London is a city with a long history of radical locally based social movements involved in battles against specific schemes or the activities of public organizations (Ashe, Virdee & Brown 2016; Rosenberg 2015). However, as outlined in Chapters 2 and 3, civil society and community groups in the contemporary city have found themselves caught up in sweeping changes to state systems, modes of political representation and the transformation of urban environments.

It is no longer only local government, public agencies and politicians that are the targets of protest. Instead, the focus has returned to addressing basic questions around what is governed and who is governing, such as: how can and should community groups organize themselves politically in a context in which much of the social infrastructure of places is owned, financed and managed by private actors, working through professionally mediated contracts? And in a city in which the public sector's role and influence has been corroded, where should the focus of political action and campaigns be targeted? Moreover, how can parastate actors be identified and made accountable for their actions when they are operating under contracts and deliberations are subject to strict rules around commercial confidentiality? Under contemporary governance conditions, it is not always clear, even to those working in the public sector or parastate agencies, where their expertise and/or organization fits within wider arrangements.

This chapter discusses the political and regulatory landscapes in which civil society groups and social movements now operate. It develops the discussion in three parts. First, it examines the continued relevance and importance of representative political structures in the city. While narratives of urban political change have focused less on “outdated” representative structures (Du Gay & Lopdrup- Hjorth 2016), in London they continue to have significance. The London boroughs are still key players in shaping modes of representation and authority. Later chapters on housing and tall buildings show that there are significant variations in their approaches to planning and development, and the extent to which they address resident/community politics. However, it is also clear that borough level regulation is increasingly inadequate for deal-ing with the challenges of coordination raised by the growth of the parastate and contemporary forms of community representation and need.