Funding London’s priorities

Honestly, everyone talks about “affordable housing” like it’s this great solution, but speaking as someone who actually lives in it, it’s really not affordable at all. The system feels designed to make housing associations rich while people in Help to Buy or shared ownership are squeezed for every penny. The rents are high, the service charges are high, and whenever you ask them to explain why, they either can’t or won’t. It just makes the whole thing feel pretty shady.

And building more so-called “affordable” homes isn’t going to magically fix anything. Half the time, “affordable” is just a label they slap on so it sounds good.

What would actually help is proper regulation of the housing market—something that stops wild speculation and keeps prices from shooting up for no real reason. That’s how you make housing affordable again, not by building endlessly.

We already have enough homes. The real issue is that one landlord can buy up dozens or even hundreds of properties on the same street and then rent them out for double the normal price, which pushes the whole area up. If we had better rules in place, those homes could go to regular working people at fair, reasonable prices instead of being hoarded for profit.

I think people living in Greater London should all receive free access services. Instead of paying fares, we should be taxed via GLA. This would promote usage and decrease the amount of cars on the road. It would also help stop the hundreds of millions (around £200m) we use every year from fare dodgers! For most people this would be cheaper than paying daily. It means the fare dodgers  would have to now pay for the services (like they should). It would also encourage people that  use it to stop using their cars and   use public transport.

Crime reduction and citizen safety. I was subject to a homophobic attack while walking through my town (Brixton) at 6pm.There were no local police I could turn to at the time. My local police station was not initially helpful, though they were when I returned to report the incident a day later.

Stratford station has become too busy, there continues to be new construction in the area but the station’s capacity is the same, and people don’t wait for passengers to disembark before pushing onto trains. The quality of the shops is poor with a small shop opened in the station that just sells vapes and sweets, and similarly in Westfield there is mainly junk food and candy shops have opened, despite there being a high proportion of young people and families. On the other hand, Elizabeth park is great, well looked after and calm and inclusive

It's disappointing that the critical lack of accessible - not just affordable - housing wasn't even mentioned in the survey!  With that level of focus, no wonder most disabled and many frail older people are consigned to living in totally unsuitable accommodation.  

Similarly, the particular problems facing disabled and neurodivergent people regarding policing and crime were ignored, e.g. the fact that many Met police officers don't engage appropriately with young autistic people, despite the availability of training, thereby escalating already fraught situations and making it more likely that neurodivergent people will be arrested due to perceptions of them being uncooperative.

I was also disappointed that there was no question about the importance of tackling high levels of domestic abuse against women and girls, including disabled women, nor expanded refuge provision, including accessible refuges.

Overall, the survey was pretty weak on issues of equity and  inclusion, with the exception of transport to some degree.  If you don't ask questions about minority concerns, support for addressing them won't be evidenced and resources won't be targeted accordingly.  

A further example is that older, younger and many disabled people are more negatively affected by the effects of cold and climate change in terms of cold or hot homes (because they can't regulate their body temperature effectively), but again, this wasn't raised as a topic within the broad areas of the economy / cost of living (ability to heat one's home) climate change (ability to cool one's home).

I appreciate there's a limit to how many questions can be included, but the survey questions are pretty broad brush and can't do more than give very broad indications of Londoners' concerns, rather than provide genuinely helpful insights.  It seems a bit of a wasted opportunity not to dig down further into people's views.

I would like to see more funding going towards cleaning public spaces especially in lower income parts of London as I think that would make a huge difference. I'm thinking about trash on streets, fly tipping.

I think more funding towards tackling phone theft would be amazing as I've had my phone stolen before and now I feel very unsafe using my phone.

I would love to be able to use the tube at night. This would help so much when I need to get to the airport and back. I know the night tube exists but having more days of the week where it has a and extended schedule would be very helpful.

I think it would be a travesty if Zipcar was to stop. It a fantastic service which I use regularly. It enables me to hire a car (usually  electric to do those trips when I can’t use public transport). I would hate to have to buy car just to use intermittently. I do use public transport most of the time, but sometimes Zipcar is very convenient, i.e large shopping or for visits.

I have a small foldable leaflet (ref Safer London) that shows tube and trainlines on the same map. This seems to be no longer produced.  I am sure a new version would be very helpful for users of public transport

• Tougher penalties and awareness for cyclists who run through red lights and cycle on pavements illegally. I have almost been run over many times from cyclists who cycle dangerously and who don't respect the rules of the road
• Fixing noise levels on the underground. I travel on the Central and Northern lines every week and the noise levels are unbearable - certain parts are screeching and deafening. This is not normal by any means and needs to be fixed as a priority. Constant exposure for Londoners to this level of noise is dangerous and irresponsible.
• Making tube stations more accessible for people with accessibility needs such as those in wheelchairs - too many stations have stairs only which makes it difficult.

London’s Image Starts with Safety, Not Slogans

In advertising, there is a simple rule that has stood the test of time: never promote a product until it is truly ready for the customer experience you are promising. This principle applies just as strongly to cities as it does to brands. Yet London’s leadership seems eager to sell a version of the city that visitors simply won’t find when they arrive—especially around Oxford Street.

Before inviting the world to “Visit London,” we must face what tourists actually encounter: phone snatchers operating in broad daylight, pavements littered with rubbish, rows of money-laundering “candy shops,” and far too many shuttered storefronts that signal decline rather than vibrancy. No amount of glossy marketing can cover up a street scene that feels unsafe, unmanaged, and frankly unwelcoming.

Tourism thrives on trust. People travel to places where they feel secure, where streets are clean, where policing is visible and effective, and where local commerce feels authentic, not suspicious. If the city cannot guarantee these fundamentals, then any promotional campaign becomes an exercise in over-promise and under-deliver—a trap every good advertiser avoids.

Instead of spending effort championing tourism or rushing to pedestrianize streets, the priority must be restoring safety, cleanliness, and confidence. Strengthen the police force. Clean up the streets. Enforce regulations on dubious retailers. Support legitimate businesses so Oxford Street can regain its identity as a flagship shopping district rather than a cautionary tale.

Only when London is genuinely ready—safe, vibrant, and trustworthy—should it be advertised. Until then, the most responsible leadership message is not “Come visit,” but “We are fixing what matters.”

Reading through the comments I was struck by how many of them refer to problems that are to a large extent caused by the cuts we have seen in the number of people employed doing traditional customer-focused public sector jobs. We have fewer police (and certainly far fewer ‘on the beat’); we have tube stations that are unstaffed for ever more hours per wee; we have fewer weekly refuse collections.  No wonder cyclists behave dangerously without being challenged; no wonder people push through tube station barriers without the fear of being challenged; no wonder rubbish is piling up in the streets. (I could go on with many more examples.) 

And anyone who says “But where will the money come from and where will the employees come from?” needs to educate themselves about the employment implications of AGI and the significant increase recently in the wealth of the richest 1%.

The embankment could be a very beautiful park, instead it is used for car traffic. This seems to be a completely missed opportunity. With careful planning, the road traffic could be either simply removed or a tunnel provided instead. Allowing people to enjoy the thames.

Rubbish is becoming a health, safety and aesthetic hazard in London.  Having lived here for most of my life rubbish in the streets is becoming noticeably worse. 

I know so many people - many of them educated from good universities - that cannot get any full time work in London right now. Would really like to see more opportunities for young people entering the job market. 

Practically every time I visit my local Tube station, Willesden Green, while travelling or using an ATM, I see someone busting through the batwing barriers or, if they are left open, going quicly through without tapping. Those are just instants in my experience. Multiply it up over the whole day. That is a lot of deliberate and probably habitual fare-dodging and loss of revenue to Transport for London. 

Shared ownership is not the answer to the housing crisis. These schemes will underperform and underserve the market because buy-in requires a level of certainty about putting down stakes in London, that the general public just do not have. Instead, these lots will remain empty, purchased by foreign investors who simply wish to own a pert of our city. Londoners will continue to be bought out by enigmas who do not love this city like we do. 

We need more affordable high-spec rentals properties. Schemes like London living rent are great and should be scaled up. Build apartments with residential gyms, co-working spaces - places for community. Those with a single income must be able to afford to rent. Do not punish individuals for seeking independence. Instead, accommodate it and provide community through social services like culture centres, libraries, etc. 

I agree with comments advocating making life safer for pedestrians on the pavement. 

Cyclists illegally riding on the pavement and cyclists illegally running red lights are serious safety issues for pedestrians. I regularly treat pedestrians who have been injured by cyclists. Existing laws are not enforced-police advised me this is £90 fine & 3 pts on licence.

In my daily walk to work (3y), I observe:

• Despite a clear cycle lane, cyclists jump the curb to ride on the pavement.
• Cycling illegally on the pavement is for convenience, as evidenced by the clear cycle lane, jumping on and off in the same 200m stretch.
• Cyclists on the pavement do not give pedestrians safe passing distance.
• Cyclists on the pavement include: people in full lycra on their own bicycles with helmets, people on bicycles without helmets, people on Lime bikes mainly without helmets, people on Forest bikes mainly without helmets. It's not just e-bikes, it's all kinds of cyclists in London who illegally ride on the pavement for their own convenience.
• Cyclists in the bus lane illegally jump the curb riding through the narrow space for pedestrians/ ppl disembarking rather than wait or pass legally
• Cyclists ride at high speeds on the pavement, not giving way
• Even a slow cyclist is scary when coming straight at you
• Cyclists cycle the wrong way on one-way streets
• Cyclists choose illegal pavement cycling rather than the inconvenience of a one-way system
• Cyclists block crosswalks

Regularly, cyclists nearly run me over when:

• illegally running a red light, including directly in front of the police station
• illegally not giving way on a zebra crossing
• cycling on the pavement in front of my hospital workplace where many people are in wheelchairs, transport chairs, with IVs, children, people with newborns
• riding on narrow pavement over a bridge
• standing at a crosswalk waiting for the green man

I agreed with a cyclist in a cycling forum: "don't punch down". If cyclists need to be on the pavement, they can easily walk their bicycle.

This entire suvey is biased towards questions that are slanted - ie having the Mayor’s priorities for encouraging economic growth and minimum wage under one answer. These are totally separate headings and deserve separate consideration.

Similarly, many of the issues raised should have no involvement of the Mayor. But we are not given any opportunity during the wuestions to comment.

This is an absolutely useless survey and I object to it in the stronges Terms.

No doubt my survey will therefore be junked. What a waste of my time - and a waste of resources