Closer is better. It means you've got more people who can serve as customers for a dense public transport network that can access the city centre.
Outer areas should offer more space on cheaper land in return for longer commutes, but instead we see the opposite
For more on why our big cities have low densities in their urban core, see our analysis from last week: bsky.app/profile/antb...
The Government is trying to densify our low-density big cities - these blue neighbourhoods should be the priority.
Find out how in our report launch event on Thursday, linked below:
Holy SHIT someone found the test pressing of Robert Johnson's Cross Road Blues and it is clear as a PIN www.openculture.com/2026/04/reco...
Sometimes people say that Britain's big cities are already high density.
Sadly it's not true.
Compared to their peers they have relatively few homes in the neighbourhoods closest to the city centre - the urban core.
Great story on the rise and rise of the "Prime Minister's menu" in China: www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
One of my biggest issues with a lot of transit articles is that they’re overly nostalgic, sentimental, “Oh! Dr Beeching” guff.
This is a really well articulated, pragmatic, sensible response to that. It highlights that transport exists not for itself but to promote economic growth elsewhere.
I still don't really understand this criticism of differential impact. Would it be a better/more pro migration policy for everyone to face an equal 10/15 year route to earned settlement? I struggle to see how varying timelines for ILR for non Brit nationals presents a major inequality concern
In response to the Fingleton Review, the Govt didn't commit to legislating to fix the Habs Regs to avoid things like fish discos/bat tunnels.
However, they are legislating to do just that for offshore wind.
Why is it one rule for wind and another for nuclear?
www.samdumitriu.com/p/if-its-goo...
Nice piece here. The superstar cities are important, but the foundations of American prosperity are a large number of well governed cities with a strong business base www.slowboring.com/p/the-case-f...
Band Aid level stuff www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2...
Surely I’m not the only one who thinks this whenever they see a map of The Strait Of Hormuz on the news?
Sir there are four soups in your list
The upshot is that visitor levies are workable, practical, and flexible. England should try to copy Ontario's visitor levy model:
Places are using visitor levy revenues to spend on support for the local economy as well as local amenities - in Huntsville, a tourist town where the levy makes up 6% of the budget, they are spending on these sorts of things:
Almost every single Ontario authority with a visitor levy sets a percentage rate, with only one exception. The city of Niagara Falls currently has a flat/banded system, but it is abandoning that to introduce a percentage rate system later this year.
Ontario councils are sensible in terms of the size of their visitor levy. Almost every single council in Ontario sets a percentage rate visitor levy of between 4% to 6%. 79% of places set it at 4%, with no need for provincial capping or restrictions.
Most of the population is in Southern Ontario, an area roughly equivalent to England.
Here we see places respond to local demand when thinking about a visitor levy - councils around Toronto and in the touristy "cottage country" are keen while other councils are less so:
We've collected data across Ontario's 414 local authorities to understand their visitor levy.
Only 87 Ontario LAs set a levy - but this includes most urban areas, and over 75 per cent of the province’s population, from tiny towns like Moosenee to Ottawa, the capital of Canada.
I think income tax is the best tax for proper devolution in British context, more open on tax sharing to discuss different options
London is in scope, and the only way we will change this is through iteration. Gotta move step by step and encourage the Government to keep this agenda moving forwards
There will always be some equalisation so long as local gov gets some funding from the centre. My point is that we should worry much less about the variation in local taxation that emerges from fiscal devolution - regardless of how much we think it should - because we currently accept zero
Yes can see that in an ideal world - a shame we are boxed in by the existing county structure as building blocks
If you're not reforming London's boundaries then I think the Surrey changes are okay (would make a different decision on Elm bridge myself). But agree on second point for sure
That's the status quo. If you read the blog you'll see we're trying to move to a system where we have less of what you describe, with local redistribution taking its place.
Previous attempts at this have struggled as we haven't considered local government and local finance reform together. But the current Gov can do just that.
It's a generational opportunity to improve growth, local democracy, and public services across the whole country
The issue is the local government reorganisation process is ongoing at this moment, and there's a risk we do it without fully taking into account the new commitments to fiscal devo
Government should take the time to reflect to maximise the chance to get this right
Luckily, we can avoid these American style outcomes if we reform local gov around High Skill Travel to Work Areas.
These are large enough to contain a mix of communities while also still capturing local commuting patterns - matching political geography to economic geography.
But the big risk if we get LGR wrong is we end up doing fiscal devolution to rich + poor authorities that are part of the same local economy.
If LGR segregates poorer neighbourhoods with high need from affluent neighbourhoods with a large taxbase, fiscal devo risks harming public services.
