The Independent's Dave Brown makes a poignant reference to the past

Lets be absolutely clear from the outset, getting law and order back on the streets of London is the first priority. So getting 10,000 extra police appears to have done this immediately. And as post mortems begin on the possible route causes of why this scale of lawlessness has erupted, there is and can never be any justification for one human being threatening, stealing and ultimately destroying the lives of others with whom they live side by side, particularly amongst London’s varied communities.

The catalyst appeared to be the peaceful protest, which began on Saturday evening by friends and family in response to the fatal shooting by police of Mark Duggan a few days earlier.  This event may have created the conditions for what started, for example a gathering of people outside a police station in one of London’s most deprived areas.  However the stand off by Mark Duggan’s family did not incite what was to follow.  It simply set a scene, which enabled a section of society to claw their way through its cracks and vent a much deeper and wider frustration with their lot in life.

What started out as a disturbance in a small section of North London soon snowballed into a Londonwide phenomenon as the following evening, news about pockets of disturbances in areas completely detached from the original location began to emerge.  This before it spread nation wide just when in London we had additional police forces.  Many commentators have looked to the enhanced communication tools such as Blackberry messaging and twitter to explain how rioters were capable to coordinate and congregate quickly and easily in targeted areas.  This is just silly, as blaming new technology for the riots is like blaming previous riots in London like in 1981 on the push-button landline. Indeed twitter and such ilk, are as powerful in the service of peace as well, helping to launch post-riot clean-up efforts, for example in London. Furthermore, the use of technology will, on the contrary, probably aid the authorities who can track down the source of messages.

So what has London to be ashamed of? Well, while our young people are seemingly trashing London’s streets and looting to gain HD ready plasma screens and the latest  mobile phones, we have seen young people in the Middle East protest to achieve democracy and basic freedoms our young take for granted. No doubt the thread of deprivation and poverty runs through almost all of the areas in which disturbances have taken place, however, deprivation is relative, so a starving orphan in Somalia would not feel deprived even in the worst estates inLondon, where they would at least have food, water and warmth.

The tectonic plate change in world economic power is seeing a shift away from the western debt based economy towards the east, which is largely credit based. Britain is inevitably caught up in this shifting balance of power.  With the British government’s unforgiving agenda of cuts underpinned by declining world markets, these are all no doubt factors. Riots and unrest tend not to happen during times of growth, employment and prosperity.  Equally, though, we do not see unrest, at least not on this scale, every time things get bad.

In my mind, the real catalyst for the riots has been the incessant growth of aspiration among young people to be at the top of the consumer tree.  Fast changing technology, and our some what voyeuristic obsession with how the superrich live and play, means that young people who have little to inspire them within their own personal lives are bombarded with images and tales of how the superrich live.  This is a pull for young minds that have yet to understand that, actually, most people in the world will never have the means to live such lives and yet this bar of aspiration has become entrenched.  So although western youths do not suffer absolute poverty, they feel relative poverty in a city where some parts, like central London have become a playground for the super rich and where they feel excluded from the game of consumerism.  The scale of inequality which exists in our society is undoubtedly an underlying factor, however, it is tragic that young people seem to believe that the only way to fix this, is by clenching onto to the electrical goods which they have snatched from buildings they have destroyed in order to get them, as though somehow, this will balance the scales of injustice which they feel in their lives.

So as we look ahead to the London 2012 Olympics next year, we must believe that time, the world’s greatest healer will mean that memories of these tragic scenes over the last few days begin to fade. It has undoubtedly damaged London’s image and visitors may be deterred. Much of the security planned is not public disorder but intelligence led terrorist threats, so in light of events we also must cover public disorder as well. Whatever happens we must remain resolute in our commitment to ensuring that police resources are not cut at a time when they are most needed but even more profoundly, that governments begin to think about how in a world engulfed by the values of consumerism and a desire to have more now, we can begin to instil in our children the value of true happiness and aspiration which does not come wrapped in a Sony box.

Londoners like the rest of the country are going to be hit this Autumn with record rises of up to almost 20 per cent in energy costs to keep themselves and their families warm. This when the energy companies already do not have a very good record in London of delivering their programmes to deal with fuel poverty.

While the Mayor of London has been complacent with the delivery of his home energy programme, as its targets for homes retro-fitted have been cut by three-quarters, the Co-operative Party has come up with an innovative way that households can mutually come together in energy co-operatives.

So while the Mayor offers charms, bluster and comes up with hot air on environmental issues, the Co-operative Party has come up with a way that shows how collective power can change the way we consume energy. Saving many London households from the full impact of price hikes by energy companies and even contributing new sources of energy to the grid through the feed-in-tariff.

You can download the full document ‘Collective Power: changing the way we consume energy‘

View full article here

You Chenli 

Cut costs, do not raise fees

The recent taxi drivers’ strike in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, calls for attention. Like other strikes by cabbies in some Chinese cities in recent years, taxi drivers in Hangzhou resorted to take action to protest high oil prices, low earnings, and the high fees charged by taxi companies. 

To deal with the issue, the local government has given taxi drivers two promises: to weigh the pros and cons of increasing fares by the end of October, and to grant a temporary 1-yuan ($0.155) subsidy for every passenger (or set of passengers) the cabbies take. 

But the two plans, announced by the local government in a rush, are questionable. The first plan should have undergone public hearing and the second should have been examined and passed by the local people’s congress before being announced because the funds for the subsidy will come from taxpayers’ money. 

It would have been better if the government had announced a possible cut in fuel prices for cabbies and asked taxi companies to reduce their fees. But reciprocally, drivers wouldn’t have gone on a strike if taking such measures was possible. The reason: monopoly profit rules. The core of the problem lies in the government’s restriction on the number of cab licenses, which makes taxi companies’ business highly profitable because of lack of competition. 

There was fierce competition, however, to get cab licenses. But as was expected, taxi companies with larger fleets, and thus more bargaining power than individual drivers, won the competition for licenses. These companies have established a monopoly (or rather oligopoly) since the 1990s, and began hiring drivers or renting out cabs to individuals for a monthly fees. 

The monthly fees were always high but when they became exorbitant, rendered more unbearable because of other factors such as violation of drivers’ rights, a strike was inevitable. 

The direct cause of the latest Hangzhou taxi drivers’ strike was the exorbitant monthly fees that cabbies are forced to pay. The city today has about 8,000 cabs, of which only a few are owned by individual cabbies. Typically, one car has two drivers, one for the day shift and the other for the night, each of whom can earn about 500 yuan a day. But a cabbie has to pay 220 yuan as fees to the cab company and another 200 yuan for gas out of the money he or she earns. A part of the remainder then goes to pay for the vehicle’s maintenance and repair. 

So any solution to the strike should first consider a reduction in the fees that taxi drivers are forced to pay. The next step should be to carry out fundamental reform, including the lifting of the administrative restriction on the entry of individuals into the sector. 

However, one cannot help but ask why the local administration finds it so difficult to ask taxi companies to reduce their fees. After all, they could help transfer part of the monopoly profit to the government by doing so. 

But surprisingly, even when drivers go on a strike, the local government prefers not to disturb the profit-sharing process. Instead, it chooses to raise taxi fares, grant subsidies or take other measures that will burden the public further. 

Though the prospect of any marketization reform of the system doesn’t look possible, there is hope that vehicles-for-hire could be allowed to operate as public carriers. 

Introduced to New York in the 1950s and different from traditional cabs, vehicles-for-hire do not pick up passengers on streets but ferry people who make prior reservations over the telephone or through personal visits. Nowadays, making reservations has become more convenient because of the Internet. These vehicles’ and their drivers’ main features are their diversified, humane and convenient service. For example, vehicles-for-hire can be "community" cars that are available at nominal fares, for bigger occasions, people can book business vehicles called black cars, and if a person can afford, he/she can hire a limousine. This service is available in some Chinese cities, and it’s time to spread it across the country. 

The author is a researcher with a private think tank, Transition Institute, dedicated to social and economic research. 

Chen Gong 

Get to the root of the problem

Problems related to cabs and cabbies have emerged in some Chinese cities. But surprisingly, the solution to the long-standing city management problem is not that complicated; it’s more a question of whether city governments want to solve it. 

The public transportation system in many cities gets subsidies from public funds. Last year, for example, the Beijing municipal government granted 13.53 billion yuan ($2.1 billion) in subsidies to at-grade and underground transportation systems to keep ticket prices low. City authorities have said they are supposed to grant subsidies to bus networks and subways. But they never considered giving subsidies to taxi drivers or companies until oil prices rose so dramatically. The reason is that taxi drivers are individuals and taxi companies run according to market rules while subways and bus networks are State-owned enterprises. Although being part of the public transportation system, they are treated differently from buses by city authorities because of prejudice. 

Experts and media have suggested many solutions to the problem, but there has been no effort to help taxi drivers escape their predicament. 

Some people have suggested reducing the fees that cabbies pay taxi companies. But since the fees are the basic source of taxi companies’ income, a reduction could cause their downfall. In Shanghai, for example, if the fees are reduced to 300 yuan per taxi per day, the profit of the companies would drop to only 6 percent. Add to that the high cost of the dispatch system and other costs, you have a recipe for disaster. How can taxi companies survive in such a situation? 

Others have suggested abolishing the dispatch system to lower taxi operating costs. But the system is essential for the operation of taxis. Individual taxi drivers may not need this system but that does not necessarily mean the entire industry does not need it. It is especially important for taxi companies in big cities. 

Besides, the suggestion to encourage self-employed individuals to have their own taxis and phase out big companies is faulty, too, because the sector is supposed to be open and operates according to market norms without discriminative rules against entry of individuals or companies. 

A more suitable practice would be to transform local administrative bureaus into associations to promote self-management and social security in the industry, whose membership should be open to groups and individuals both. 

The shortsighted decision of many city governments to limit the number of self-employed taxi drivers is fraught with problems, too. Though the taxi industry’s problems are complicated, an open market with an open policy could never be wrong. And raising taxi fares freely could be dangerous. If the increase in fares is not limited to a certain extent, it will create chaos, causing more inconvenience to passengers which would outweigh the benefits that taxi drivers get. Worse, the inevitable drop in the number of passengers after fares are raised would fail to increase drivers’ income. This could lead to lose-lose situation. 

Given the facts, the most feasible solution to the problem would be for local governments to grant subsidies to the taxi industry as a whole. As the windows to a city’s service industry, taxi drivers who toil all day long deserve a better deal with a monthly salary of at least 4,000-5,000 yuan a month, because even a nanny who works fewer hours a day can earn 3,000 yuan or more a month nowadays. 

Therefore, it is necessary that city authorities change their mindset from maintaining stability to building a system that will actively push forward a city’s service industry. To solve the problem of the increase in costs, local governments could approach PetroChina and Sinopec, or even higher authorities, to reduce the price of gas for taxi drivers. 

The author is chairman and chief analyst of Anbound Consulting. 

Murad Qureshi 

What’s fuelling London’s cabs? 

With the world economy held hostage by spiralling oil prices, it is little wonder that the taxi drivers’ industry around the world are feeling the strain. Why then have we heard very little from the London Taxi trade despite rocketing fuel costs and the recent increase in value added (sales) tax in the United Kingdom? 

There are 25,000 licensed taxi drivers (more commonly known as black cab drivers) in the Greater London area. Licenses are issued by the public carriage office, which falls under the auspices of Transport for London (TfL). It is chaired by London’s mayor. 

The general secretary of the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association that represents more than 8,000 licensed taxi drivers also sits on TfL’s board of members. Hence, it is not surprising that licensed taxi drivers are afforded a powerful voice within London’s governance. 

TfL is responsible for licensing and regulating the taxi trade. It ensures that all drivers are of the required standard by subjecting them to the world famous "knowledge" examination of London’s streets that can often take two to three years to complete. TfL also undertakes detailed background checks on the drivers and licenses the vehicles that can be used as taxis. 

The "black cab drivers" should not be confused with the 30,000 or so private hire drivers, who too are registered with the public carriage office but are not subject to the same level of regulation or enjoy the same privileges as black cab drivers. 

For example, black cabs are the only form of vehicle hire in the UK which do not require pre-booking, allowing them to be hailed on the street. All other private hire vehicles must be pre-booked, ultimately affording less autonomy to the driver. As well as enjoying a monopoly on fares in central London, black cabs can also use bus lanes, are exempt from paying the congestion charge and have dedicated parking bays. 

It is perhaps these privileges that to some extent have cushioned London’s black cabs against the effects of rising fuel prices. But the taxi trade is by no means immune from the effects of rising fuel prices. The higher the price of fuel the higher the running cost and the less the profit. 

Crucially for the black cab trade, fares are set on an annual basis following a tariff review, which takes into account fuel prices at the time of reviewing the cost index. 

In recent years, TfL has included a fuel threshold which, if reached, allows taxi drivers to add to the fare charged the passenger. This threshold hasn’t yet been reached, and rising fuel prices throughout the year are a concern for the taxi trade because they have an impact on costs to the driver and will doubtlessly precipitate calls by the trade to increase the fares. 

Also, although there are no fuel subsidies for taxi drivers, TfL actively works and lobbies on behalf of taxi drivers on such issues and works with various parties on initiatives such as access to cheaper, more environmentally friendly fuel for drivers. 

Taxi drivers are self-employed and therefore all income a taxi driver earns will be his or her own. There are "umbrella groups" such as taxi circuits where taxi drivers pay a subscription, to receive jobs provided by a central booking and despatch system, but such arrangements are entirely voluntary (about 6,000 of London’s taxi drivers are registered with one of the three taxi circuits). 

Critically, black cabs are considered by the authorities to make up part of London’s integral transport infrastructure in the same way as buses and rail services. And yet essentially, they are simply sole traders. 

London’s iconic black cabs have through the years successfully protected their craft thanks to effective lobbying and representation. For this reason, they have probably been better placed than private taxi drivers to safeguard their fares from rising fuel prices. 

The author is the chair of the London Assembly Environment Committee. 

(China Daily 08/08/2011 page9)

Business Green noted that the five worst performing boroughs in the capital were the City of London, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham.

These districts recorded the lowest figures in relation to the government’s Carbon Emissions Reduction Target scheme, which obliges energy companies to provide subsidised loft and cavity wall insulation services.

In response to the statistics, Labour Assembly Member Murad Qureshi criticised the mayor for failing to exert any influence on the utility firms in question, pointing out that the RE:NEW retrofitting initiative is now not nearly as ambitious as when the scheme started out.

The politician said: "RE:NEW is a really good programme and should be rolled out across the whole of London, but the mayor keeps scaling it back. London has some of the worst insulated homes in the country and Londoners are already struggling to pay their energy bills."

According to Click Green, the area that saw the most insulation measures fitted between April 2010 and March 2011 was Birmingham, where more than 12,000 installations were carried out.

The online news portal pointed out that this type of service can take over £100 off a homeowner’s heating bill each year.

Click here to view full article

The capital has seen the lowest proportion of homes made more energy efficient under the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (Cert) scheme, with just 4% of the city’s three million homes receiving help from power companies for such measures.

Under the Cert scheme, energy firms are obliged to help people insulate their homes, installing measures which the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) says can save households more than £100 a year on their bills.

Over the past three years to March 2011, some 2.6 million homes in England, Wales and Scotland have received help under the programme – the costs of which are passed on to consumers.

The Government has toughened up the target, demanding that an extra 3.5 million homes are made more energy efficient by the end of 2012 in a bid to ramp up action on greening the country’s housing stock.

But there is a wide disparity between regions as to how many homes have received help so far, with some local authorities pursuing an active policy of insulating homes with the help of power suppliers or benefiting from companies going to where the work is cheapest.

Other areas are faced with a high proportion of properties which are not suitable for standard loft and cavity wall insulation, or have large numbers of new homes which do not need more energy efficiency measures.

Today’s figures follow data released in June which showed that nearly half of Britain’s 26 million homes do not have adequate insulation.

The latest statistics show that Wales is leading the way in the three-year scheme, with more than 13% of its domestic properties insulated, closely followed by the North East and North West regions.

On a local authority basis, Birmingham installed the largest number of insulation measures in the past year to March 2011, with more than 12,000, followed by Leeds, Bradford, Fife and Wiltshire.

The top five performing councils over the past three years in terms of the percentage of homes insulated were Kirklees, where a quarter of households have received insulation, Isle of Anglesey, Carmarthenshire, South Ribble and Wyre.

The five local authorities with the lowest percentage of the housing stock treated over the past year are all in London: the City of London; Westminster; Kensington and Chelsea; Hackney and Hammersmith and Fulham.

But today London Mayor Boris Johnson announced help for energy efficiency makeovers for thousands of homes across the capital.

The first boroughs to receive help under the RE:NEW programme will be Barking and Dagenham, Hackney, Lewisham and Waltham Forest.

The scheme will provide 55,000 homes with a range of measures from low-energy lightbulbs to radiator panels and loft and cavity wall insulation by May 2012 – which will be free to those on benefits and subsidised in other households.

Mr Johnson said: "Cutting energy waste at a time of rising costs makes good economic sense and it benefits the environment by reducing CO2."

Today’s figures on how much loft and cavity wall insulation was professionally installed under the Government’s Cert requirements up to March 31, 2011, were published by the Energy Saving Trust.

Labour Assembly Member Murad Qureshi criticised the Mayor’s energy efficiency programme, saying it had been scaled back by nearly three quarters from original plans to treat 200,000 homes.

In the wake of the regional and local figures for insulation, Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne said: "With energy prices ramping up, people want to know how they can keep their bills down.

"As well as shopping around for the best energy deal, insulating your home can also save you money straight away.

"We’ve told energy companies to do far more to help consumers cut their bills and, while these figures show a mixed picture across Britain, they also show that millions of homes are already benefiting.

"For those who haven’t yet insulated their home, I’d really recommend them to pick up the phone, call the Energy Saving Trust and check out the help available to cut bills."

He added that from next year the Government would be launching its flagship Green Deal, which will pay for the upfront costs of making homes more energy-efficient and allow householders to repay the money through savings on bills.

Click here to view full article

In 2009 the mayor promised his programme would treat 200,000 homes with easy energy efficiency measures like low energy lightbulbs, and offer advice and support for more complex things like roof insulation, but the new target is just 55,000 homes – or a mere 1.7% of London’s 3.3 million homes.

At a time of rising energy prices, the Mayor Boris Johnson is helping Londoners cut their fuel bills, with tens of thousands of homes set to be offered a free energy efficiency makeover. Homes in parts of Barking and Dagenham, Hackney, Lewisham and Waltham Forest are the first to receive this opportunity.

The RE:NEW energy efficiency programme is being provided to 55,000 homes in specific areas across the capital between now and May 2012, after a successful trial in nearly 9,000 homes in nine boroughs.

Residents in these trials made savings of up to £154 on their annual energy and water bills but it is estimated savings could be up to £180 a year taking into account recent energy price rises. The trials saved nearly 3,500 tons of CO2, equivalent to 3,000 cars coming off London’s roads.

But Labour’s environment lead Murad said: “RE:NEW is a really good programme and should be rolled out across the whole of London, but the mayor keeps scaling it back.

“We had one of the coldest winters ever last year and fuel bills are rising fast, so the only defence people have is to make their homes more energy efficient.

“London has some of the worst insulated homes in the country and Londoners are already struggling to pay their energy bills. It is clear the mayor has no influence whatsoever on the energy companies who keep putting bills up, but this is one area he could make a real difference.”

The RE:NEW team will be active in selected areas across all London boroughs offering the service. This includes a tailor-made range of energy-reducing devices installed by a trained assessor. The scheme will provide a range of different measures for free such as low energy light bulbs, radiator panels and stand-by switches. It also offers water saving measures.

Where appropriate, more substantial measures, such as loft and cavity wall insulation, will be offered. These will be subsidised for those able to pay and free for those on qualifying benefits helping to tackle fuel poverty.

With 80 per cent of carbon emissions coming from buildings, this service is part of the Mayor’s vision to “retrofit" London to create an energy efficient city, stimulate ‘green-collar’ jobs and help the city become more resilient to rising fuel prices.

RE:NEW is funded by the Mayor and all 32 London boroughs have signed as partners in the scheme, which is being delivered in partnership with London Councils and the Energy Saving Trust. Barking & Dagenham, Hackney and Waltham Forest, with appointed contractor, London Warm Zone, and Lewisham with appointed contracror, Osborne Energy, are the first to roll out RE:NEW.

The focus in these areas will be on providing energy monitors and stand by switches.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said: “Cutting energy waste at a time of rising costs makes good economic sense and it benefits the environment by reducing CO2. I am determined to make buildings more efficient on an unprecedented scale to create jobs in a low carbon economy. This will save millions off fuel bills and fundamentally improve quality of life for Londoners. RE:NEW is simple, safe and free to access, you’d be crazy not to go for it.”

Philip Sellwood, Chief Executive of the Energy Saving Trust, added: “The most successful energy efficiency programmes taken on area-by-area are those that offer something for everyone and where measures are installed on an individual, tailored basis. RE:NEW fits the bill on all counts – any householder, renting or owning, can benefit, and only the measures that will deliver carbon and bill savings for a given home will be considered. We’re pleased to be a part of it.”

Councillor Catherine West, Chair of London Councils Transport and Environment Committee, said: “Nearly 9,000 Londoners have already benefited from RE:NEW, saving more than 3,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide in the process. But there are many more still to go and we’ll be reaching more than five times as many homes during this next stage.

“Londoners who had their homes treated last year saved around £150 on their fuel bills. These next steps mean that as well as making their homes more environmentally friendly, a number of the capital’s poorest families will be less likely to suffer from fuel poverty next winter. As fuel prices continue to rise, this is more important than ever.’

The RE:NEW offer involves a full home energy survey carried out by a qualified home energy advisor, which takes roughly 90 minutes to do. Residents will then get a tailor-made energy saving report once the visit is complete and have a range of free energy saving measures installed.

The survey will also identify whether loft, cavity or solid wall insulation could be installed. If so, the advisor will check for eligibility for national funding from sources such as the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) and Warm Front (a government scheme providing insulation and heating improvements to vulnerable people in fuel poverty) as well as local borough grant schemes.

At the same time as improving energy efficiency, RE:NEW aims to reduce fuel poverty in London and each household will be offered a benefits check to ensure residents are claiming all of the benefits and grants they are entitled to. The London boroughs are responsible for managing RE:NEW locally and are working in partnership with appointed delivery agents who will be conducting the initial home visits and assessments. All advisors will carry clear identification.

RE:NEW is not an ‘on-demand’ service and is being delivered on an area by area basis because trials showed this approach resulted in more cost-effective and higher take up, helping to ensure that the city’s ambitious targets can be met. It has been designed to be as easy as possible for residents.

The aim is to attain the funding to expand the programme to 200,000 homes by the end of 2012 and 1.2 million homes by 2015. This will be subject to additional funding being secured principally through the Government’s ‘Green Deal’. RE:NEW is providing a consistent homes energy efficiency approach across London removing duplications and improving efficiencies, for example in reducing procurement costs.

The Mayor is also working with the Olympic Delivery Authority who are providing over £1m of funding to extend the RE:NEW scheme to additional homes and retrofit up to 12 schools through the Mayor’s RE:FIT programme in four of the Olympic host boroughs. The pioneering new project will help the ODA reach the stretching target to reduce the carbon emissions of the Park by 50 per cent.

Click here to view full article

Labour’s environment lead Murad said: "RE:NEW is a really good programme and should be rolled out across the whole of London, but the mayor keeps scaling it back.

We had one of the coldest winters ever last year & fuel bills are rising fast, so the only defence people have is to make their homes more energy efficient.

London has some of the worst insulated homes in the country and Londoners are already struggling to pay their energy bills. It is clear the mayor has no influence whatsoever on the energy companies who keep putting bills up, but this is one area he could make a real difference."

Ends

Notes

RE:NEW scheme.

For further information please contact Alison Marcroft on 0207 983 4363

The Mayor’s Climate Change and Mitigation and Energy strategy set a target of treating 200,000 homes by 2012 under the

The programme started in 2009 and 8,936 homes were treated in trials and demonstration projects.

In May of this year the mayor advised the target was now only 55,000.

There are 3.3 million homes in London (Focus on London data). 200,000 is just 6% of those. 55,000 homes is 1.7%

Murad Qureshi is a London-wide Assembly Member and is Chair of the Assembly’s Environment Committee

meeting with the Palestinian Legislative Council PLC.

On returning from on a delegation to the Gaza of UK parliamentarians recently, through Cairo, Murad Qureshi AM tells us what he saw first hand as the Arab spring enters its summer.  

The trip began in Cairo on the day that a new government with the same limited powers was sworn in as the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Council came under fire from the revolutionaries who refused to leave Tahrir Square.  The trip ended with news that the Hamas authorities in the Gaza strip had executed two men who were convicted of collaboration with Israel; reminding us all that it was as much a war as a siege that had yet to resolved along the Gaza strip.  

In-between, I gathered a number of impressions including the following: When we first entered the Gaza strip, it felt like an open prison which was the description used by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron last year. The Rafah crossing is the only route into the Gaza Strip on the Egyptian side whilst all the points of entry fromIsraelare closed off; therefore the Rafah crossing is a vital link to support the Gaza economy. The movement of goods and aid via the crossing is a vital lifeline for the Palestinians who live in the Gaza strip and who desperately rely on this channel for their basic sustenance.  In recent times, most of us around the world were under the impression that the Arab spring would have opened it up but alas, movement through the crossing is at best slow and if you’re a Palestinian painfully so.  What ever happens, one thing is for certain, that is,Egypt will play a key role in the survival of the Gaza strip through its management of the Rafah crossing. 

During the official tour, we of course paid a visit to the Palestinian legislative Council.  We were greeted by some of their members where we were told of the number of times the premises had been bombed by the Israeli forces.  WhileIsraelmay still have some difficulty accepting Hamas as the main political grouping running the Gaza strip, it is nonetheless incomprehensible and inexcusable that the democratic institution that represents Palestinians in the Gaza was bombed. Not surprisingly, the resilient character of its citizens has seen it rebuilt so that Palestinians can continue along a democratic road. 

It was harrowing also to learn about the plight of relatives of prisoners inGazawho have not been able to see their loved ones since their imprisonment in Israeli jails.  There are children who have never seen their fathers and who perhaps never will.  The siege has meant little if any Palestinian’s freedom to move between the Gaza or West Bank, let alone toIsrael.  This is where many would have worked making daily trips and the curtailment of this movement for the families is clearly isolating prisoners. 

The current siege is affecting the delivery of desperately needed medical supplies to hospitals like Al Shifa, where the lack of medicines and supplies to equipment like radiographs has meant that no less then 500 more patients have died since the siege began.  Some convoys of medical supplies have been allowed in like the “Miles of Smiles” initiative earlier in the month but it is not enough to plug the huge gap of critical care needed inGaza. 

And finally at our last stop back to Cairo was the Al-Asqa University.  Here, the educational apartheid between academic institutions inIsrael and Palestine was very apparent.  This does not bode well for the future.  Often links between academic institutions are the only thread of cohesion in countries or states existing within political and military adversaries but alas there were no signs that there is any such exchange of thought and views, often critical in maintaining links between states in difficult times.

 All this and many more impressions made me increasingly aware that the two state solution has become just a mirage in the desert sands.  If things are to move forward in the near future, recognition of Palestine is critical. In this respect moves are afoot to get the UN to recognise Palestine this coming Autumn and let us wish it much success.  In the meantime, the Arab spring has yet to forge a permanent change in the fortunes of Palestinians but as spring turns into summer, one starting point can be to open up the Rafah crossing – undoubtedly, the life line for citizens living in the Gaza strip.

Murad Qureshi, who lives in Marylebone, has written a letter to the Mayor of London asking if the inquest findings should prompt one of the stations to be renamed.

There are currently two Edgware Road stations – one on Edgware Road for the Bakerloo line and one on Chapel Street for the Circle, District and Hammersmith & City lines.

Mr Qureshi has previously supported local campaigners who proposed to rename one station Church Street Market and says the “health and safety” concerns highlighted in the inquest show another key reason for a change.

The bombings on July 7, 2005, saw 52 people killed including six when a bomb detonated on a Circle line train just outside Edgware Road station.

The recent inquest stated “a combination of human and computer error” contributed to delays in emergency services reaching the station. The report states the fire brigade was asked to attend the Chapel Street station with a specific reference made to the Circle line.

But when resources were sent to the scene they incorrectly mobilised at the Edgware Road Bakerloo line station.

“It is clear to many that having two Edgware Road tube stations has been very confusing for both users and local residents,” said Mr Qureshi.

“I have always said that renaming one of the stations would make it less confusing and offer the opportunity to emphasise local features in the neighbourhood like Church Street Market.

“When I heard the concerns expressed at the July 7 review, it made me realise there are perfectly sound health and safety reasons for the name change as well.”

The inquest report states the fire brigade has subsequently “taken important steps” to rectify the situation.

In response to Mr Qureshi’s question, Mayor Boris Johnson said: “The coroner’s report acknowledged that the London Fire Brigade (LFB), in conjunction with London Underground, had taken important steps to rectify this issue, including the introduction in the LFB’s computerised mobilising system of a unique reference number system for every Underground station and every tunnel.

“The Coroner also noted that the London Ambulance Service had implemented the same unique reference number system.”

A Transport for London spokesman confirmed there are no plans to rename either station.

Click here to view full article

In Sep 2010 the Mayor referred to the hacking scandal as "codswallop"

 In 2008, Johnson won the London mayoral election and one of his manifesto promises to chair the Metropolitan Police and hold it to account. No offence would be too small, he said.

Fast forward to September last year and, as new damning revelations emerged about the conduct of Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper, the Mayor claimed it was, variously, a “song and dance about nothing”, “completely spurious and political” and – in true Boris Johnson style – “a load of codswallop”.

When he was asked by Labour members of the London Assembly what assurances he had sought from Assistant Commander John Yates about the initial inquiry into phone hacking, the Mayor said he had asked for none. He insisted that he was completely satisfied with the police investigation and said he had not spoken to any senior Met officers about the issue.

Knowing what we know now, this is truly astounding. The man elected on a platform of holding the police properly to account asked no questions at all about the biggest scandal to engulf the Met a since Sir William Macpherson’s report into the events surrounding the murder of Stephen Lawrence

So why did this issue not get the attention from the Mayor and his team that it so clearly merited? A look at his diary might provide some answers.

In his three years at City Hall, Boris Johnson has had nine lunches and meetings with senior News International figures – including Rupert and James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks. He attended a News International board meeting just last month. Meanwhile, he has dismissed concerns about Rupert Murdoch’s influence on British public life as “rants”.

It’s now that the scandal that has engulfed the Murdoch empire and the Met is not going away. David Cameron is on the back foot. As more and more is revealed, the Prime Minister’s decision to bring former News of the World editor Andy Coulson into Downing Street at the heart of government as his director of communications raises serious questions about Cameron’s judgement. We know that Cameron was warned by the editor of The Guardian and others that Coulson was a liability and that there were more damaging revelations to come. Cameron either chose to ignore these warnings or was persuaded not to act on them .

It’s not just Cameron’s judgement under scrutiny. Initially Boris Johnson dismissed The Guardian’s stories about the News of the World’s behaviour as “codswallop”. He decided not to ask any probing questions of the Met despite chairing the body that holds the force to account. He joked in the £250,000-ayear column which he writes for the Daily Telegraph that celebrities who haven’t been bugged would be sacking their agents and tried to deflect attention onto other news organisations.

The extent of Murdoch’s corrupting influence on this country is becoming increasingly clear.

Questions must to be asked about why the London Mayor was so quick to dismiss the allegations against Murdoch. Boris Johnson’s decision may come back to haunt him.