As another thrilling football tournament comes to an end with the pre-tournament favourite Spain winning Euro 2008 last night, many of us will have withdrawal symptoms in the pubs and front rooms of the country.

Even without a British team involved in the tournament hosted successfully by Austria and Switzerland, it was not to hard to be absorbed into the nightly entertainment and drama as many were in the UK, very often adopting other national sides as their team. This bodes well for how it is possible for people’s loyalties to change from solely nationalist ones and be driven by which is the more entertaining side as teams like Holland, Russia and Spain were happily adopted by the British public.
Also credit has to be given to those hosting such events, as to all intents and purposes all those travelling fans who went to Euro 2008 enjoyed themselves. I witnessed this for myself most recently when I went to the Champions league final in Moscow in the spring – it was clear that a great deal of good organisation had gone into a successful and safe event and the host nations must be congratulated.

In an increasingly secularised Britain, I wonder if football is not beginning to take on almost the resonances of a new kind of organised quasi-religion? The Church of England’s regular attendance figures are continuing to steadily decline while a whopping 8.9 million viewers tuned in to the match on Sunday evening.  As a football fan myself I regularly experience, alongside thousands of others, a kind of Saturday afternoon pilgrimage to the hallowed turf of my favoured team and stood united in worship of our chosen idols.

It would be interesting to compare and contrast numbers of those regularly attending matches and watching them on television and those regularly attending worship – across all organised religions. Is football taking over a role in our culture previously occupied by those religions and if so why?  It is certainly an interesting debate which could throw up some interesting conclusions about modern society!

In May 2006 I conducted a “˜rapporteurship’ into the selling off of public and school playing fields on behalf of the London Assembly Environment Committee, of which I am the Deputy Chair. My report into the issue can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/environment/playing-fields.pdf ), Since then I have been contacted by a number of local groups and individuals about the selling off of playing fields and the instance at Holland Park School has cropped up a number of timesThe great effect of the loss of small areas of open space in densely populated areas is not always appreciated. I wholly endorse Tony Benn and the Campden Hill residents in their effort to halt development on this land and am prepared to make representations to the new Mayor with a view to his using his new planning powers to intervene in the application if deemed necessary.

This month l went to the European Parliament to take part in a session on ‘SOS Bangladesh’, covering the human rights issues of the present political impasse and the impact of climate change is having on the region.

I was there to make my contribution on the latter, given that – if present trends continue – the country will disappear under the waves by the end of the century. I found myself inspired by our hosts, Belgian MEPs Johan van Hecke and Bart Staes, who are keen to argue for proper rights and support for climate change ‘refugees’.

On my last trip to South Asia in August 2007, l left the British Isles coping with our floods. By the time l arrived in Delhi, we were hearing about floods making their way along the Ganges through Uttar Pradesh and Bihar from the Tibetan glaciers. When l got to Dhaka we were hearing that the floods were also coming down along the Brahmaputra through Nepal and Assam from the same source. And as l left India via Calcutta, both hit the Bay of Bengal causing one of the most severe floods the country has experienced in recent times.

There is no doubt that both the frequency and intensity of these events have increased in this part of the world; China is another country suffering increased flood risk from the melting Tibetan glaciers.

Unfortunately this is only one part of the story. The Bengal delta is in for a double whammy due to rising sea levels. In recent times several small islands in the Bay of Bengal have disappeared, including two on the Indian side. With global warming of 3-4 o C, further rising sea levels will result in tens of millions more people being displaced by floods every year.

Last year two reports on the science and economics of climate change were published. The first, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), clearly established the link between human actions and global warming. More than 2,500 scientists found that there was a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and called for drastic action.

The second was the Stern Report, which argued that the benefits of strong early action clearly outweighed the costs, as ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth.

If we fail to act now and over the next few decades, we risk major disruption to economic and social activity later in the current century and beyond. The resulting catastrophe could be on a similar scale to those during the great wars and economic depressions of the first half of the 20th century.

What is clearly happening on the ground in Bangladesh and the surrounding area is that people are voting with their feet. We are beginning to see massive rural migration to the mega Asian cities like Dhaka and Calcutta. This is not surprising and is something humankind has been doing since the beginning of its existence – moving around the earth to find a secure home.

The difference now, though, is that the climate change inducing such movements has been linked to human lifestyles and activity in other parts of the globe – thousands of miles from those affected.

It is in this context that we are hearing louder calls for the acknowledgment of “climate change refugees” who may end up with similar needs to those who fled their homes in the early part of the 20th century in response to war or economic disaster.

At that time the Geneva Convention was put in place to guide the world’s response. We now need something similar to be developed that will guide the response to those who are forced to flee their homes due to flooding and the climate change related environmental disasters of the 21st century.

I welcome this move believe the European Union is the right place for this idea to develop, as the previous century’s movements all evolved in mainland Europe and can thus draw from this experience and perhaps provide useful precedents. It should be noted however that, unlike the population movements of the last century, most of this climate change induced migration will be localised within regions rather then between continents.

The Bay of Bengal scenario is a good example of this – where most of the movement is from rural areas to the large cities. Those cities and others facing a similar situation in the future may well need support from the global community to adjust to their rising populations and to cope with providing for the needs of people who have had to abandon their homes and way of life.

What is clear now more then ever, to quote a columnist from the Independent newspaper: “It is happening because of us. Every flight, every hamburger, every coal power plant, ends here, with this.” We owe it to these modern day refugees to ensure that we do our best protect their threatened homelands and take responsibility for the damage being done by our way of life.

Last week I was at Southwark Crown Court to observe the harrowing trial of Brian Donegan who last August launched a vicious unprovoked attack on the Imam of Regents Park mosque, Shiekh Mohammed El-Salamouni. Sheikh El-Salamouni was left lying on the floor of the mosque with horrific injuries and is now blind for life. In its symbolism to those in the Muslim community, the attack would be comparable for Roman Catholics to an attack on an archbishop at Westminster Cathedral. To add to the local community’s distress, the fall-out from the attack is that Imams from Al-Azhar University who have provided us with the Imams at Regents Park for many years could now leave London if the Egyptian authorities do not feel they will be adequately protected in London .

It is of scant consolation to Sheikh El-Salamouni, but Brian Donegan will be imprisoned indefinitely in a secure hospital after he was declared insane by the court. His punishment and the fact he will spend the rest of life behind bars needs needs to be properly explained to the local community and users of the mosque, some of whom are concerned that the lack of a traditional “guilty” verdict means Mr Donegan has somehow got off lightly. This of course is not the case. It would take the intervention of the Home Secretary for Mr Donegan’s sentence ever to be revisited – something I do not envisage happening and something I will do everything in my gift to prevent.

I have written to Jacqui Smith the present Home Secretary to press home this fact and to emphasise to her that the likes of Mr Donegan must not be allowed to harm our excellent record of harmonious community relations here in London.

Clearly , in the meantime, security needs to be improved in Regents Park mosque and reviewed at other mosques and religious buildings . In light of this horrific experience , it is important that we at least have security outside the room when an Imam is giving counsel – along the lines of that given to MP’s during their surgeries. Mosques should be encouraged to liaise with local police and Safer Neighbourhood Teams for advice on ensuring that religious buildings are as secure as possible for both staff and worshippers.

I sincerely hope this is not the prelude of us losing the Imams from Al-Azhar University in Cairo at Regents Park mosque. Over the years they have provided an invaluable service to the local Muslim community, stretching right back to the appointment of the much-respected Zaki Badawi as Chief Imam in 1978 .

l have written to the Foreign Secretary to outlining my concerns and to ask him to reassure the Egyptian authorities that their Imams can in future continue to feel safe in London.

On a recent weekend trip with friends in Paris, l spent a whole day using the famed velib ( short for free or freedom bikes in French ) bike scheme in the city and it was certainly a joy to use as a tourist. Not surprisingly while on my bike l imagined how a similiar scheme would work in London.

Last summer the Paris authority launched the Velib bike scheme, depositing 20,000 heavy duty bicycles in 750 or so special racks around the city and anyone who wants one simply swipes they travel card and pedals off wherever they want to go. Subscribers must pay 29 euros ( £ 20 ) a year, give their credit card details and leave a 150 euro credit deposit. This buys half an hour’s pedalling a day and a card to lock and unlock bicycles from automated stations spaced every 300 metres in the city centre. Visitors to Paris can buy a daily velib card for 5 euros. The bikes have already been borrowed 1.2 million times, that is on average 6 journeys a day largely short ones.

Nowhere is the project being watched with greater interest then in London itself with the previous mayor having asked Transport for London to develop similiar plan for London and bring together several schemes across the whole of the city. In many ways an investment in such a scheme would be a much better initiative to encourage cycling then bringing the Tour de France back London again, as l’m not convinced that bringing an elite sport actually gets people on their bikes.

It was also immediately apparent some of the problems the bike hire scheme was having in Paris. For example to was clear that some stations were more popular for bike hire then others like those at low-level stands rather those at higher levels. Thus one would have to have a major exercise each night to move the bikes around. When you did find a bike it was often punctured and not roadworthy, so maintenance is a key issue as well. At present in Paris, the advertising company JC Decaux provides all this for free-advertising in Central Paris but it will be interesting to see how long this continues. Moreover it is suspected that useage will be seasonal, that is the real test will come with the end of summer and return of the winter months.

A number of ” free-bike” schemes have been road tested in London like the OY bikes in Hammersmith & Fulham three years ago. Here the bike could be hired for 30 minutes with a £ 10 registration fees using the OYbike call centre. It’s biggest issue was its geographical coverage as it was restricted to the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham and for any scheme to be successful it would need to cover the whole of Central London. Surprisingly in University towns like St Andrews and Cambridge when it was tested all the bikes had been stolen in the early pilot schemes. And in cities like Southampton and Bristol lack of cooperation from rail operators was felt not to have helped the bike hire schemes.

That said it would be great to see a comprehensive bike hire scheme in London learning from similiar exercises across the world and not just Paris. On my return to London after the weekend trip to Paris, l was reminded that the original bike hire scheme in Europe was in Barcelona with their Bicing cycle scheme achieving over 90,000 subscribers, 2 million hires, 960 reduction in CO2 emissions and the scheme being extended to cover all the city districts in 2008. It sounds to me that I should take my next private research trip there!

Given that this could be said to a very good indicator of the increasing ‘purchase power’ of the Asian middle classes globally, perhaps the new Mayor should tread carefully before taking forward any plans to close London’s embassies in countries such as India and China.

Increasing prosperity amongst the Asian community globally should not be underestimated on it’s capacity to impact upon the London and British economies as a whole like the recent world food shortages and fuel price increases. We need to recognise the potential amongst all the diverse communities in London and encourage them all to contribute to our city for the benefit of all of us. We need to promote London to Asian people as well as those from all our communities, both those who already live here and those who are still abroad to persuade them that London and Britain is a great place to use and travel to for holidays, tourism or even education. I believe that having embassies to maintain links and promote London in other parts of the world is a key part in this.

Boris Johnson is intending to consult on proposals to close a number of London Embassies in overseas cities. In my view this is shortsighted. Again, shaving a few pence off Londoners council tax bills will initially be a popular move, but the impact on London’s ability to attract new economic benefits in the future may not be so smart if it begins to affect all of us.

The new Mayor’s first move in office was to ban the drinking of alcohol on board London’s tube trains. At first this would seem an attractive move in a culture where binge drinking is viewed as a social menace by the populace. However, serious questions need to be asked about where the policy is focussed and crucially, how this is going to be enforced.

There is no doubt that there is a link between alcohol and antisocial behaviour. As a football supporter, I am unfortunately only too well aware of the disturbance and problems that can arise when disappointed and celebrating fans, inhibitions dulled by cans of lager consumed on the train on the way to a match, clash. However, such issues were minimal at the recent Champions League match in Moscow – where the availability of alcohol was restricted and the match passed relatively quietly. Compare and contrast that with the scenes in Fulham Broadway after the same match, where no doubt alcohol had played a part.

So would the booze ban on the tube have prevented this scene? I’d say probably not. And pity the underground staff confronted by large groups of angry football fans arriving on the network already having consumed a skinful. Would you like to be the one to approach them to remove their cans of Stella? Me neither. The Mayor says that underground staff will be supported by the British Transport Police and the Met, but ultimately the burden will fall on train and platform staff which I believe is unfair.

If the ban reduces levels of drunken behaviour in our city then it is to be welcomed, but the practicalities cannot be overlooked. You can try and stop people drinking on the tube, but what about the overground trains, buses, trams, off-licences and pubs? I believe the problem is not actually all about the consumption of alcohol on the tube, but before and after people get on it.

Still, moves to tackle binge drinking are to be welcomed and this is one move the travelling public will appreciate. But will it be backed up with real evidence that the policy is making a difference? I’m not sure it will. Headlines are one thing but substance is another. I believe to make a real difference to the problem of binge drinking and the resulting anti-social behaviour, you’d probably need to ban drinking across the whole of the public transport network. Even then, a more significant problem is drunks getting onto buses and train carriages after a night-out and already inebriated – not passengers opening a drink while getting from A to B. Perhaps an all-out ban will be the Mayor’s next move? Or, given its potential unpopularity and the near-impossibility of policing it without huge investment, perhaps not. Time will tell. Londoners want to be safer. And they want more than just a good headline.

Newly-re-elected Labour London Assembly Member Murad Qureshi has expressed his literally grave concern over the future of London’s playing fields as a council proposes turning one field into a cemetery.

Murad, who is himself a keen sportsman, has joined campaigners in Kingston to call for the former BBC Sports Ground in Motspur Park to be saved from plans to turn them into gravespace.

‘I’ve been concerned about this issue for a long time’, Murad explains. ‘During the last administration, I undertook a rapporteurship as Deputy Chair of the London Assembly Environment Committee on this very subject. I found that there has been a significant loss of playing fields and outdoor recreation space over the past 15 years. Yet we all know how important it is for everyone to have access to leisure and sports facilities. The report contained a number of recommendations including the need to enshrine more protection for playing fields in the London Plan.’

He went on: ‘The situation at Motspur Park truly is a grave one. The site was well used by families and sports clubs before it was sold to a developer. As it’s Metropolitan Open Land, plans to develop the site fell, so it’s easier to sell off the land as a cemetery.

‘It seems that there is actually no need for a new cemetery in the area as there are two very large ones nearby in any case. But it’s easier and cheaper for developers to flog off the land than try to find creative ways of putting the site back into use for leisure activities.

‘This is why our playing fields need to have some sort of protected use status in planning regulations – clearly the Metropolitan Open Land rules are not always enough to prevent the loss of playing fields. I’ll be calling on Kingston Council not to dispose of this sports ground as well as lobbying the new Mayor for more protection for these vital venues.’ 

It was a sad scene on the night of the 2nd of May, seeing Ken leaving the institution he did so much to give a profile and such energy too. For my generation of Londoners who grew up in London during the 1980s, he had been our political compass and thus gave us our bearings very often in all sorts of political matters beyond just local government as well.

Saying this, Ken and Labour at the GLA did much better in London then the party in the rest of the country on the 1st of May. Ken’s first preference total was 36 per cent and much the same as his percentage in 2004, that is 12 per cent higher then Labours national score and the Labour vote in Labour actually want up across the whole of London to 28 from 24 per cent, gaining an additional seat in the Assembly in Brent & Harrow to a total of 8, holding Enfield and Haringey and increasing the majorities in all our GLA constituencies and finally holding our 2 seats from the top-up lists. This reflects well on the progressive coalition and policies that Ken presented on transport, housing and privatisation and redistribution which was a good deal more popular than that been offered in other parts of the country throughout local and regional government by Labour.

It was just that Tory vote came out much more strongly then we anticipated both in the suburbs and in central London while the Lib Dem vote took a hammering both in the Mayoral and Assembly contest. Johnson got 42 per cent first preferences and when the second preferences were distributed it was 47 and 53 per cent to Johnson. In the meantime, there was a haemorrhaging of the Lib Dem vote where Paddick only polled 9.6 per cent and its vote on the London Assembly went down by 6.88 per cent compared to 2004, resulting in the loss of 2 Assembly seats. The best example of the suburban vote was the over 50 per cent turn out in Bexley and Bromley where more then 50 per cent voted Tory. While in the City and East London where we probably have the greatest concentration of Muslim communities, the turnout was in the region of 39 per cent. That is over 1 in 3 voted in the latter while in the former it was just over every other person. Its those margins which made the difference for the Tories.

Furthermore, the smaller parties like Respect and Christian Alliance did not fare well at all but for the BNP, who got their 5.3 per cent to get their first London Assembly member onto the London Assembly. From 2004, the far right party managed to get a further 40,000 votes added to their 90,000 then to critically get them over the 5 per cent threshold. This is a return to the peak of far right support in the 1970s at the GLC elections of May 1977 where the National Front polled 5.23 per cent but because of the first past the poll system did not get any representation in the GLC. After that a combination of the National Front disintergrating internally and Maggie Thatcher coming into power in 1979 stopped the move to the far right any further. Are we going to see something similiar will be very interesting in the next few years.

In West Central where l contested the election, we had a 48.5 per cent turnout and managed to increase the Labour vote just over 3 per cent from 2004 with a total of nearer to Ken’s total vote in 2004. At the same time we saw the Tory vote increase by a greater percentage, so it was not just ” outer London wot won it ” for Johnson and the Tories while Kens vote is still 12,000 votes higher then the Labour vote.

I will continue the fight in the GLA, remembering that the battle may of been lost but not the war, as much of what Johnson does over the next 4 years will be undertaken within an agenda and context set by the outgoing Mayor. So bring on 2012 election which will be just before the Olympics games in London and lets see how Johnson handles this and the other big projects like Crossrail, deliveries on his manifesto promises and promotes London as a global city. Rest assured that after the honey moon period over this summer, this is how he’ll be judged, as many will see the Johnson adminstration as giving us an insight into what a Cameron regime running the UK will be like.