Jon BromwichandHeather Glass of Lambeth Living Streets, former Lambeth council leader Joan Twelves, Graham Clewes and Richard Aldwinckle of One Dulwich respond to an article about LTNs by Joseph Harker
Harker’s arguments simply don’t fit with either the benefits of low-traffic neighbourhoods that we see every day, or with the increasing body of evidence that they improve people’s lives.
With development assistance cuts, ministers have traded responsibility for rhetoric and borrowed from Donald Trump’s playbook
Last week, the government justified cutting the UK’s development budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income – the lowest level in more than 25 years – by claiming Britain’s role is now to “share expertise”, not hand out cash. With a straight face, the minister responsible, Jenny Chapman, told MPs on the international development committee
that the age of the UK as “a global charity
” was over. But this isn’t reinvention – it’s abdication, wrapped in spin. No wonder Sarah Champion, the Labour MP who is chair of the committee, called
Lady Chapman’s remarks “naive” and “disrespectful”. Behind the slogans lies a brutal truth: lives will be lost, and Britain no longer cares. Dressing that up as the “new normal
” doesn’t make it less callous.
Kevin Watkins of the London School of Economics analysed
the cuts and found no soft-landing options. He suggests charting a sensible course through this wreckage, noting that harm from the cuts is inevitable but not beyond mitigation. Dr Watkins’ proposals – prioritising multilateralism
, funding the global vaccine alliance (Gavi) and replenishing international lending facilities – would prevent some needless deaths. Ministers should adopt such an approach. The decision to raid the aid budget to fund increased defence spending was a shameful attempt to cosy up to Washington. The cuts were announced just before Sir Keir Starmer’s
White House meeting with Donald Trump, with no long-term strategy behind them. It’s a deplorable trend: globally, aid levels could fall by $40bn this year.
Ministers seem to think a more conciliatory approach to corporate behemoths is good for growth. The evidence suggests otherwise
Governments chase private investment. Few ask who really benefits. Recently, Labour has been genuflecting to the tech industry in the hope that Britain will become the destination for an AI boom. American tech firms have enjoyed numerous meetings with the secretary of state, Peter Kyle
, and ministers have taken aim at competition regulation
, a vital tool for tackling corporate power. In doing so, Labour risks undermining its attempts to build a more productive, higher-wage economy.
Just as the EU is adopting a tougher stance on big tech and AI
, Labour is moving in a more conciliatory
direction. Last week, ministers handed the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the regulator with the power to break up big tech firms, a new “steer”
to prioritise growth. At Labour’s investment summit last October, Sir Keir Starmer had a friendly conversation
with the former Google boss Eric Schmidt, and pledged to make the CMA take growth “as seriously as this room does”
. The government then installed Doug Gurr
, the former head of Amazon UK, as the regulator’s new chair.
Giorgio Locatelli is the latest chef to lament our phone etiquette while dining. To him I say: that ship has sailed, and the customer is always right
Giorgio Locatelli despairs of diners who spend more time scrolling on their phones than “enjoying the moment”. The Michelin-starred chef told a podcast it was sad
diners weren’t interacting with each other more. But the real question is: is any restaurant experience more enjoyable than a video of grumpy cats?
I was taught to believe that the customer is always right. The premise of this idea is simple: a customer pays money to receive goods or services, and in return a business must move mountains to ensure they receive them. The customer is sacred, in other words.
