this “investment” has actually delivered. Thames Water’s track record across London—and right here in W9—is indefensible. Even after the installation of Flip kiosks, our community suffered severe flash floods in 2021, alongside repeated major road closures across Central London. We are paying more and getting broken infrastructure and polluted waterways in return.

Privatisation is the Exception, Not the Rule

It is easy to forget that fully privatised water supply and sanitation is an international anomaly. Globally, it is limited to England, Chile, and a handful of cities in the United States. Most of the world treats clean water and sewage management as a basic public necessity, not a cash cow for offshore equity funds.

It’s no wonder the public has had enough. Polls show 82 per cent of the public favor bringing water into public hands—making public water even more popular than bringing our railways back into public ownership.

No More Socialising Losses for Private Profit

As Thames Water reaches its inevitable reckoning over the coming weeks and faces potential Special Administration, we must refuse to repeat the mistakes of the past.

We cannot permit the socialisation of their losses.

For decades, private operators extracted billions in dividends while taking on unmanageable debt. Bailing out the privatised water industry with taxpayer or billpayer money—only to hand the keys back to financial speculators to profit all over again once the debt is cleaned up—is unacceptable. Customers should not pay twice for work the company failed to do with the money we already gave them.

The Solution: Mutualisation for London and the Thames Region

While full state nationalisation is often discussed, there is a proven, practical alternative that puts control directly in the hands of the community: Mutualisation.

Look at Dŵr Cymru (Welsh Water). When Wales’ water company collapsed under private debt two decades ago, it was transformed into a non-profit company single-mindedly dedicated to its customers. A mutual model means:

• No Shareholders or Dividends: Every single penny of profit or operational surplus is reinvested directly into upgrading infrastructure, fixing leaks, and lowering customer bills.
• Local Accountability: Regional and local governments, along with customer representatives, hold governance rights.
• Financial Resilience: Without the demand for eye-watering profit margins, borrowing costs drop and capital goes directly into engineering, not dividend payouts.

A Call to Action for Our Leaders

As the folding up or restructuring of Thames Water unfolds, we need immediate action.

We are calling on our local MPs, AMs, Labour Groups, and the Mayor of London to make the urgent case to central government to explore the practicalities and financial implications of bringing Thames Water into mutual ownership.

Water is life, and access to clean, affordable water is a fundamental right. It is time to take Thames Water out of the hands of distant speculators and return it to the people it is supposed to serve. 

Why Thames Water’s Demise Must Lead to a Mutual Water Future