Mountbatten during the creation of the independent state of India and Pakistan

I write in response to the column by Tristram Hunt today on “Did our Empire really ruin the world?”  This is about the Prime Minister admitting on his trip to Pakistan that Britain is responsible for so many of the world’s problems including Kashmir. 

Despite Tristram’s argument, in the context of the Indian sub-continent, we should not forget that when the East India Company first went to India (Bengal), it was because it was one of the richest places in the world. When the British Raj left, it was one of the poorest.  Something clearly happened in between to leave it in such a state.

 Furthermore on leaving the sub-continent, two countries were created, one of which, Pakistan, had two parts with 1,000 miles between them and a potential adversary in-between so no wonder the east abandoned the west part in the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971.  India was left to deal with the princely states, which were given the option of staying in or out of India, essentially triggering the dispute over Kashmir.   To top all of that, when independence was declared in August 1947, the boundaries of the two new states had yet to be disclosed to the public, causing much of the panic that ensued and causing more them 1/2 million deaths as 14million people swapped countries.   Many consider this epsode to have been one of the worst cases of maladministration ever in the history of Empires.

So, surprisingly I find myself defending the PM’s remarks on the root of many of the world’s problems hence we should refrain from interfering in conflicts like Kashmir.  Less surprising, is that my grandfather’s lessons in history to me once again ring true.  He was the person who taught me “history is often just the victor’s version of events “.

There are currently 1,768 young people receiving EMA in the City of Westminster.

The government has announced that the £560 million scheme, which currently benefits 24 per cent of 16-19 year olds in the City of Westminster will be scrapped at the end of this academic year. EMA will be replaced with a £180 million ‘discretionary fund’ which will leave the poorest students almost £400 a year worse off according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies. Local Assembly member Murad says the huge cut will leave many young people in the City of Westminster unable to afford to remain in education.  

The Mayor said this week it is, "vitally important that we keep young people in school". But local Assembly member Murad Qureshi said his intervention was "too little, too late".

Murad said: "EMA is a vital lifeline for many students in the City of Westminster, – students who couldn’t otherwise afford to stay on in education.  And while the rest of us have been trying to get the government to stick to what they promised before the election and keep EMA, the Mayor waits until the decision has been made before uttering a word on the subject.

"I fear this is too little, too late and another bit of opportunism from him. He’s got to put his money where his mouth is if he is as concerned about the impact of this £300 million cut as he now claims."

Boris Johnson said on the BBC’s Question Time last week (Thursday 31 March 2011), "I want to have another look at this. I’m grateful for what Michael Gove did. There needed to be an evolution of the policy and I have to tell you I don’t think we’ve seen the end of the story"

Ends

Murad Qureshi is a Londonwide Assembly member and a former councillor in the City of Westminster.

Murad’s recent blog on this: 

 Find out more about the campaign to save EMA here http://saveema.co.uk/about

The government launched a 6 week public consultation last week via: http://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=1754&external=no&menu=1

It runs until the 20th of May.  

http://blog.muradqureshi.com/not-just-tuition-fees-under-attack/ 

When is a rise not a rise? When you’re the Mayor of London talking about police numbers or the number of newly-built affordable homes. Take Boris Johnson’s convenient reliance on the number of police officers “in post”, as opposed to the number allowed for in the budget.

This means that he has found a method whereby he can claim that police numbers have gone up. However, that same method has been used by commentators to question the Mayor about his assertion. In short, Boris has used a low base line from which to proclaim that police numbers are on the increase.

In fact, police numbers went up in the first year of Boris’s term simply because he followed the predecessor’s budget on this. So, by November 2009, police numbers had reached their peak of 33,404. Then came a freeze on police recruitment which meant that numbers fell due to natural wastage. The result is police numbers are now significantly below what was allowed for in the 2010-11 budget.

The Metropolitan Police’s own figures show that there will be a loss of 581 officers between 2010-2012, from 33,091 to 32,510, below the peak level inherited as a result of Ken Livingstone’s budget. Yet this hasn’t stopped Johnson announcing that numbers are going up. Cunning or just bare-faced effrontery?

Now for the Mayor’s next trick: the affordable homes target and his pledge to build 50,000 affordable homes by the end of his first term. This is only just over a year away, Boris says he’s on course to meet this target and 30,000 homes have been started already. That’s good news – but only if your idea of “starting” to build a home is when you have the funds ready. If, however, your idea of “starting” coincides with the National House-Building Council’s definition – when the foundations are laid– then the figure is actually 19,000.

For the Mayor’s grand finale of number crunching, he unveiled some figures concerning bus crime which were so half-baked that they attracted criticism from Sir Michael Scholar, chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, as “poor practice… undermining public trust in official figures”. The data was in the form of a spread sheet of numbers, waved under the noses of journalists at a mayoral media event and showing a jaw-dropping 30 per cent drop in bus crime from the end of the 2007 financial year to the end of the financial year in 2010. The Mayor’s press release made no links to figures relied on and Transport for London’s statistics at the time only included figures up to the end of the second quarter – July to September. A true comparison should have contrasted a like for like period.

If a press release quotes figures not as yet officially published, then this is misleading because they cannot be checked and would also appear to be a breach of the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.

Boris claims a dubious exemption on the grounds that his statistics are not official ones. So there we have it: misleading and inaccurate and flawed number juggling. Few would deny that Boris has a certain oratorical flair. The same cannot be said for his numeracy skills. His number should be up.

Murad Qureshi is a Labour member of the London Assembly

Click here to view full article

The package of deals from six vehicle manufacturers is being offered to 72,000 drivers of vans and buses who use the capital’s Low Emission Zone.

Larger vans and minibuses will be required to meet Low Emission Zone (Lez) standards from January 2012.

Labour and the Greens both made criticisms of Conservative Mayor Mr Johnson’s environmental policies.

Labour’s London Assembly environment spokesman Murad Qureshi said: "While welcome, this is all too little too late.

"We’re now years behind where we should be because the Mayor chose to put London’s progress on this into reverse almost as soon as he was elected."

London Assembly Green Party member Darren Johnson said: "By cancelling action against polluting vans in 2010, the Mayor of London stopped the one big measure which might have delivered cleaner air across London by now."

‘Tackle emissions’

The scheme currently requires owners of large lorries, buses and coaches to meet emissions standards.

But the extension will see vans and minibuses meeting the same standards or face a £500-a-day fine.

"Now is the time to help us tackle dangerous emissions to help those who most deserve our protection," Mr Johnson said.

Vehicle manufacturers Ashwoods, Citroën, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot and Volkswagen will offer various discounts on new vehicles.

Former London mayor Ken Livingstone introduced the Lez in February 2008.

Vans and minibuses were due to be included in the zone from October 2010 but last September the deadline was extended until January 2012.

Unlike London’s congestion charge zone, which is lifted in the evenings and at weekends, the Lez is in force 24 hours a day, every day. It also covers a larger area of 610 sq miles (1,580 sq km).

Click here to view full article

Murad's recent visit to Earl's Court tube to view its archaic signal box

I welcome the latest news from TFL which actually addresses a  problem I’ve long known about and which will make a huge difference to thousands of commuters.  The District Line, particularly, Earls Court is in desperate need of upgrading.   This is a vital link for many living in the West of London which appears to have been neglected over the years with all the main focus on the upgrades to the Northern and Jubilee lines.

The new District Line timetable proposed by London Underground aims to deal with the bottleneck in the Earls Court area which by their own admission “is one of the most complex junctions on the Tube network”.  How then (or more importantly why?) has this part of the network been allowed to run with a signal box dating back to 1928!  It is this incredibly old signalling system which creates a mass of delays and problems which unfortunately I’m reminded of  regularly as I pass through Earls Court.   Therefore, I am pleased that the continual presssure  and reminder to the Mayor and TFL about this issue has finally brought about change.

The One Foot in the Grave star, Richard Wilson has done well to document a chronic and abysmal problem for commuters on a train service which I’ve long known about and highlighted.  Namely, you’d be lucky to get a seat on some of the First Great Western services.  Richard’s “Train Journey’s from Hell” aired on Channel 4 this week and documented a typical train journey for thousands of commuters using their trains, in this case the Reading to Paddington service.  In fact, a recent  Freedom of Information request made to the Department of Trasport exposed that First Great Western topped the league of the most crowded train services and operated 7 out of the top 10.

As far back as 2007, I tabled a motion  (para 10.16) about Great Western’s service, specifically referencing the problem of overcrowding.  It was, I’m pleased to say unanimously agreed.  Yet passengers, who in the main are simply trying to get to work, are still unlikely to get a seat. 

So when The London Assembly’s Transport Committee heard from Transport for London about the impact of Crossrail around West London, it was useful to have the opportunity to raise  this issue with them again and question how these services would be improved by the introduction of Crossrail?  The reply came from the Managing Director of London Underground Mike Brown.  In short because, some of the most crowded services also happen to be the long distance ones, they won’t be improved by Crossrail, but I’m told steps like the electrification of the Great Western main line to Newbury and Oxford and a new fleet of intercity trains will help alleviate overcrowding.

Hopefully the continued focus on the plight of First Great Western’s customers will eventually achieve a better deal for them.  I certainly intend to keep track of progress.

Labour’s vice Chair of the Environment Committee on the London Assembly, Murad Qureshi AM, said:

“At first sight, it appears from this so called “launch” that Boris has come up with entirely new funding and a new concept.  In fact, the London Waste and Recycling Board (LWaRB) has been around since 2008 and there is a substantial sum of money which is simply being passed on from them to this new management fund.  Basically, the Mayor has now decided to pass the buck to an external body to spend the money for him…………questions need to be asked about why this funding has laid idle until now when the recycling economy offers so much potential in terms of both environmental and financial benefits”

The Mayor announced funding of £70 million which will finance a low carbon waste and recycling infrastructure.  The fund will be managed by asset managers Foresight Group and is made up of £35million from the London Green Fund and £35 million from local authority pension funds and other unnamed “investors”.

One of the major contributors to the London Green Fund will be LWARB who are providing £18 million towards one tranche of £35m and whose job it is to manage and provide initiatives for waste recycling for the capital including the delivery of waste infrastructure.

Ends

Notes

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

For further information please contact Nikki Salih on 020 7983 4400