It is not often your old school hits the headlines as my old school, Quintin Kynaston, did last Friday.   However, the idea of a school having to provide shelter for it’s homeless pupils so that they may continue in further education illustrates well the direction in which the coalition government’s education policy is heading.

Appeals like the Quintin Kynaston House Project to raise £3m should not be necessary in this day and age.  Yet stories like these are not surprising, given the scrapping of the Education Maintenance Allowances (EMA).  This is the means tested allowance of £30 a week which makes it possible for a large number of students to stay on in education after 16. For example, in Brent, there were 3,684 young people receiving the EMA as at  November 2010.  From the 1st of January 2011, those students would no longer qualify.  The figure Londonwide is even more staggering at 84,814 who would stand to lose under the new changes.   This is why l joined campaigners over the weekend in Brent asking local people to sign a petition to their local MP, Sarah Teather, to keep her pre-election pledge against the rise in fees and to vote against scrapping the EMA.  I hope the government will listen.

So when all the attention is focused on higher education tuition fees this week, let’s not forget that young people will also lose the crucial stepping stone which for many, allows them to progress to higher education in the first place.  The loss of support for young people between 16-18 coupled with the removal of the cap for tuition fees constitutes a double blow for what is essentially our future hopefuls.

Sunset falls on England Bid for World Cup 2018

It appears we really were not in it at all from the start, having been knocked out in the first round. So was it worth the Mayor of London really going given the transport gridlock most Londoners have had to suffer this week?

Clearly FIFA went for expansion of the game into new territories like Eastern Europe for 2018 via Russia and the Middle East via Qatar in 2022, after the success of South Africa. Rather then consolidating such expansion via established anchors like England. For the sake of the game l hope FIFA have not over extended themselves.

London Mayor Boris Johnson said he was “particularly pleased” with the coalition Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review announcement that the capital’s two big transport projects have
been saved – the upgrading of the London Underground and Crossrail.

However, like a malign conjuror, he distracts us and neglects to mention the swingeing cuts in policing, transport and housing which will hit middle-income earners in London and attack the poorest.

Some £6 billion in cuts in transport alone will mean axing step-free access across the tube network, the extension of the Docklands Light Railway and the upgrading of Croydon’s Tramlink. On top of this, in January, we will have a 7 per cent increase in tube and bus fares. So the Mayor’s claim that London has come out better then any other region from the CSR – all down to him, of course – rings hollow.

Since then, Boris has had his wings severely clipped by the Treasury, as grants to the London Development Agency have been cut to reflect the Government’s view that economic development should be national and quangos abolished.

This has substantially limited one of the primary purposes of the Mayor, enshrined in the GLA Act 1999, to promote economic development and wealth creation in London. While being in denial at first, he has since been busy writing to his “old school mates” in the Government and admitting to ministers that cuts to the LDA will mean “no budget” to promote London internationally for tourism and inward investment.

These cuts come in just as the capital needs to shine the most – during the 2012 Olympics, arguably the biggest international showcase a country can ask for – the shop was open but the shelves were empty. So much for banging London’s (and the country’s) drum.

Things look dire with all these broken promises. The Mayor and the Government’s commitment to East London job creation comes to an immediate halt with the ending of the Olympic employment and skills programme.

Add to this, whole chunks of the Mayor’s programme for reducing youth violence and support for at-risk young people will be cut. This means that jobs and opportunities will go.

Further, the Minister for the Department of Business Innovation and Skills has written to the Mayor to inform him that the Government will be abolishing the statutory role of the London Skills and Employment Board – something for which the previous Mayor, Ken Livingstone, fought tooth and nail.

Similarly, the Government’s proposals to devolve powers to the Mayor are strewn with hazards. Not surprisingly, it is devolving functions without the cash. It looks like Boris Johnson will get the royal parks with a much-reduced budget – reduced by at least 25 per cent.

This will put a lot of pressure on him to turn the royal parks into moneymaking venues and increase their commercial activities to run them. Bring on the baseball caps, candy floss and souvenir mugs. Talking of mugs…

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Murad Qureshi is a Labour member of the London Assembly

To view article, click here

There won’t be a chance to tell him he is deluded about the Khilafat when the Arabs are urging the US to bomb Iran confirmed in today’s Wikileak revelations.  Nor why he has not got a proper Muslim surname before he lectures us all.   And of course, does he enjoy getting beaten up by fellow Muslims whenever he tries to visit mosques uninvited?

It will get them cheap publicity by generating controversy but why should Channel 4 care about that !

According to reports in the Evening Standard yesterday, the Mayor is using the offices of his deputy at Transport for London, Councillor Daniel Moylan, to promote the need for an additional airport in London. The last time l asked the Mayor questions directly about the Thames Estuary Airport, l suggested, was he not extending TfL’s remit too far by covering Aviation as well?  He quite happily entertained that idea so l followed this up with some written questions, please refer to linked responses below: 

Quite honestly while the tube service has got worse recently, should TfL really be extending itself this far. Maybe he’s telling us, if you can’t get around London by tube, try a plane instead!

At end of last week, the High Court had heard the legal challenge against Newham Council’s decision to allow London City Airport to increase operations to 120,000 flights per year. We can expect the verdict sometime around Christmas. The surprising thing is that the other Local Authorities in North East London whose residents are will be greatly affected by the decision, were nowhere to be seen for the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice. 

Given the grounds of the challenge by Fight the Flights – that Newham failed to have regard of the Government’s policy on climate change and aviation; that Newham failed to consult relevant neighbouring local authorities; and Newham failed to consult the residents of those boroughs – you would have thought that neighbouring local authorities would have given evidence, or at least kept a passing interest in the matter. Although I don’t doubt they are taking an interest from afar, given the impact it is having on their residents, if only on noise. 

Interestingly, one of the matters not pursued has been the myth that the Mayor of London was not consulted on the original decision. This was raised on the 18th January 2010 at a Peoples Question Time (PQT) in Ilford. When asked by the audience and myself why he had not intervened with his planning powers to “call in” such hugely a contentious planning application, the Mayor declared that he wasn’t the Planning Authority & didn’t think he could have called in the decision. However, he did agree to press for a public consultation and said that he considered himself to have been lobbied on the matter. However, it later transpired that previously, on the 28th July 2008, he had in fact already considered an officer’s report & had at that time supported the expansion. In addition, on the 10th September 2008 he had considered another report and declared himself satisfied that the expansion would not adversely impact on the planning case for the Thames Gateway Bridge. I imagine he must be pretty glad he was not called as a witness to the judicial review as his earlier involvement would surely have been exposed. 

Labour’s environment spokesman on the London Assembly, Murad Qureshi, has called on the Tories to come clean about their aviation plans after a report for Boris Johnson said his idea to build a new airport in the Thames could go ahead after the general election.
 
Nationally, the Conservatives say they will halt airport expansion in south east England. But Boris Johnson today threw their plans into chaos as his proposal to build a new, four runway airport in the Thames Estuary moved a step closer. A feasibility study about to be published will reportedly say "a further airport is required by or before 2030" and assumes that "agreement to the next the stage is given from 1st June 2010" – potentially days after the next general election.
 
Murad Qureshi, Labour’s environment spokesman on the London Assembly, said: "The Tories need to come clean about their airport plans. They say they don’t want any more runways but their most senior elected member would build four of them and a whole new airport in the Thames.

"It would be devastating for the environment, an expensive, logistical nightmare and has the potential for dangerous bird strikes. David Cameron needs to tell us whether this is fantasy island or Tory policy."
 
In a blow to the business case for a new airport, a seperate City Hall report published in April found that, "New airport capacity placed far from Central London may not be appealing to airport users and will not see high use of public transport, particularly if new capacity is also sited far from existing urban centres outside London." 

Only a quarter of the scheme’s 92,000 registered users are women, according to the first City Hall figures to be broken down by gender.

Transport for London says it is trying to encourage women cyclists but adds that another problem is the weight of the bikes.

At about 23kg, Boris Bikes are about twice the weight of most road cycles, making many riders work up a sweat.

Since the launch of the £140 million scheme in July more than 1.5 million trips have been made on the bikes.

London Assembly member Murad Qureshi uncovered the gender divide in a written question to Mayor Boris Johnson.

Mr Qureshi said: “In my local pubs and among some friends I had heard remarks about the bikes being for women but it seems it is a real boy’s toy. Men, and young professionals in particular, have embraced this scheme, while women seem less sure.

“It seems men are less worried about using the bikes in central London and its very busy roads. TfL has to deal with these concerns to ensure more women use the scheme.”

This month the Mayor announced an extension of the scheme to the edge of the Olympic Parking time for the 2012 Games. This will bring an extra 2,000 bikes and 4,200 docking bays on top of the 6,000 bikes and 10,200 bays set to be in place by March.

Boris Bikes can only be used by registered users at the moment but from next month casual users should be able to swipe a credit or debit card at a docking station and ride away.

A TfL spokesman said today: “We are doing everything possible to encourage women to cycle. We know women’s main concerns are safety and changing facilities. Our Cycle Safety Strategy initiatives include signing a memorandum of understanding with the Freight Transport Association to get lorry drivers and cyclists sharing the road safely and adult cycle training to improve confidence and skill on the road.

“We are also working directly with businesses across the capital to help them provide better cycling facilities for employees.”

Click here to view article

Waste management can be a toxic political issue in Europe. Last month, police and protesters clashed near Naples in the Campania region of Italy over the creation of new waste dumps to end the garbage crisis that had been plaguing the city for months.

Campania residents fear that the unregulated and toxic waste disposal methods could cause contamination. Their fears stem from the fact that years of waste mismanagement, corruption and organized crime have left streets stinking with decomposing garbage. Protests have been kindled by plans to open a dump in the Vesuvio National Park, too. This became a national issue during the last general election in Italy and compelled the president to promise to clear up the mess.

The wealthier the European Union (EU) becomes, the more waste it generates. The same can be expected from China. People in the EU throw away about 3 billion tons of waste every year, 90 million tons of which is hazardous. This boils down to about 6 tons of waste generated by every man, woman and child. The treatment and disposal of all this waste – without harming the environment – has become a major problem for the EU authorities. And it’s not surprising that the EU is taking initiatives to reduce the waste generated by its member states.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the waste generated by EU member states between 1990 and 1995 increased by 10 percent. Some two-thirds of what we throw away is either burnt in incinerators or dumped in to landfill sites. But both these methods are environmentally unfriendly. Landfills not only take up valuable land space, but also cause air, water and soil pollution. They emit carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, and allow toxic elements to seep into the soil and groundwater. These, of course, are harmful to the environment and ultimately to human beings, and plants and animals.

The OECD estimates that by 2020, we would generate 45 percent more waste than we did in 1995. We must reverse this trend to avoid being submerged in rubbish.

The picture, fortunately, is not all that gloomy. The EU’s Sixth Environment Action Programme identifies waste prevention and management as one of its four top priorities. The EU’s primary objective is to decouple waste generation from economic activity so that its growth no longer is tied to creation of more waste. In fact, there are signs that this is beginning to happen. In Germany and the Netherlands, for example, the generation of municipal waste fell in the 1990s.

The EU’s aims are ambitious, perhaps because it is using new waste prevention initiatives, making better use of its resources, and encouraging individuals and enterprises to shift to more sustainable consumption patterns. The EU’s landfill directive is, largely, responsible for this change. Its targets to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste and the fines it imposes on people and companies generating excess garbage are a positive way to reduce waste and ease the pressure on recycling facilities.

In the United Kingdom, the regulatory body responsible for the implementation of the EU’s landfill directive is the Environment Agency. It has adopted several ways to implement the directive such as permitting waste management facilities and administering the trading of these permits between municipalities in the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme.

According to the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the amount of household waste being recycled has increased more than three times in the past decade. But despite that, households still "throw away" more than 60 per cent of the waste they generate. On average every household disposed of more than 1 ton of rubbish last year, 625 kg of which ended up in landfills or was incinerated. This varies from region to region and city to city, though.

So, the best way to solve the problem is to generate as little waste as possible and recycle it through ecological viable methods. In fact, London authorities are considering granting incentives to people for recycling waste. But will London residents recycle more of the waste they generate if they got incentives? Or is imposing fines for generating excess waste a more effective way of reducing the generation of garbage? It is still to be seen if fines or the threat to impose them will help reduce the amount of waste at the household level.

Italy, the EU said the Italian authorities had failed to establish a strong network of waste disposal facilities close to the areas where waste is generated. By its failure to do so, Italy had also failed to prevent the threat excess waste causes to human health and the environment. In other words, Italy has failed to fulfill its obligations under the EU’s waste disposal directive. Hence, the Naples example should teach Chinese cities’ authorities how not to manage their waste generation and disposal plan.

Click here to view full article