You can only walk 6 kilometers per hour if you want to follow the law in Slovakia. The Slovak parliament Tuesday afternoon adopted an amendment to the traffic law that sets a maximum permitted speed on sidewalks in urban areas at 6 kph. The limit applies to pedestrians, cyclists, skaters, and scooter and e-scooter riders — all of who are allowed on sidewalks — and aims to avoid frequent collisions. “The main goal is to increase safety on sidewalks in light of the increasing number of collisions with scooter riders,” said the author of the amendment, Ľubomír Vážny of the leftist-populist Smer party of Prime Minister Robert Fico, which is part of the ruling coalition. The amendment will be useful in proving violations, the lawmaker said, “especially in cases where it’s necessary to objectively determine whether they were moving faster than what’s considered an appropriate speed in areas meant primarily for pedestrians.” Although the law will come into force Jan. 1, 2026, proponents haven’t publicly spelled out how they plan to enforce it. The average walking speed typically ranges between 4 to 5 kph. However, the British Heart Foundation reports that a pace of 6.4 kilometers per hour is considered moderate for someone with excellent fitness. The opposition criticized the change, and even the Slovak Interior Ministry said it would be more appropriate to prohibit e-scooters from the sidewalks than impose a general speed limit. Martin Pekár of the opposition liberal party Progressive Slovakia said pedestrians face danger from cars, not cyclists or scooters, and that the amendment penalizes sustainable transport. “If we want fewer collisions, we need more safe bike lanes, not absurd limits that are physically impossible to follow,” Pekár said. “At the mentioned speed, a cyclist can hardly keep their balance,” he added. The amendment has sparked a wave of amusement on social media, with some wondering whether running to catch a bus could get them fined.

LONDON — Britain’s technocratic ministers aren’t the most obvious candidates to don MAGA-style red caps and belt out punchy slogans. But Britain’s housing secretary has a real fight on his hands, and he’s not afraid to channel Donald Trump in waging it. Steve Reed took office in early September with a colorful promise to “build, baby, build.” Britain is in the midst of a housing crisis. The availability of affordable housing has plummeted, Brits are getting on the housing ladder later in life, and many families and renters are living in overcrowded, substandard and insecure homes. To try to fix this, the government came to power promising to build 1.5 million new homes over the course of the parliament. Reed and his team went into this fall’s Labour conference wearing hats emblazoned with the Trump-style three-word phrase, a rabble-rousing address and a social media strategy to match. But his MPs are already worried that the tradeoffs Reed and the U.K. Treasury are pushing to get shovels in the ground ride roughshod over the environmental protections that Brits cherish — and put some vulnerable Labour seats at risk. The three-word slogan is “completely counterproductive,” said one Labour MP who was granted anonymity to speak candidly like others quoted in this piece. The government must acknowledge “that nature is something that people genuinely love, [which] improves health and wellbeing.” PLANNING BATTLE Front of their minds are a host of changes to the U.K.’s planning bill, which is snaking its way through parliament. The bill aims to cut red tape to fast-track planning decisions, unlock more land for development, and create a building boom.  The legislation is on a journey through the U.K.’s House of Lords, and has been tweaked with a slew of government amendments on its way. In October, Reed introduced further amendments to try to speed up planning decisions and overrule councils who attempt to block new developments.  But the first MP quoted above said they are concerned Reed’s “build, baby, build” drive will only see Labour shed votes to both Zack Polanski’s left-wing Green Party and Nigel Farage’s populist Reform. The government announced that the quotas for affordable housing in new London developments would be slashed from 35 percent to 20 percent. | Richard Baker/Getty Images “Making tough decisions about how we use our land for important purposes, such as energy, food, security, housing and nature, is what government is about,” the first MP said. But they added: “We need to make sure that we are making the right decisions, but also telling a story about why we’re making those decisions, and dismissing nature as inconvenient is going against the grain of the British public.” They added: “Nobody disagrees with [building more homes] as a principle, but ending up with a narrative that basically sounds like you’re speaking in support of the [housing] developers, rather than in support of the communities that we represent, is just weird.” MAKING CHANGES Last week, Reed opened up another front in his battle. The government announced that the quotas for affordable housing in new London developments would be slashed from 35 percent to 20 percent. City Hall said the measures would help speed up planning decisions and incentivize developers to actually build more houses. But cutting social housing targets is an uncomfortable prospect for many in the Labour party.   The government’s message is “build, baby build — but not for poor people,” a Labour aide complained.  Reed firmly defended the change, telling Sky News last week: “There were only 4,000 starts in London last year for social and affordable housing. That is nothing like the scale of the crisis that we have.” He added of the quota: “35 percent of nothing is nothing. We need to make schemes viable for developers so they’ll get spades in the ground.” BLOCKING THE BLOCKERS NARRATIVE Reed has the backing of the U.K.’s powerful Treasury in waging his battle. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said the government wants to back the “builders not the blockers,” language a second Labour MP, this one in a rural seat, described as “terrible” and an approach that “needs to stop.” Such rhetoric will fail to persuade constituents worried about new developments that trample nature to support new housing. “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar,” they warned. “It’s all vinegar.” The government has already shown that it’s willing to take the fight to pro-environment MPs — sometimes dismissed in the U.K. as “NIMBYs,” short for “not in my backyard.” Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said the government wants to back the “builders not the blockers.” | Pool Photo by Joe Giddens via Getty Images 2024 intake MP Chris Hinchliff was stripped of the Labour whip in July after proposing a series of rebel amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and attacking the legislation for having a “narrow focus on increasing housing supply.” While there is vocal opposition to the “build, baby, build” strategy within Labour, there are also MPs who align themselves with the general message, if not the exact wording. “I would not go out to my constituents who are concerned about the Green Belt wearing a [build, baby, build] cap,” said a third Labour MP, also in a rural seat, “but at the same time, you have to be honest with people about the trade-offs.” They accused the opposition to Reed of “fear-mongering” and stoking the idea that England’s green belt — a designated area of British countryside protected from most development — risks being “destroyed.”  “That has killed off responsible discussions on development,” they argued. “Do I love the slogan? No. Am I going to lose sleep over it? No, because as a constituency MP you can have reasonable conversations.” THE RED HAT BRIGADE Reed also has a cohort of willing warriors on his side. The 2024 intake of Labour MPs brought with it some highly vocal, pro-growth Labour factions. The Labour YIMBY group and Labour Growth Group have been shouting from the rooftops about building more. Labour Growth Group chair and MP Chris Curtis says: “We have some of the oldest and therefore coldest homes of any developed country. We have outdated, carbon intensive energy infrastructure, hardly any water storage, pipes that leak, old sewage infrastructure that dumps raw sewage into our rivers, and car dependency because we can’t build proper public transport.  “Anybody who thinks blocks on building has been good for nature is simply wrong,” he added. “Protecting our environment literally depends on us building well, and building quickly.” Labour MP Mike Reader, who worked in the construction and infrastructure sector before becoming an MP and is part of the pro-building caucus, was sanguine about Reed’s message. “The U.K. is the most nature-depleted country in Western Europe,” he said. “So to argue for the status quo … is arguing for us to destroy nature in its very essence. The legislation that we [currently] have does not protect nature.” As for concern that the government is too close to housing developers, Reader shot back: “Who do they think builds the houses?” Steve Reed introduced further amendments to try to speed up planning decisions and overrule councils who attempt to block new developments. | Aaron Chown/Getty Images “I want each [MP who rejects the ‘build, baby, build’ message] to tell the thousands of young families in temporary accommodation that they don’t deserve a safe secure home,” he said. “If they can’t do that they need to grow a pair and do difficult things. That’s why we’re in government. To change lives. And build, baby, build.” A fourth unnamed Labour MP said the slogan is “a bit cringe and Trumpian,” but added: “I’m not really arsed about what slogans they’re using if they’re delivering on that as an objective.” There’s also unlikely praise for the effort from the other side of the U.K. political divide. Jack Airey, a former No. 10 special adviser who tried to get a planning and infrastructure bill through under the last Conservative government, said “people that oppose house building often have the loudest voice, and they use it … and yet, the people that support house building generally don’t really say it, because why would they? They’ve got better things to do.” “I think it’s really positive for the government to have a pro-house building and pro-development message out there, and, more importantly, a pro-development caucus in parliament and beyond,” he said. In a bid to steady the nerves of anxious MPs, Reed told the parliamentary Labour Party last week that his Trump-style slogan is a “bit of fun” that hides a serious point — that there simply aren’t enough houses being built in the U.K. And an aide to Reed rejected concerns from Labour MPs that nature is not being sufficiently considered, saying “nobody understands [nature concerns] more than Steve. “We reject this kind of binary choice between nature and building,” they said. “We think that you can do both. It just requires imaginative, ultimately sensible and pragmatic policy-making, and that’s what we’re doing. “We’re not ashamed to campaign in primary colors,” the Reed aide said. Noah Keate contributed reporting.

Poland said it rapidly mobilized military aircraft early Sunday to secure its airspace after Russia launched airstrikes on Ukraine’s Lviv region near the Polish border. “Polish and allied aircraft are intensively operating in our airspace, while ground-based air defense and radar reconnaissance systems have reached the highest state of readiness,” said the Operational Command of the Polish Armed Forces. Ukrainian officials said the Russian strikes killed and at least four people in the Lyiv region and one person in the southeastern city of Zaporizhzhia. The mayor of Lviv said public transport routes were not operating due to a “massive enemy attack,” which had also caused a partial electricity outage in the region. “Russia targeted residential areas with drones and aerial bombs. Across all affected areas, residential buildings and critical infrastructure were damaged,” Ukraine’s Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko said on X. It was just the latest instance of Poland scrambling fighter planes to protect its airspace amid Moscow’s attacks on Ukraine. In early September, Poland shot down Russian drones that forced the closure of the Warsaw airport as Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared to be testing NATO’s defense capabilities. Since then, eastern-flank members of NATO have been on high alert. Denmark had to close its airspace last week after drone activity was detected around Skrydstrup Air Base.

LIVERPOOL, England — A wave of “new towns” designed to boost U.K. housing supply might still be awaiting their first residents before the next general election, a Cabinet minister has told POLITICO.  Housing Secretary Steve Reed pledged to get “spades in the ground” on proposed sites in Enfield, Leeds and Bedfordshire by the end of the current parliament — expected to be in 2028 or 2029. Ministers will confirm final locations in spring 2026.  However, when asked if anyone would be living in new homes on these sites before the next election, Reed said: “All I can give you is a guess, so I won’t do that. We will progress them as quickly as we can.”  Speaking in the POLITICO Pub at Labour’s party conference in Liverpool on Tuesday, Reed added: “Building a whole new town isn’t just like building 50 new homes. You’ve got to make sure all the infrastructure is there, the public transport is there, the investment that’s going to bring jobs. People want hospitals, they’ll need schools in there as well, they want access to green spaces.”  The three areas have been identified as the most promising of 12 locations suggested by a government “new towns” task force that reported recently.  Reed also declined to say when work would begin on the other nine sites. “We need to do the work to give a timeline to all of them,” he said.  Separately, the minister said he was looking at the idea of an “AI-enabled town.” He said the government was “asking people to be really innovative about what we might be able to do with the new towns … what would an AI-enabled town look like? How could we make people’s lives easier by putting AI at the center of how we build it and how people can access information and public services?   “We need people to be really creative as we’re working towards what these places will be like.”  Reed took over the housing brief after the resignation of his predecessor, Angela Rayner, earlier this month. In his short time in the role, he has made the slogan “build, baby, build” — which has been plastered across red caps at the conference — his mantra.  He downplayed the suggestion that his approach — and red hats — had been inspired by U.S. President Donald Trump’s MAGA movement.  “We need to be able to communicate in bold colors … red is the color of the Labour Party as well as the Republicans in the U.S. But red is our color, and we need to be painting in bold color.   “So ‘build, baby, build’ was intended to get a bit of cut-through. It’s bit fun as well. You know, the run-up to conference didn’t feel that happy. There were some difficult things going on. We wanted to give people a lift.”  He added: “Behind it, there’s a really, really serious message, because in this country, we have a housing crisis, and the effects of that crisis are that homelessness, rough sleeping, people sleeping in shop doorways and underpasses has doubled under the conservatives. In my case, work as an MP over 50 percent of what people come to talk to me about is housing.” 

Elisabeth Braw is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the author of the award-winning “Goodbye Globalization” and a regular columnist for POLITICO. For many locals the world over, this summer — just like every summer and, indeed, every month — tourism brings misery rather than enjoyment. In Barcelona, locals fed up with overtourism took to the streets in protest. In Genoa, Lisbon and the Canary Islands, they did the same. And in Venice, locals were enraged their city had to play backdrop to tech billionaire Jeff Bezos’s wedding party. Copenhagen, however, has turned the tourism curse on its head, inviting visitors to do good deeds for the city and be rewarded for it in return. And it’s time other cities got similarly creative. “During 2024, the Spanish tourism sector experienced its best year since 2019. Its contribution to GDP rose by almost 8% to €248.7 billion, or 15.6% of the economy. It also employed 3 million people, nearly 14% of the country’s total jobs,” the World Travel & Tourism Council reported in May. For many Spaniards, though, this hardly feels like good news. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. To them — and to locals in many other cities tourists like to visit — what it actually means is overcrowding, lack of housing and constant littering. It’s a cursed bargain, tourism: It brings in cash and jobs, but the more tourism you get, the more locals’ discomfort turns to misery. These days, even the trails leading up to the Himalayas are tainted by litter — and don’t even mention Instagram tourism. But tourism doesn’t need to be this destructive. Switzerland, for example, has begun giving rail discounts to those who book a stay at sustainable hotels, and it charges anyone visiting the Lake Brienz pier, which was made famous by the Korean drama “Crash Landing on You,” 5 Swiss francs. The proceeds are then invested in local infrastructure. Copenhagen’s approach is even more innovative. Last year, the Danish capital launched CopenPay, a scheme that invites tourists to do good deeds for the city — and get rewarded. “All you need to do is, for instance, bike instead of drive, help maintain the city, work in an urban garden or take the train to Copenhagen instead of flying, stay longer at the destination,” CopenPay explains. The initiative was launched as a four-week pilot program last year, and this summer it expanded to nine weeks, with 100 attractions participating — a fourfold increase. For instance, as part of CopenPay, there are currently 15 different opportunities to clean up litter across the city, one of which is to “Clean the harbor with GreenKayak and enjoy a free non-alcoholic drink and rye bar with your Smørrebrød purchase at Hallernes Smørrebrød.” While I can’t speak for everyone, to me, cleaning the harbor in central Copenhagen by kayak certainly sounds like an exciting undertaking I’d do for free — though I’d also happily claim the beverage. And if that doesn’t quite strike your fancy, you can help clean the harbor by self-sailing boat too. And picking up litter is just the beginning. If you bike or use public transport to get to the National Museum, you get a free ice cream with your entry ticket. If you arrive in Copenhagen by train or electric car, you get similarly rewarded. There are free bike rentals, free yoga sessions, free guided tours, all waiting to be claimed. Visitors arriving by train from abroad can even get free surplus meals at Copenhagen Central Station. There are free bike rentals, free yoga sessions, free guided tours, all waiting to be claimed. | Mads Claus Rasmussen/EPA You get the idea: Be a good citizen while you visit, and good things will come your way. And hopefully the impact of CopenPay — and other similar initiatives currently in the works — won’t stop there. Imagine if participants start thinking differently about their role as tourists. Once you take part in city maintenance as a temporary sanitation worker, perhaps you start viewing your surroundings less as an Instagram commodity and more as a local community worth protecting. Imagine what such participatory schemes could do for other tourist destinations, especially those most affected by throngs of oblivious visitors. I’ve long wondered how Romans can be so tolerant of the throngs that crowd their beautiful piazzas and narrow streets. How could the local government convince visitors to stop congregating and littering in front of Fontana di Trevi? Perhaps they should introduce a scheme inviting tourists to pick up litter and intimately get to know a street or two, or perhaps sweep the floor of one of the city’s many stunning churches, or tend to part of a graveyard. It would certainly be a memory to tell one’s friends about. Yes, there are reasons why such initiatives may not work. Dishonest tourists will claim to have done a good deed when they haven’t — CopenPay, for example, operates on an honor system. But tourism isn’t just a burden to locals, it’s a burden on our planet. It emits some 8 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide and is 20 percent more carbon-intensive than the average for the global economy. Offering tourists the opportunity to pick up litter as they explore local waterways may not work for every town and city, but each destination can easily come up with its own innovative ideas. Just imagine cities full of visitors who bring a helping hand as well as their cash. That ought to be tourism we can live with.