Have your say on the draft London Budget for 2023-24

The mayors office appears to ignore consultation feedback. Outside of soundbytes how do you measure and publish the correlation and success between Mission Statements and Budget?

1. Keeping London safe:

1.1. Despite a positive spin, it isn’t working. Therefore are funds being incorrectly allocated or are the deterrents, on which the mayors office is liberal, simply inadequate?

2. Transport:

2.1 Your ULEZ plans contradict help for cost of living. You should defer for 2-3 years. Increased cost of trade gets passed onto to the consumer. 

2.2. World class system, it is very good transport but carries too many inefficient staff. Instead of fighting Government it is better to work with it and explain economics to the unions. Holistically, in addition to the global cost of living crisis business is struggling with reduced footfall due to industrial action and many will struggle with business rates.  Help for this surely takes precedent over environment initiatives e.g. cycle lanes that are barely used and create more congestion and increase pollution.

what is the % income from tourists vs commuters vs londoners. is there sufficient cause to introduce a tourist tax that doesn’t damage tourism but increases income?

3. Fire Brigade: it is not clear how the increase of £14 million helps ensure it can continue to quickly respond to major fires. One thing that might help to save lives is adjustment to the stay put policy designed to allow fire fighters to use staircases unimpeded.

4. Climate change: in light of the cost of living crisis it might be prudent to hold (not cancel) on some of your initiatives. Controversial yes, sensible yes. 

5. New Homes: I couldn’t find the detail on how the £6.9bn was to be spent. Over the past years we have imported vast numbers of cheap unskilled workers and it shows in the quality of output. We need to upskill our labour force and improve quality standards restoring Britains reputation in delivering Quality. 

Expansion of the ULEZ very much welcome, as are the climate budget measures and the general prevalence of climate change amongst the thinking going on in this budget. The almost complete lack of cycling and active travel in the TFL section is a missed opportunity - yet again. There is no cheaper, more democratic, more flexible, healthier, congestion-busting, environment-improving means of transport than cycling and we really need to be following the lead of cities like Paris and dramatically expanding our networks of safe, segregated cycling infrastructure to get more people out of their cars and onto some form of pedal power or public transport.

I have only one thing to say about this current Mayor of London. He has done absolutely NOTHING for local people except waste loads of money on building dangerous bike lanes.

I wrote to his office to ask if he could look into the illegal granting of permission by Camden Council to build an 8 storey high rise block of flats right opposite me in Highgate Road NW51NU.TWICE as high as anything in Kentish town.

The answer I had back was he doesn't deal with things like that.

Bloody useless waste of time. all he cares about is making money from developers to build this horrid tower blocks everywhere.

I, like the majority of respondents, opposed the ULEZ 2023 Expansion plans on the grounds that the NO2 air pollution levels in Outer London will only improve by a negligible 1.6%, whilst having a punitive daily tax on motorists with older cars. What was the point in having a 'consultation' if the majority view was disregarded by this undemocratic mayor ?

As my opinion counts for nothing, why bother having further 'consultations' on anything Mayor Khan proposes to do. He'll just go ahead with it regardless.     

As others have said the Mayor does not listen to common sense and reality.

We have too many vanity projects which fail to address the underlying causes such as putting poor air quality down to vehicles.  The population breath out million of tonnes of CO2 per annum etc but one could question is that another one of the major causes of the problem be that we have too many high rise building blocking natural air flows.

The pandemic has shown that high density living is not a solution and creates problems with fires as we have seen in the last year a large number of fire in high rise developments.

In the Victorian era we saw high density living cause high infant mortality, low life expectancy, high levels of crime of all sort plus what we now call anti-social behaviour and mental health issues.

Perhaps we should have zero rate budgeting so only the real and absolutely necessary projects get funding and all costs get looked at in detail to ensure value for money and affordability.  For example my local train fares cost about 70p per mile but looking at other methods they start form about 10p per mile?

Also look at staffing and red tape and especially overpaid official and advisors in City Hall and TFL.

I along with many other commented on the issues around the ulez expansion, as dis approx 60% of commenters. What did the mayor do, he simply ignored us! And as one of the middle income individuals I'm unable to claim any compensation for being forced to replace my car.

So what is the point of us being asked to comment on a 155 page document which basically no one will be able to fully comprehend, and even if we were to comment we know know that our voice will be ignored, as the mayor will just do whatever he wants regardless of the impact on middling londoners as clearly our voice counts for nothing!

I certainly will not vote for you ever again, as I feel extremely let down. 

• Maintaining a world-class transport network in London. I'm afraid I have to disagree that London transport is world-class, the tube is overcrowded and filthy.
• Taking the boldest action of any city in the world to tackle air pollution and the climate crisis. Maybe you could start by not wasting large amounts of money on the New Year's fireworks display which causes a lot of pollution.

What is the point of commenting here ? ULEZ consultation showed majority against expansion yet mayor went ahead anyway. So why bother ?

Just admit that you only listen to what you want to hear and will do what you want anyway.

It's a joke on us.

Hello, 

I live in Beam Park area under Havering council, I believe the transport links between this area and the city centre are very weak. District line has the closest station which is Degenham Heathway, but this tube line often runs into severe delays even in peak commuting times. Buses going around the area often get stuck in the traffic which is horrible in peak times. I believe car traffic can definitely be improved through more planning: there are not a lot of people living in this area so I wonder why there is always congestion. It could be nice to have more frequent buses going around the area if possible. I normally travel from home to work in city centre three times a week, and I see my commute delayed for more than 30 min beyond expected. 

My concerns, not addressed in the draft Budget, include protection of green spaces which are increasingly being lost to make way for more housing developments and the ruining of our street environments by the relaxation of planning rules and the allowance of perfectly good houses to be demolished to make way for new concentrated housng developments and blocks of flats. There may be a need for more housing, not helped by the continuing influx of illegal immigrants, but why are more existing brown field sites not being used? Also the gradual loss of our shopping high streets due partly to high business rates and parking charges. Our London environment is gradualy changing for the worse.

How does the climate budget work with the plan to build loads more homes? I agree we need more accommodation but it seems that what is built, eg around Vauxhall, is being bought by lots of rich non-Brits and lie dark. Construction is the most carbon-heavy industry so what are your policies on reducing carbon and making the most of what is already built?

I am unable to see how the massive budget increases will actually improve the various tax payer funded services.   Improvements must be made by efficiency improvements and elimination of unnecessary positions.   Spending plans should be replaced by ruthless efficiency savings plans while bearing in mind that it is NOT the Council's job to provide gratuitous employment but to run London for the benefit of "the people" not for the glory of politicians.    A perfect start would be to examine all posts to see how their elimination would actually deteriously affect citizens.

I left London in 1994 , because (a) The neighbours were persistently anti-social and very noisy and aggressive if their behaviour was challenged  (b) no further homes were affordable . However , I continued to work in London until 2009 and remain hugely interested in London and Londoners . The issues which I would highlight are (1) Dealing with the anti-social Londoners quickly and firmly (2) Pursue policies that minimise air pollution (3) Tackle violent crime firmly . Give all households information on how to avoid criminality and how to get help if affected by crime or likely to commit crime . (4) Stabilise the cost of living for Londoners . Most Londoners struggle with juggling their finances .

People all over the city are having their cost of living artificially increased because of the ULEZ and parking prohibitions making supply chains more expensive. These have nothing to do with the environment, all they do is enrich your own pockets. Stop framing taking more money from people as "climate crisis" and stop making people poor and taking away freedom of movement with all these car taxes

You claim you want to help people with costs but in reality you're backhand slapping with higher council taxes. If anything, we need lower taxes. People need more money in their pockets to pay for all the increased costs, not less money in their pockets

The plan, at a high level is good. On crime I would say:

- committing to a higher rate of response to crime and conviction of people for crimes is more important than numbers of officers on the street

- committing to cautioning or arresting for low-level crime is important to stop it from escalating. In particular the police should question people who have apparently stolen TfL Bikes rather than completely ignore this crime at the expense of TfL and general levels of criminality