Thatcher had her funeral on the state, why not the rest of us as well?

Now that it’s been established that Margaret Thatcher funeral cost the state £3.6 million, can l request that my funeral is paid for by the state along with other UK citizens?

As a humble councillor at my surgery l regularly used to get elderly constituents visiting me who were anxious about their own funeral arrangements. That’s not surprising as it is one of two certainties in life we have! (The other being taxation of course) and with the burden of student loans, rising housing costs and lower job prospects which now beset out population, it’s no wonder there’ll be no money left at the end to pay for a funeral at the end of it all.   Seriously, l’ve seen it cause no end of grief, though some of the more practical amongst us make arrangements via the co-op, but this is not the case for the vast majority.  It’s clear that Maggie Thatcher had at least consulted two British PMs about her funeral arrangements and therefore had no need to involve her local councillor in such matters.

According to the Sun Life’s Direct’s Cost of Dying Report 2012, the average cost of a funeral  in the UK in 2012 stood at £3,284, a financial burden often borne by those nearest & dearest to the decreased at a time of grief.  That works out to about a thousandth of the cost of Margaret Thatcher’s. In reality many don’t make any arrangements and in these difficult times it might even have to be a whip round at the local pub or other local community hub in order to raise funds.  I say, all British Citizens should have our funeral paid for by the state as Maggie Thatcher did.  State funded funerals could be legacy which unifies all sides of the Maggie Thatcher camps and a tribute to her passing.

Ironically, her passing illustrates the importance and reliance we have on the state, even at the time of death.  Of course a more fitting tribute would have been for her funeral to have been run more as a private enterprise with say G4S providing the security instead of the Met police.  Just a thought.

The measles outbreak in Swansea has rightly received much media attention and has highlighted the risk of measles outbreaks in other parts of the UK.   Thankfully, the advice from Public Health England is there is no imminent risk of an outbreak in London.  In 2012, there were 137 confirmed cases of measles in London and these were predominantly contained to family groups by the work of the Health Protection Agency (now part of Public Health England) who investigate every case and vaccinate the people around the patient to stop it spreading further.  There are pockets of populations where vaccination rates are particularly low, and where small outbreaks can and do occur, Public Health England will continue to do the work that they have been doing for years – monitoring all cases, investigating and vaccinating to contain any outbreaks.

The announcement by The Department of Health (DOH) to run a national catch-up campaign is most welcome.  It plans to run over the course of the summer identifying those, particularly teenagers that are not vaccinated and encourage them to be vaccinated.

What hinders programmes like these are commentaries which still exist online and which serve to stoke the fire of debate surrounding the doubt about the safety of the vaccine, particularly, when precursored with the title “The Truth”.  In a classic Melanie Phillips article on the subject, dating back to 2003, but still on-line on the Daily Mail web site, she highlights a 2nd Wakefield study which focuses on the booster MMR jabs, the claim being that those given the booster jabs experienced deterioration in health.  Articles like this, which are likely to be repeated in the current climate, are dangerous, because inevitably, they’re designed to shock and sensationalise and by their nature do not mention all the facts.  For example, the 2003 article doesn’t mention that the Wakefield study focused on tests carried out on just 12 children.  Nor does it mention the size of the “new” study referred to.

My hope during this next phase of debate about the MMR is that the language of speculation and suggestion is curtailed.  What we need to know now are the facts, which are in approx 1 in every 15 cases, Measles can be severe and causes more complex problems needing hospitalisation, and can cause death.  In a very small number it can cause brain inflammation and lead to lasting brain damage. Worldwide it is one of the biggest killers of children.  We should not lose sight of this reality.

With a local PCSO in Hounslow & Cllr Ajmer Grewal discussing demise of Safer Neighourhood Policing.

Following the Mayor of London’s announcement earlier this month about the future of policing in London, spare a thought for just how valuable our Safer Neighbourhood Teams were while they lasted.

 In Boris’s new Local Policing Model, wards will have one dedicated PC and one PCSO, with a named sergeant. Currently, each SNT has three PCSOs, two PCs and one sergeant. Boris says he believes that it’s “bobbies before buildings” but as we can see, this obviously isn’t the case when it comes to protecting local SNTs.

The Mayor is cutting sergeants as well as PCSOs, both of which will have a detrimental effect on public confidence. The ethnic mix of PCSOs reflects London’s diversity. The loss of sergeants will see the Met having the lowest supervisory ratios in the country. 

This is a fundamental shift away from Neighbourhood Policing to Response Policing, the result of which will be less community engagement, a lack of local knowledge and severely overstretched staff.

The Metropolitan Police’s Safer Neighbourhood Teams work hard across the capital to build confidence in their communities and reduce crime by working with local residents. I fear this will go to waste and we are seeing the end of community policing, which has been the key to tackling anti-social behaviour, reducing crime levels and working with local communities to be effective in fighting crime.

This blog has been published on the BrentfordTW8.com web site.

Poor fabric of the Shepherds Bush market is obvious to all

At last week’s London Assembly Budget & Performance Committee, we had Transport for London (TfL) before us to discuss their non-fares income from, for example advertising and property portfolios.  My general impression was, that TFL are not particularly on top of the scale and potential which these sites have nor do they see them as a priority to manage the sites well.  These sites are dotted across the whole of London and could generate a significant amount of income for TFL particular from air space rights over tube stations, they can also be an asset to a local area.

A case in point is Shepherds Bush market between Goldhawk Rd and Shepherds Bush market tube stations under and along the Hammersmith & City line tracks. It’s a collection of retail units located under the viaducts, extending almost the whole of the stretch between the two tube stations.  It’s a lively and vibrant market where a lot of local folk come for some cheap and cheerful shopping.  (I’m quite partial to their falafels).

In a previous term, I learned that TfL made money out of these shop units.   The hope was, that they would ring fence these surpluses and invest them into market itself so as to improve the urban fabric of their assets and also help regenerate the local area.  At the time, we were told TFL could not legally do this and that funds could not be ring fenced in this way.  This is in stark contrast to Network Rail’s management of its viaducts in London Bridge, where we have a flourishing food market operating at a similar junction of transport interchanges to the Bush. It’s clear that Network Rail have actually invested in this food market and helped develop it.  TfL could certainly learn a few lessons from them.

More recently it appears TfL are trying to move many of the traders along under pressure from the local council’s threat of a Compulsory Purchase Order, which is another story in itself, but unfortunately, this all comes before the centenary celebrations of the market next year.

As for an international comparison, Hong Kong MRT would put TFL to shame.  At a conference last December on air pollution in Hong Kong, I was told by an Executive from its MRT that its income from property developments and other non-transport assets helps ensure that their transport network does not need public subsidy. Now, wouldn’t that be an admirable aim for TfL?  Legally or perhaps, more so operationally,   TFL seems  incapable of exploiting  the vast  property development potential at tube stations like Southwark and Edgware Rd either to enhance these sites and or to help keep fares down for Londoners.

In its response to a Government consultation on night flights[1], the Assembly’s Health and Environment Committee says if these flights cannot be stopped, then at the very least, planes arriving overnight should approach from the west of London, when weather allows, to reduce the number flying over the capital at night. 

Currently, more than 70 per cent come from the east due to a more favourable wind direction.[2] The Committee says if planes landed from the opposite direction when weather conditions allow, only around 40 per cent would fly over the capital, making the split more equitable.

The changes would reduce noise disturbance for around 110,000 people in areas like Isleworth, Richmond and Hounslow, but increase it for 15,600 living to the west of the capital in parts of Windsor, Datchet and Stanwell Moor.[3]

There are an average of around 15 flights landing each night at Heathrow between 11.30pm and 6am, most of which are flights from the Far East landing after 5am.

The Committee also suggests the Government should aim to significantly reduce the overall noise “˜footprint’ from Heathrow night flights including the area where noise levels exceed 40 decibels, in light of health concerns expressed by the World Health Organisation.[4]

Murad Qureshi AM, Chair of the Health and Environment Committee said:

“We want to see the end of Heathrow night flights because it is unacceptable that thousands of Londoners are unable to get a good night’s sleep because of planes flying over the capital.

“But if they must continue, then landing more planes from the west of London would at least share the noise burden more equally.

“The Government must tackle this problem and reduce the misery faced by local people whose sleep is disturbed night after night by planes coming into land at Heathrow.”

In its response, the Committee states it is opposed to any removal of the current voluntary curfew around night flights and is in favour of a mandatory respite period.

It also suggests investigating whether reducing scheduled daytime movements at the airport would create the necessary flexibility to avoid extra night flights because of delays and backlogs.

Notes for Editors:

1.      The current night flights restrictions have been in force since 2006 and run until October 2014. The Government has put forward options for new rules from October 2014 onwards and is currently consulting on these. A second stage of consultation, which will contain firm proposals, is expected to be put forward later in the year.

2.      The alternation pattern at Heathrow had been intended to produce a 50:50 split between easterly and westerly operations at night but in practice 72 per cent have been westerly ““ which means arrivals approach over London.  See Annex H of the Government’s Consultation document.

3.      For maps of the affected areas, see Figure 5 of Annex H of the Government’s Consultation document.

4.      The World Health Organisation published a study in 2009 noting that when average noise levels are above 40db at night time, adverse health effects are observed.

5.      The Committee’s full response to the Government’s consultation.

6.      See the Committee’s previous work on London airports, including reports Plane Speaking (2012) and Flights of Fancy (2010) , plus consultation responses on the Government’s Draft Aviation Policy Framework (2012) and Regulating Air Transport (2010)

7.      Murad Qureshi AM, Chair of the Health and Environment Committee, is available for interview.  See contact details below.

8.      As well as investigating issues that matter to Londoners, the London Assembly acts as a check and a balance on the Mayor.

Hounslow Council’s Heathrow community consultation

This morning Hounslow Council’s launched its community consultation to Make Some Noise Over Heathrow. It will see a questionnaire sent to every one of the borough’s 100,000 households, inviting residents to have their say. It is the biggest consultation ever carried out in the borough.

 Difference between Hounslow approach and Richmond and Hillingdon

Richmond and Hillingdon Councils have both committed to a 2-question referendum on which voters can voice their support for expanding Heathrow airport and seeing an increase in flight numbers. The result will be politically and legally binding on both authorities.

The Hounslow questionnaire also contains the two questions that are being asked by Richmond and Hillingdon to ensure that residents across West London are being asked to voice their thoughts on the same issues.

A community engagement exercise was thought to be a more flexible approach and has allowed Hounslow Council to create a questionnaire with a total of 11 questions. This provides an opportunity for a more in-depth engagement with community opinion and allows the Council to ask questions on the importance of Heathrow to the local economy, seek views on transport improvements and address noise and air quality issues as well the issue of night flights.

 The community engagement exercise will run over a four-week period. This will enable the Council to campaign for a longer period of time, which will hopefully result in a higher response rate thereby increasing the validity of the overall results.

 By covering a wide-range of issues relating to Heathrow, Hounslow Council also hopes to galvanise public support for its position on noise, air quality and night flights.

 Community events in libraries and high streets

 In order to support the Heathrow consultation exercise, a series of roadshows will visit each of the borough’s eleven libraries between 15 April and 16 May, providing an opportunity for residents to get additional copies of the questionnaire and ask any questions around the issue of further expansion at the airport.  The main purpose is to increase participation in the consultation.

Staff will be on hand to proactively ask residents if they have received the consultation document through the door, if they have completed the questionnaire online, or if they would like more hard copies of the document for themselves, family or friends, in order to increase participation.

This exercise by Hounslow will be quantitavely and qualitavely very different from the Richmond & Hillingdon referendum and will usefully produce information about the how local residents feel the trade-off between job and quality of life issues over Heathrow should be managed rather then a yes or no approach. I look forward to seeing Hounslow submitting their data to the Davies Commission.

Lynton Crosby creates headlines with his views

The Evening Standard reported on Friday that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson will today be taking Lynton Crosby on his Gulf State trade mission. Incredibly he’s the political strategist employed by the Tories (both Johnson & Cameron) known for his “f….ing Muslim” views on election campaigns. These views were exposed by the Mail on Sunday in its 17th of November 2012 edition, as shown above.

You would think given his ‘f….ing Muslim’ views he would know that the Gulf states are all Muslim kingdoms! Given these comments, he should at least acknowledge them and apologise for them before he sets foot on the plane on Sunday to the Gulf states. As l am not sure how Gulf States will respond to someone who holds these views particularly on their soil.

The Mayor with his political strategist Lynton Crosby

Twin Towers on Chelsea Barracks lying empty still!

Last year, the Mayor responded to an interesting question about the number of potential homes in London with planning permission but which are currently in ”stalled” developments.  The figure was quite startling – 170,000 stalled developments!  This number, if built, would help alleviate the chronic shortage of homes in the capital, helping to accommodate homeless families; families needing to move into larger properties and the plethora of Londoners waiting to take their first step into owner occupation.

Yet while the national focus is on how to incentivise developers to get on and build, we should not underestimate the part which Land Valuation Tax (LVT) could play in stopping developers sitting on land banks.  The Economist made point of this in its editorial on the 9th March where it said:

“………………. It would be much better to tax the land value: that would make hoarding expensive and force owners to sell to someone who can use the site. Once in use, the site value and the tax would rise—creating a virtuous circle, as the revenues pay for better infrastructure, making land more valuable.”

The New Statesman also articulated the problem in a recent article about “Why all progressives should support land value tax”.  It said:

“Landowners, including homeowners, are freeloaders on a gigantic scale. The total value of the housing stock in the UK was £1.3trn in 1990. With only inflation it would now be worth £2trn, but instead its current value is over £4trn. This £2trn increase above inflation has come through a rise in the value of land itself, not through new buildings; comparatively few houses have been built in the last two decades. Landowners have gained £100bn yearly on average from a rise in land values. As Churchill might have said, never in the field of human endeavour has so great a reward been given for so little effort.”……………

A case in point is Chelsea Barracks (a potential £3 billion proposal) in the City of Westminster, on the border of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. This major site in Central London has now been lying empty for probably the best part of a decade, if not more, with no sign of movement.  The original proposal included about 50% affordable housing (before the intervention of Prince Charles).   The local council attempted to find out what the owners were doing with the site and wanted to help move it on recently when it warned the owners “start building or sell-up” , but without much success.   Stories like this probably account for a number of stalled sites across Greater London.  And soon, we are to get another barracks on the market, Hyde Park in Knightsbridge.  Will this also lie empty for years before it gets developed? LVT is a measure which could catalyse developers into utilising land which the capital desperately needs to house its growing population.