‘If you want people to listen to what matters to you, start off by listening to them’ – Edward Lucas, Liberal Democrats candidate for Cities of London and Westminster

In mid-June I met Edward Lucas, the Liberal Democrats’ candidate for the Cities of London and Westminster Parliamentary seat. He is a former journalist, studied at the London School of Economics and is an expert in security. He is married with three children and lives in Central London.

Lucas is the first of four candidates I had in my diary to interview during June. I met him at the National Liberal Club, a private members’ club just off the Embankment. I started by asking him about housing.

How do you plan to address the issue of rising homelessness, including rough sleeping, and improve affordability and conditions for private renters?

I used to volunteer at a homelessness project for drug and alcohol abusers, ex-offenders, and others, which is close to my heart. It’s frustrating because we had rough sleeping under control about 20 years ago, as most advanced European countries have done. Homelessness isn’t just a personal catastrophe; it’s costly for society due to deteriorating physical and mental health, leading to increased NHS spending, alongside issues like aggressive begging and shoplifting, which are a national disgrace.

Simply relying on local councils isn’t enough — we need a national homelessness strategy. As an opposition MP, I’d press the government hard on this and challenge Labour councils, too, as sweeping homelessness out of sight doesn’t solve the problem. I’ve also supported The Marylebone Project for women, helping raise funds and protect them from traffickers trying to lure them back into dangerous situations.

Regarding policies, the Lib Dems have comprehensive plans, especially on leasehold and tackling no-fault evictions, where we believe the government has failed. Regulating alone won’t solve the housing crisis; we need to significantly increase housing stock to empower tenants and level the playing field with landlords currently benefiting from scarcity.

I strongly advocate for better protection of deposits and an end to arbitrary evictions, favouring a shift to a continental-style planning system. This would streamline development once land is zoned for building, reducing bureaucratic hurdles. Additionally, implementing land value taxation, a longstanding Lib Dem policy, would promote more rational land use and reclaim unearned profits amassed by private property companies and developers.

Are you in support of scrapping the two-child cap on benefits? And why?

I think it’s a really bad idea to try and use the threat of poverty as a weapon. You may save a little bit of money in the short term, but what you’re doing is you’re creating more stressed, unhappy parenting and more bad diets. We need more children in this country. And we’re facing a really bad demographic squeeze. When I was your age, I was one of six or eight people who contributed for every pensioner. By the time you’re in the middle of your career, you’ll be one of two people contributing to every pensioner. So there’s an enormous generational problem that we need to get our birth rate up. Penalising people for having families is nuts.

What measures will you implement to reduce rising crime levels?

The Metropolitan Police Service is failing us all. The real problems are being overlooked. They claim they lack budget and staff, but that’s not true. The real issue is management. The HR department is terrible, and training and career development don’t work.

Morale is low due to inexperienced officers at all levels, from junior to senior ranks. Central London is used as a training ground because of the variety of cases, but we need experienced police officers. Visible policing in areas where crime occurs is crucial. The best deterrent isn’t punishment, but the likelihood of getting caught.

I’ve worked with the Soho Business Association to address the lack of police presence in areas like Soho, where phone and bag snatching are rampant. It’s the government’s first duty to keep us safe, both at home and abroad. I’ve spent my life working on these issues and we’re failing miserably.

We need to restore the status of community policing on the beat. It’s not a sign of career stagnation, but essential for front-line policing. There’s a tendency to view beat policing as a stepping stone to more glamorous roles with nicer cars and gadgets.

The social contract between citizens and the state relies on citizens’ trust that they’re being kept safe. That trust is eroding. Many people don’t report crimes because they don’t feel it’s worth it or are worried about intimidation. As a result, criminals feel empowered to do as they please, which is appalling both in terms of the economic cost of crime and in terms of the effect on the sort of social and moral fabric of society.

Do you agree with Wes Streeting that the private sector should be used to clear the NHS backlog?

I think this public-private debate is a bit sterile. The NHS doesn’t make its own paper, doesn’t build its own photocopiers. The NHS is one of the biggest customers in the country for staff in the private sector. Now you can argue where the exact boundary should be and whether it makes sense to do things in-house or contract them out, but that’s not really the point.

The point is we have far too many people coming into the NHS at one end because of bad lifestyle, poverty, all sorts of environmental issues and the endemic failure of our preventative and community medicine. And we also have far too many people who are stuck in the NHS who should be back in the community because the care system isn’t working. So if you look just at the bottleneck, it’s terrifying that people get treated in corridors and can’t even get out of the ambulances. But you’ve got to look at the system as a whole and you need a healthier population, which means fewer people going in, and a better care system. It means as soon as the medical emergency is over, people are then being looked after in a way that’s appropriate.

Do you want to see the single biggest waste of your money? Go to the medically fit for discharge ward in a hospital. It would be full of people who actually should be out of hospital. They’re sitting in hospital at vast expense, at risk of getting ill again because the care system isn’t working.

Do you agree with asking NHS staff to work longer hours to clear the waiting list backlogs?

Not really. My sister’s an NHS GP, and I don’t think I could look her in the eye and say: “You need to work harder.” There’s a serious problem with burnout. I think there’s room for greater efficiency, and I like the idea of having specialist clinics. And I think there’s a huge productivity improvement in terms of using data better, and we’re lagging in this country behind countries like Estonia, which I know very well, where they have e-health. I think it’s a bit like saying a car is fundamentally a broken car, you don’t stop it being broken by slamming on the accelerator, you’ve got to actually fix the car. 

Do you believe Thames Water should be nationalised? Why or why not? Should utilities remain in the private sector or be publicly run?

I think that the first point about capitalism is that risks have to be borne by the people who’ve incurred them.

For me, the first thing is that the shareholders and bondholders of Thames Water have got to lose all their money, because they put the managers in place who’ve been so incompetent, and the managers should all be fired.

Then Thames Water goes bust, and then you work out what to do with it. You can either auction it off and say to someone: “It’s now free of debt because the bondholders lost all their money, and we’ll sell it to you for a pound, but you’ve got to run it properly.”

Maybe we have to take it back in-house. I was never a huge enthusiast for privatising natural monopolies because the danger is the regulator gradually becomes weak over time, and you need a very strong, consistent regulator.

The danger is that the water companies or the financial groups behind them will chip away at the regulatory environment and always trying to find ways to spend a bit more money at a guaranteed rate of interest and get their returns up. And that’s what we’ve seen.

So in theory, maybe some new Ofwat could do the job properly, but I would need a lot of convincing about that.

How will you support home insulation to reduce bills and improve energy efficiency, thus reducing carbon emissions?

Well, the issue at hand in Westminster is significant due to our abundance of beautiful streets, listed buildings, and conservation areas. There’s a palpable tension between preserving these historic aesthetics and addressing the pressing climate emergency.

In a recent leaflet, I included a striking cartoon depicting a tourist boat navigating a flooded London street in 2090, a consequence of rising sea levels. The accompanying guide remarks on the irony of maintaining a conservation area aesthetic amidst such a climate crisis, highlighting the urgency of our situation.

Personally, I advocate for a substantial program focused on insulation. This initiative will require extensive training to ensure effective implementation. While constructing energy-efficient new buildings is relatively straightforward, retrofitting older structures proves challenging due to the necessity of sealing every potential leak.

Drawing from my experience as a former energy editor at The Economist, I can attest that our current efforts fall far short of what’s required. Government schemes intended to address these issues have largely failed to deliver meaningful results.

We must treat this climate emergency with the same urgency and commitment as we did with Covid-19. Immediate investment is crucial. Had we acted decisively 15 years ago, we would be in a far better position today to mitigate the impact of climate change on our cherished urban landscapes.

How would you improve the environment for walking, wheeling, and cycling?

Well, as a cyclist with over four decades of experience riding in London since 1980, I’ve witnessed the boom in cycling with great enthusiasm. The emergence of new forms like e-bikes is particularly encouraging. However, I’m deeply concerned about the disregard for traffic laws among fellow cyclists. In fact, I’ve actively campaigned for police spot checks and on-the-spot fines to promote safer cycling practices. It’s crucial that our roads work for everyone, not just cyclists who, on average, are younger, more likely to be male, and wealthier than the norm.

My priority is improving conditions for cyclists without compromising the safety and accessibility of pavements for pedestrians, especially for the elderly, disabled individuals, and those with strollers. It’s disheartening to see well-off cyclists on expensive bikes speeding through without consideration for others, sometimes even with a sense of entitlement.

There’s also a growing concern about crime, particularly related to e-bikes being used for phone and bag snatchings. Addressing these issues requires a balanced approach, potentially involving new legislation and behavioral adjustments to keep pace with technological advancements.

I’ve addressed these concerns in publications like The Times because I take them seriously. For instance, I strongly oppose floating bus stops, which pose significant hazards to visually impaired individuals disembarking into cycle lanes. This oversight reflects a backward step in mobility accessibility, which is unacceptable.

Regarding solutions, Transport for London (TfL) must reassess floating bus stops. Options include installing robust speed bumps to slow cyclists as buses approach or redirecting cyclists into traffic lanes, albeit inconvenient for them, but necessary to ensure safety.

Cyclists often behave as if every delay is critical, akin to emergency vehicles. However, cycling already saves considerable time compared to other modes of transport, and a brief pause for buses to unload passengers should be manageable.

Ultimately, we need to discourage car usage, whether electric or traditional, due to their environmental impact. London’s air quality suffers from tire and brake pad dust emissions, along with NOx emissions, necessitating a greener approach moving forward.

In summary, cycling must evolve to benefit all Londoners, respecting both safety and environmental concerns. It’s a complex issue requiring thoughtful regulation and community responsibility to ensure our city remains accessible and sustainable for everyone.

Do you support the position of countries like Norway, Ireland, Spain (and many others) in recognizing a Palestinian state?

If you’re in favour of a two-state solution, you should recognise the Palestinian state, but there isn’t actually a Palestinian state to recognise at the moment. You’ve got the utterly corrupt and discredited Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, which is almost at war with Hamas. And Hamas is regarded, I think, rightly, in many quarters, as a sort of terrorist organisation. I love the idea of a two-state solution, Palestinians and the Israelis living side-by-side in peace and prosperity, each with their own state, but recognising the Palestinian state looks a bit like a gimmick, because, you know, no-one’s explaining what you’re actually going to recognise.

What should be the UK’s relationship with the European Union?

Throughout my career, I’ve been deeply engaged with what we now refer to as Europe. Previously, we were part of Europe, and in my view, Brexit has proven to be a disaster. The economic impact alone has cost us four percent of our GDP — a significant loss that demands urgent rectification.

First and foremost, we must stop exacerbating the situation. No-one voted for the return of roaming charges, the end of Erasmus, or the added visa complexities that now hinder travel more than they did in the past. For instance, it’s harder today for a band to tour Europe than it was for the Beatles in 1960 to travel to Hamburg.

We should cease imposing further new checks and difficulties. Instead, we should focus on identifying areas where mutually beneficial agreements can be reached. Take mobility for under-30s, for example — it’s an area ripe for positive developments. I disagree with the approach of setting strict red lines, as advocated by Keir Starmer, which I believe undermines efforts to rebuild trust and co-operation.

Addressing these issues will likely span an entire parliamentary term. If, by the end of this period, we manage to restore confidence and momentum, demonstrating clear benefits that make people wonder why these were ever discarded, then it may be timely to consult the public again on whether a more formal institutional relationship with the EU is desirable. It’s important to recognise that the EU itself will evolve significantly over this time.

Defense cooperation is another critical area, especially given Europe’s increasing concerns about security in the face of threats like Putin’s Russia and a perceived waning reliability of American commitments. European defence efforts cannot solely rely on France, as recent events underscore.

Looking ahead, I foresee a potential resurgence of the UK’s involvement with the EU within the next decade. While rejoining in full may not be feasible in the short term, a bespoke arrangement akin to Ukraine’s association agreement could be pursued. This could involve compromises on freedom of movement versus trade in goods and services, building on precedents that show flexibility can exist for geopolitical reasons.

In conclusion, our focus should be on practical solutions and rebuilding constructive relationships with our European neighbours, ensuring that any future arrangements serve the best interests of both parties amidst a changing geopolitical landscape.

Would you like to make some closing remarks?

I suppose the main thing is I’m not a professional politician, but my main rivals are. I’m a prize-winning journalist and best-selling author. I’ve spent my life dealing with really big, serious issues as a journalist and as an author on energy security, intelligence, Russia, and defence. I think that a seat like this, which is home to 10 percent of Britain’s GDP, more or less, and so many of our big institutions, and it’s this sort of diplomatic hub of the country, we need a high-profile MP who understands big national and international issues. I spend probably the majority of my time on local stuff.

Paddy Ashdown, who was my great mentor, said if you want people to listen to what matters to you, start off by listening to them, and what matters to them. In the end, it’s a choice between me and Labour, and you can either have Labour MP number 491 or 492, or you can have a Lib Dem MP who will be a really effective opposition, possibly even if the Lib Dems become the official opposition, possibly even a frontbencher, and I think that’s something that people can bear in mind.

Find out more about Edward Lucas on the Liberal Democrats website.