Sadiq Khan's vow to give Oxford Street ‘a new lease of life'
Sadiq Khan announced plans to ban traffic from part of Oxford Street, aiming to 'give our nation's high street a new lease of life' and establish it as a global leader for shopping and leisure.
Khan's office stated that 66 per cent of respondents to a consultation supported the pedestrianisation plan, with a separate YouGov survey indicating 63 per cent of Londoners in favour.
The proposal involves banning vehicles from a 0.7-mile stretch between Oxford Circus and Marble Arch, with potential extensions towards Tottenham Court Road.
The latest proposals depend on Angela Rayner, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, granting permission to establish a new Mayoral Development Corporation.
Angela Rayner expressed support for Khan's vision, stating the government will support the mayor in delivering the ambitious plan to breathe new life into Oxford Street.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
MP claims assisted dying could be ‘trojan horse that breaks the NHS'
An opponent of the assisted dying Bill has claimed such a service 'could become the trojan horse that breaks the NHS' after Health Secretary Wes Streeting was questioned about the availability of money to fund it. It is expected MPs will have a vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday, which could see it either progress to the House of Lords or fall. It will be the first time the Bill has been voted on in its entirety since November's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55. While supporters of the Bill say it is coming back to the Commons with better safeguards after more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent on it to date, opponents claim the process has been rushed and that the Bill is now weaker than it was when first introduced last year. A key change was the replacing of a High Court judge requirement for sign-off of applications from terminally ill people, with a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and the three-member panel. While the Bill has the backing of some MPs from medical backgrounds, concerns have also been raised by the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Psychiatrists. Disability campaigners have voiced worries about coercion and how vulnerable people could be caught up in any new law, although the proposed legislation is supported by MP and disability rights advocate Marie Tidball as well as former director of public prosecutions Sir Max Hill. On Tuesday, Mr Streeting confirmed no money has yet been allocated for the setting up of an assisted dying service and reiterated the Government is neutral on the Bill. Mr Streeting voted no last year and has since indicated he remains opposed to the Bill. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. He was asked by Labour MP Katrina Murray, who also voted no in November, whether the NHS has the money to fund assisted dying on top of its other priorities. She said: 'If passed, the assisted dying Bill would make thousands of terminally ill people every year eligible to end their lives on the NHS. 'Does our health service have the money to fund this service as well as its priority of bringing down waiting lists?' Mr Streeting responded: 'Of course, the Government is neutral (on assisted dying). It's for the House to decide. 'There isn't money allocated to set up the service in the Bill at present, but it's for members of this House and the Lords, should the Bill proceed, to decide whether or not to proceed and that's a decision that this Government will respect either way.' Mr Streeting said last year that there were 'choices and trade-offs', adding 'any new service comes at the expense of other competing pressures and priorities'. Dame Siobhain McDonagh, fellow Labour MP who is also opposed to the Bill, claimed an assisted dying service could 'rob our stretched NHS of much needed resources'. She said: 'When asked today in the House of Commons the Secretary of State for Health made clear to MPs that there is no money allocated to the NHS to fund the assisted dying Bill. 'It's now clear that the assisted dying Bill will rob our stretched NHS of much needed resources and could become the trojan horse that breaks the NHS, the proudest institution and the proudest measure in our Labour Party's history. 'We already know from the impact assessment that this new system could cost tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds making our mission to cut waiting times and rebuild our NHS harder. 'I urge Labour MPs not to vote for the assisted dying Bill to protect the vulnerable and our NHS.' An impact assessment published by the Government last month estimated that the establishment of a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and the three-member expert panels would cost an average of between £10.9 million and £13.6 million per year, although overall implementation costs of a service were not possible to work out yet. While noting that cutting end-of-life care costs 'is not stated as an objective of the policy', the assessment estimated that such costs could be reduced by as much as an estimated £10 million in the first year and almost £60 million after 10 years. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has said the proposed legislation is about giving dying people choice at the end of their lives, saying it is 'about the human cost' and 'not about pounds and pence'. She has described her Bill as the 'most robust piece of legislation in this area in the world'. Dozens of Labour MPs called for Friday's overall vote to be delayed, asking Commons Leader Lucy Powell for more time to scrutinise a Bill they say is 'perhaps the most consequential piece of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations'. But a Government spokesperson pointed out that it is a Private Members' Bill and 'the amount of time for debate is therefore a matter for the House'.
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Destructive' social media will transform politics ‘for a generation'
Social media is 'destructive' and will 'transform politics for a generation', Scotland's deputy First Minister has said. Kate Forbes said social media abuse and discourse has a detrimental impact on young women seeking to get into politics and could limit the number who eventually run for office. Speaking at a conference on Scotland in 2050 – where Ms Forbes appeared alongside Cherie Blair KC – the deputy First Minister was asked about comments made by actor Rupert Everett about former first minister Nicola Sturgeon. Mr Everett described Ms Sturgeon as a 'witch', claiming that when she took over as leader 'everything changed in Scottish arts and everything had to be about being Scottish'. The former first minister described the comments as 'deeply misogynistic' and 'rubbish'. Ms Forbes said such criticisms of women – either by men or other women – are 'so often tinged with misogynistic language'. Commenting on social media more widely, she said: 'The fact that politics has gone from an exchange of views to these personal attacks devoid of policy scrutiny and it is abhorrent, it is despicable. 'What's remarkable is we've been talking about it for at least six or seven years and it's only got worse in that time.' She added: 'The destructive nature of social media cannot be overstated. 'I think it is going to transform politics for a generation. 'It's going to transform – completely change – the type of people that are in politics for a generation.' Online abuse, the deputy First Minister said, rarely stays online, pointing to personal experiences she has had. 'I have people that were once accusing me of all sorts of things on social media, then turning up at my surgeries,' she said. She added: 'It's just going to be a cycle until there is an intervention, something disrupts the cycle and we as a country, and those of us in the public square decide to take a different approach.' Ms Forbes added that it is only when 'someone who should know better makes comments like that, that suddenly we all say 'that's not acceptable'', referencing Mr Everett.
The Guardian
18 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Dear Yvette Cooper, let the Casey review lead to justice – not the scapegoating of British Pakistani culture
Dear home secretary, Monday's publication of the national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, led by Louise Casey, marked a pivotal moment. Not only in confronting the horrific crimes committed against vulnerable girls in towns such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and Telford, but in deciding how we respond to them as a country. The Casey review offers a sobering account of institutional failure. These girls were not simply let down. They were failed by systems and individuals tasked with their protection. That must never happen again. Justice, accountability and reform are essential. I write to you as a British Muslim, a third-generation British Pakistani woman, and someone who has worked with communities across the country, to express deep concern about how this issue is being spoken about and misrepresented. You asked Lady Casey to examine ethnicity alongside 'cultural and social drivers'. The review identifies disproportionate numbers of Asian men among suspects in Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. At the same time, it stresses that national data is incomplete and inconsistent. These findings are in tension. Yet the media and political response has amplified a simplified message: that there was a cover-up and that ethnicity itself was the cause. In areas where British Pakistani communities are more populous, over-representation may reflect local demographics, not cultural traits. Without that context, statistics are easily distorted. Crime patterns often follow social conditions. They do not reveal cultural predisposition. The way this has been framed has caused widespread fear and alarm. Over the past few days, I have received messages from friends and colleagues anxious about the direction of the national conversation. Terms like 'Pakistani rape gangs' or 'Asian grooming gangs' have dominated headlines. Social media are awash with commentators calling for the death penalty and a ban on Pakistani migration, while a sitting MP has called for deportations in the 'many, many thousands'. A complex issue is being reduced to harmful generalisations. The claim that British Pakistani culture itself is to blame for these crimes is not only untrue – it is a dangerous distortion, when child sexual exploitation and abuse affects the entire country. There is no credible evidence to suggest that ethnicity or religion are driving factors in this form of abuse. Turning this into a question of identity rather than accountability shifts attention away from the very systems that failed to protect vulnerable girls. It allows prejudice to masquerade as policy, and that cannot go unchallenged. When culture is invoked without evidence or definition, it does more than obscure the facts – it casts entire groups of people under suspicion. This has real consequences for people like me, my family and neighbours, who are being viewed not as citizens, but as potential threats. The risk now is that prejudice is embedded into policy. Institutional failures in safeguarding and accountability thus become repurposed to legitimise the collective blame of British Muslims. We have already seen what this kind of framing can provoke. Last summer, riots erupted in cities across England and Northern Ireland, stoked by misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric. Mosques and community centres were attacked. Vehicles were stopped because drivers 'looked Asian'. Just days ago, in Ballymena, there were racially motivated attacks on foreigners that 'left families cowering in their homes', according to the police, after days of disorder that left communities in fear and distress. Even in Liverpool, after a car was driven into fans gathered for a football parade, police were quick to confirm the suspect's ethnicity, a reflection of how heightened the atmosphere has become, and the fear that misinformation could spark race-related unrest. This is the climate in which any government intervention now sits. The need for not just reason and calm but a principled defence of minority communities, of fairness and proportion, is urgent. The pain of the survivors must remain at the centre of this conversation. Justice for them is non-negotiable. We must also not forget that some victims came from the very minority communities that are now under scrutiny. Their experiences are often erased. The perpetrators did not care who their victims were. Their motives were abuse, control and exploitation. The Casey review presents an opportunity to strengthen safeguarding and rebuild trust. We can only do that if we stay grounded in evidence, not prejudice, and in responsibility, not rhetoric. The forthcoming inquiry must examine how these crimes were allowed to happen, how institutions failed to respond and how to prevent such abuse in future. It must not allow the story to become one of racialised suspicion. That path leads not to justice, but to division. British Muslims, like all citizens, want justice and safety. We want our institutions to act fairly and with integrity. What we do not want is to be made to feel complicit in crimes we did not commit. Criminals must face the law, whoever they are. Zara Mohammed is former secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
