Last week, on the final day of submission for the Labour nomination as Mayoral candidate for 2012, l backed Ken. That’s not surprising as we need a serious heavyweight to challenge Boris in 2012 and show what he’s been up to since 2008. We also do not want a coronation like we did in the Labour Party when Gordon Brown took over as leader of the Party and as a result PM of the UK. A challenge then would have given Gordon and the party an opportunity to talk about where we were going in government well before the 2010 General Election defeat. Importantly, if the party had done that it would have helped Gordon keep all those who subsequently challenged his authority in Downing St off his back and undermined him in office. As he would have been able to say, why are you challenging me now when you had the opportunity during the leadership contest. So in this respect Oona is doing us a great service in the London Labour Party by challenging Ken, as he’ll have to respond to a more youthful and diverse reflection of London than he has previously.

In the meantime, we are hearing the first indications that Boris will stand again. Quite honestly that is not surprising as l am not sure where else he has got to go now that his party is in power in the coalition government. (It would have been better for him if the Tories had lost, prompting a challenge for the leadership though he would have had to get back into the Commons). Clearly he expects it to last beyond 2012 and with his push for new powers to the mayoralty he is showing some interest in what the position can do beyond its present confines.

The Mayor’s recent proposal for devolution has one theme going through it, green devolution in London, though l do not think it was intended. It has some interesting proposals for green devolution in London governance, as he undoubtedly comes to realise the limitations of making an impact in this arena via the powers vested in the Mayor’s office. It starts with the management of our green spaces hence the push for the Royal Parks Agency; taking control of the main waterway through London the Thames by proposing the Port of London Authority (PLA) be devolved to the GLA Group; realising the limitations of the Mayor’s London Waste Authority under his control and asking for more powers here; and finally and not least on the Energy & Climate Change front.

The Royal Parks in London proposal was leaked some time ago in the media and is particularly important for central London. The key issue here for the Mayor is to make sure he is not short changed by the DCMS. Now that is going to be difficult when all government departments outside Health & International Development are going to have to make cuts of 25 per cent over the next 4 years, as l cannot see how the £19 million that the Royal Parks gets already will be transferred over to the Mayor. This will mean that the parks are not maintained in the manner we are accustomed to and we will probably have more events in parks like Hyde and Regents park. Just the thing many people do not want.

The move for the PLA is certainly intriguing as l have already indicated in a previous blog on the battle for PLA. But there are still a few misunderstandings by the Mayor’s office. Again on the funding front, the Mayor’s office thinks funding from the PLA should be transferred to them when in fact it is self-funding through its licence fees etc for harbour services and facilities. Furthermore, this proposed devolution to the GLA group would mean the Mayor extending himself geographically into the Thames Estuary and I’m not sure of the motivation here at all for this.

Its interesting to note the request made to strengthen the London Waste and Recycling Board (LWaRB) role in delivering efficient and effective waste management for London, as Boris has come to realise the limitations of its powers and is probably a return to the arguments of just one waste authority across London that we had in the last Mayoralty that Ken fought for (and lost to DEFRA) when we last had a discussion of a transfer of new powers to the London Mayor. Quite frankly that’s not surprising and it’s interesting that both the mayors have come to similar conclusions.

The weakest area of proposed further green devolution is unfortunately on the Energy & Climate Change front where we have just loose talk about a more regional approach. Quite honestly we need a lot more accountability of the private utilities like the energy and water companies over their investment plans for London and at present we do not even know what investments the energy companies are making in energy efficiencies measures in our homes let alone new measures for further energy supplies.

The London Assembly has launched a pre-emptive strike on BAA by unanimously calling for a ban on any increase in the number of flights at Heathrow.

The move comes in response to growing fears that, following the Government’s decision to reject a third runway, the airport operator may try to increase the number of flights from its London airports by other means.

Hounslow’s assembly member, Tony Arbour, who seconded Murad Qureshi’s motion, said: “In the past Whitehall’s promises to limit Heathrow’s expansion have proved less reliable than a budget airline flight.

“We want the Secretary of State for Transport to say to BAA ‘thus far and no further’. The residents of London cannot be expected to tolerate any more flights in our already crowded skies.”

The full motion, which was passed on Wednesday, blocks moves such as mixed mode operations – planes landing and taking-off on the same runway at any time or period of the day – more night flights or expansion at London’s airports.

It read: “This Assembly notes the long standing opposition of the parties in the coalition government to any increase in flights, mixed mode operations, night flights or expansion at London’s airports, and calls on the Government to firmly and openly reject any increase in the number of flights at BAA’s London airports.”

A BAA spokesman said: "We will spend some time reflecting on the new Government’s intention to change airports policy.

"We continue to believe that new airport capacity would strenghten the UK’s global trading links.

"At the last night flights consultation in 2006 we did not seek any increase in flights during the night period and our position has not changed since then."

As the Mayor makes a bid for more power from his friends in the coalition government (outlined in his paper “The Mayor of London’s Proposal for Devolution”) it is clear that one of the battlefields is the Port of London Authority (PLA). The document clearly states that given the critical importance of the Thames to London’s prosperity the PLA should be devolved to the GLA group. The Mayor also says the work of the PLA needs to be integrate with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and London Plan, which l readily accept. But whether all responsibilities of the PLA should be devolved to the GLA group, and its funding transferred to the Mayor, is another thing altogether.

 I can well understand the Mayor’s interest in the Thames between Teddington and QE bridge ( boardly speaking within the boundaries of Greater London) to assist for example transport measures for passengers – and let’s not forget freight as well. But taking his influence out to sea to cover the Thames Estuary would be a great geographical expansion of the Mayor’s powers. So why does Boris want to become captain of the Seas? I can only suggest that it is somehow linked to his Mayoral team’s pursuit of the airport in the Thames Estuary. This would at least give him jurisdiction over the area where any such airport might be built, because this is clearly an ambition that his administration has still not dropped. Interestingly, the PLA themselves proposed an airport in the Thames Estuary on Maplin Sands back in the early 1970s, but this area has subsequently become an EU conservation area for birds. So there is a lot the PLA know about this and other proposals historically.

After recently attending the AGM of EANAG (Ealing Noise Action Group), l proposed the following motion to the London Assembly in response to residents’ concerns in West London that there might well be other ways of increasing flights at Heathrow other than building a third runway:

“This Assembly welcomes the government’s decision to refuse a third runway at Heathrow and the BAA announcement that it would not seek planning permission for a further runway at Heathrow. However, this Assembly would strongly oppose any increase in the number of flights from its airports in and around London by other means, such as mixed mode operations, more night flights or expansion at London’s airports.

 The Assembly notes the long standing opposition of the Parties in the coalition government to any increase in flights, mixed mode operations, night flights or expansion at London’s airports, and calls on the Government to firmly and openly reject any increase in the number of flights at BAA’s London airports.”

Yesterday the London Assembly unanimously passed the motion, which calls for a ban on any increase in the number of flights operating from BAA’s London Airports, particularly Heathrow. This was after it was headlined in the Evening Standard on Tuesday that new talks are being held on increasing capacity at Heathrow. The coalition government have set up a new task force for “better not bigger” airports in the South East, following the decision to kill off the third runway.

Campaigners have rightly reacted with suspicion, as the task force may well re-open the debate over whether more flights can be squeezed out of Heathrow through operational and regulatory changes like allowing mixed-mode (flights taking off and landing on the same runway at the same time) or more night flights or other changed practices at Heathrow which BAA are presently employing, such as TED (Tactically Enhanced Departures) and TEAM (Tactically Enhanced Arrivals Mode). These two in particular are considered by many of the campaign groups to be ways of introducing mixed mode through the back door .

The make-up of the task force does not bode well for those opposed to more flights as it is dominated by big players. Most of the 13 places have gone to aviation and business interests including BAA, BA Virgin, easyJet and Ryanair. This is an issue that has not gone away and we trust that the message from the London Assembly has been picked up by government.

Swathes of Hyde Park should be turned into football, rugby and cricket pitches to increase sporting opportunities for Londoners, politicians said today.

Labour London Assembly member Murad Qureshi and Green member Jenny Jones want more pitches introduced before the 2012 Olympics.

The calls come after Prince William launched a campaign to safeguard 2,012 public playing fields as part of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations.

Mr Qureshi was responsible for an Assembly report into London’s playing fields in 2006, which concluded that the 1,500 sites then remaining should be protected.

He believes sports facilities in the Royal Parks cater for “corporate customers” only, and that new public playing fields would meet local needs.

Among the Royal Parks — which also include St James’s Park, Richmond Park and Regent’s Park — he highlighted Hyde Park as having sufficient unused space.

The Royal Parks are expected soon to come under Boris Johnson’s control and Mr Qureshi is urging the Mayor to make playing fields a priority.

Ms Jones said the Royal Parks were “a wonderful resource that could be
better”.

Affordable sports areas in Royal Parks would help groups such as the charity London Tigers, which organises sports including football
and cricket for disadvantaged young people.

They used to play in Regent’s Park until costs drove them out of the city centre.

A Royal Parks spokesman said: “We invested over £2 million six years ago to improve playing fields in Regent’s Park and we ensure youth sports teams and community groups have priority and benefit from subsidised prices.

“There are playing fields in Hyde Park, Richmond Park, Bushy Park and Greenwich Park.

“We need to balance the needs of all these people. At the moment we have no plans for more playing fields.”

The early firing of the starting pistol in the race to become Labour’s candidate for London Mayor is welcome. It will provide an opportunity, sooner rather than later, to galvanise progressive opposition to the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government intent on huge public sector cuts. And, as the mayoral contest will be over before Labour’s national leadership race, London party members will be able to choose a candidate without allegations of political interference from above.

Whoever becomes Labour’s mayoral candidate will have the party’s strong general election showing in London on which to build. The combination of high voter turnout and the hard work of local activists and candidates means Labour still has the highest number of MPs in Greater London. Labour also regained control of local government in London, winning back 10 councils and returning three borough mayors.

Labour’s share of the vote in the capital was 2 per cent higher than the Tories’ and the swing away from Labour just 2.5 per cent. London played a big part in denying David Cameron’s Conservatives an overall majority. Had voter turnout been as high in the 2008 mayoral election, some polling suggests that Ken Livingstone would probably have won. Whether people turn out in high numbers will be crucial for Labour’s success in the future.

The first big electoral test for the coalition is likely to be the 2012 London mayoral contest. Boris Johnson’s Tory administration will have presided over huge budget cuts, the real possibility of more public transport fare rises and worsening frontline services. All this will place a big strain on London’s civic society.  While voters may be motivated to turn out by anger at the damage the new Government will inevitably inflict, the downside for Labour will be that councils the party now controls will be expected to implement much of the cuts programme.

The real test for Labour looking to regain the mayoralty is the challenge posed by Boris Johnson. We have come to accept that his charm, wit and bluster reach parts of the electorate most politicians can only dream of.

What he cannot hide, though, is that he has been happy to do very little as Mayor. He has pushed ahead with projects started by his predecessor, such as the cycle hire scheme and support for Crossrail. But he has done very little new that could be seen as positive for London.

He is allowing much of the city’s modern bus fleet to go to rust and waste because he doesn’t like its design. He is cutting the number of Metropolitan Police officers. And, while he bangs on about not putting up his share of the council tax, he has put up fares massively – hitting low-paid and middle-income Londoners hardest.

Labour needs a candidate who can get behind Johnson’s populist façade and expose his unbending support for the financial services sector, the contradictions and inconsistencies in his policies and win back City Hall as the first step on the road back to government.

This article was published in Tribune on the 11th of June.

Unfortunately this zero emission black cab is not likely to be made available till well after 2015

l welcomed the new hybrid blakc cab taxi ( zero emission ) launched in London yesterday, and call upon the Mayor to reduce the age of London’s taxi fleet by reducing his proposed upper age limit from 15 years to 10 years by 2012 in his latest draft air quality strategy. The  15 year age limit is just too high for London’s black cabs, particular if you known that the average age of a black cab is 7.5 years. Thats twice the average age.  Incredibly under present regulations we still have a sole registered black cab dating back to 1986 !

It’s all very well & good bringing out the new high-tech toys, but these new taxis aren’t by themselves going to solve London’s pollution problems.  We need to completely overhaul London’s taxi fleet and get the oldest vehicles off the roads with some good old-fashioned policy measures.  Bring the upper age limit down & at a stroke you’ll reduce pollution and by extension respiratory illness.  Such a move is already overdue – 2012 is long enough to wait for this, let alone 2015.

The Mayor’s own air quality strategy highlights the particular pollution problem caused by black cabs  and yet incredibly he saw fit to abolish their six monthly road-worthiness tests.  So far the Mayor’s alleged pollution reduction measures have done little to get the EU off our backs and just recently the Commission made it quite clear they are going to issue large fines to the UK as a result of London’s pollution levels.

After receiving reports on the air quality around Heathrow at this week’s meeting of the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC) Murad Qureshi AM feels the Mayor and BAA could do a lot more to improve air quality in the area and therefore the health of people living near to Heathrow in Hillingdon, Ealing & Hounslow, as well as those visiting the area.

Murad said:  “Preliminary findings from the air quality monitoring stations indicate pollution levels stayed high during five days in April when flights were suspended because of volcanic ash.  I’ve been concerned for some time that the Mayor and BAA are not doing enough to tackle the pollution from surface transport around Heathrow, but these latest figures give us an idea of the true scale of the problem.”

Murad added: “Most of the pollution problem around Heathrow comes from surface transport.  Between them, the Mayor and BAA have it in their power to make a huge difference to air quality and quality of life in an area that has the highest concentration of  traffic pollution after central London.  They can do this now, with pricing policies, for example, they just need to decide to act on the evidence under their noses, and the Mayor should make sure proper measures are enshrined in his revised air quality strategy.”

Ends.

Notes

Murad Qureshi is a Londonwide Labour Assembly Member and is the Assembly’s Labour Group Environment spokesperson.  He represents the London Assembly on the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC)