Londoners must use next week’s elections to embrace the new

On a cold wet London morning in September 1933, a young man named Leo Szilard set off for a walk around Russell Square. No big deal. But what happened next would change history, and affect the lives of millions of people for decades to come.

Let me explain. Szilard was no ordinary guy — he was one of the most brilliant physicists of his generation, and hailed as a genius by Albert Einstein and Max Planck.

Partway through his stroll, Szilard stopped to cross the road on Southampton Row. As he watched the traffic lights change from red to green, he was hit by a brainwave. In a flash, the precocious physicist realised it was possible to create a nuclear chain reaction using very little radioactive material, opening up the potential to unleash the phenomenal power of atomic energy and create a nuclear bomb.

Thanks to Szilard’s epiphany, the Allies developed the atomic bomb before Nazi Germany, with profound geopolitical and human consequences.

It is a fascinating historical moment, but the reason I love the story is that it’s a clear reminder of why London is such a special place.

It’s thanks to London’s openness that Szilard, a Jewish scientist, was here in the first place, having found refuge when the National Socialists came to power. And this city’s openness to ideas and innovations meant that Szilard could turn his breakthrough into academic papers and political action — so affecting the course of history.

However, that commitment to openness is now being challenged. In modern politics, the old labels of “Left” and “Right” are giving way to a new divide. On one side are those who believe that openness — an open society and an open economy — represents the best way forward; others are convinced that a more closed approach to immigration, trade and social change is a better path.

When you look at the world like this, politics starts to make more sense. Instead of thinking of politicians such as Emmanuel Macron and Jeremy Corbyn as being “Left-wing” — which is unhelpful, seeing as their views differ more than their dress sense — it’s more useful to recognise that Macron is pro-openness, while Corbyn wants a more closed economy.

With local elections coming up in London next week, it’s worth looking past the traditional party colours, and working out which side of the open/closed debate the candidates are on.

London has always thrived when it’s been an open city, but this isn’t something you can take for granted: it always has to be fought for and contested.

So what would a truly open political manifesto for London look like? For starters, it would have a big bold commitment to welcoming global talent and skills.

According to Deloitte, London’s growing economy will need an extra 150,000 people with knowledge-based skills every year — more than homegrown supply can provide. That means being open to the brightest and best from around the world.

Unfortunately, the Government is heading in the opposite direction and proposing to cut skilled migration by more than two thirds, which would be catastrophic, hitting emerging industries and small businesses especially hard. And the decision to include students in the net migration numbers — which countries such as Australia have chosen not to do — means there are even fewer spaces for skilled workers.

This is the wrong move for London. As Theresa May’s chief of staff Gavin Barwell has rightly pointed out: “Fewer skilled migrants means lower growth, fewer jobs and a heavier burden on British nationals struggling to pay down the deficit built up by the last government.”

A political manifesto for openness would champion new ideas. Take transport, where there are many opportunities to harness technologies from around the world. In Singapore, self-driving buses and cars are being rolled out across the city, designed to radically reduce the cost of getting around.

Meanwhile, Germany is launching the world’s first zero-emission trains, which can reach speeds of almost 100mph, but run on steam and water, helping to improve air-quality levels.

It’s the same when it comes to London’s streets and buildings. Rather than being open to new architecture practices, materials and designs, these are often being blocked in favour of generic corporate developments. That’s making our city less attractive, which in turn makes it harder for us to draw global talent here, directly damaging our competitiveness.

Meanwhile, new approaches to living and working, such as using pre-fabricated structures or creating communal residential spaces, are being stymied rather than supported. Some of these methods have the potential to cut construction costs and make housing more affordable.

Of course, being on the side of openness isn’t always easy— or uncontroversial. Take Uber. While cities such as Lisbon have legalised the service, Transport for London has proposed banning it while stopping innovative businesses such as the carpooling service Via and the ethical taxi firm Lyft from operating.

As one entrepreneur pointed out to me, Paris is now more open to transport innovation than London is. That’s a shame for anyone trying to navigate the city — and it shows why fighting for openness is so important, and difficult. Not everyone likes competition, especially from overseas.

Being open to new people, ideas and innovations might be tough at times, but it is London’s way. Here’s hoping that the politicians elected in next week’s local elections uphold that tradition.