Campaigning successfully against Crown PO closures in Pimlico

Recently, NW1 postcode residents like me were sent a letter by Royal Mail explaining in a roundabout way that our delivery service was going to be reduced and become less reliable. This message does not bode well for the future considering it’s a Central London postal district where we have plenty of business mail just less than a year after the privatisation of the Royal Mail.

Since the botched privatisation of the Royal Mail by Vincent Cable, the postal service has become more expensive and service levels in London have dropped, through no fault of postal workers I hasten to add.

Postage costs were increased before privatisation to no doubt make the sell off a more attractive proposition in the run-up to its IPO. There was a further increase of a few pence on both first and second class mail in February of this year, so that in recent time we have had 20 per cent increase in price. The prospect of future price rises also exists, as the service has the power to increase prices as much as it likes.

As for quality of the delivery service, the reality is that we are seeing a growing number of service providers like TNT who are being criticised for poor service, including reports of large amounts of mail dumped in Central London neighbourhoods like Bloomsbury were TNT bicycles loaded with confidential letters were left unattended. We have also had similar cases in W9 & W10 delivery services with TNT again the culprit where the local MP Karen Buck has suggested they need to “get a grip” on things.

Poor service by others places even more pressure on the Royal Mail with much of the dumped or mis-delivered mail placed in Royal Mail post boxes for correct delivery. The absence of standards for TNT and other competitors is undermining the overall quality of postal services and having a knock-on effect on universal postal services.

The universal “one price goes anywhere” postal service is an important one and is made possible by the Royal Mail using its revenues from urban areas to cover the higher cost of delivery in rural areas. The growth of direct delivery competition, particularly in urban centres like Central London threatens the fundamental principles of cross subsidy at risk, threatening the viability of universal postal services and thereby impacting on cities just as much as rural communities. The loss of the universal service obligation would be disastrous for these communities. The quality of the service in Central London is also being affected, as the direct deliveries cherry pick the best bits of the Royal Mail like the business traffic and delivery service levels drop.

We should not forget the impact also on employment standards with TNT employing people on zero hour contracts and below living wages and expecting to employ up to 20,000 in 2018 from its present 1,000 base. This model of employment is replacing decent jobs with precarious employment on inadequate pay, putting a burden on public finances via benefit support and reduced income tax revenue. Such reductions in terms and conditions are damaging not only to the people it employs but also the quality of postal services, making it even more difficult for the Royal Mail to deliver its performance targets.

One final word on the Royal Mail privatisation. At the time of its sale, some 70 per cent of a poll in the Sunday Times was against its privatisation.  The service has been in public ownership since the reign of Charles I and became a cherished national institution, suggesting many were happy with the service and its values. However, last week the BIS Committee at the House of Commons reported that Vince Cable’s botched sale of the Royal Mail cost the tax payer £1 billion. Now OFCOM have a statutory duty to protect the universal postal service over and above any competition considerations but so far have shown an unwillingness to step in. If OFCOM are not minded to protect the principle of a universal postal service than maybe we should consider its return to public ownership? The government still has a 30 per cent stake in Royal Mail, something to build on for full public ownership.

This blog was published in a Forum piece for West End Extra in the week of 25th of July 2014.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe today conceded that the balance of the Mayor’s neighbourhood policing teams had “gone the wrong way” and is being reviewed, while Boris Johnson admitted that the local model needs to “be improved”. Following the restructure, Westminster has lost 435 Police Officers (27%) and 296 PCSOs (78%) while London has recorded the third lowest police visibility rate in the country.

The Mayor reorganised Safer Neighbourhood Teams a year ago, replacing the old ‘123’ structure (one Sergeant, two PCs and three PCSOs per ward) with a model in which each ward had just one dedicated PC and PCSO, with ‘flexible’ neighbourhood teams overseeing these wards.

At a meeting of the Police and Crime Committee today, after questioning from Joanne McCartney AM, the Commissioner stated that he believed there was a need for “more dedicated officers” in wards. The Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, Stephen Greenhalgh, also admitted that the Met’s contact points, which Boris promised would provide an “equivalent or better service” than police counters, were “not being well used”, and that a full review of the contact points will be conducted. Figures released this week showed that contact points dealt with just an average of 1.3 people per week.

Commenting on the session, Murad Qureshi AM, said:

“I have long been calling for the Mayor to come clean and admit that his cuts to neighbourhood police teams have resulted in less visible police in our local communities. While this admission is welcome, we now need to get on and put a plan in place to reinstate dedicated officers to our neighbourhoods.

“I am also pleased it was recognised that contact points are not providing an acceptable service for Londoners. Since 2010 we have seen a reduction of nearly 5,000 uniformed officers across the capital, coupled with the withdrawal of dedicated officers from local neighbourhoods. A rethink is clearly needed.”

Ends

Notes

1. Murad Qureshi AM is a Labour London wide Assembly Member.
2. The MPS has the third lowest proportion of officers that are deemed ‘visible’ in England and Wales 2013-14, at 52%. (Value for Money Profiles, HMIC, November 2013, p 43).
3. A webcast of yesterday’s session can be viewed online here.

At the core of the Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation & Energy Strategy is his 60 per cent target reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2025. Under my chairmanship the Environment Committee produced a report card on progress of this carbon reduction target, and gave the Mayor a score of 4 out of 10, as we are missing the Mayor’s our milestones and this looks set to continue to do so.

Particular concern is the retrofitting of homes with a score of 3 out 10, with the Committee recommending the Mayor lobbies the government more strongly and increases his support for domestic retrofit in London. Further recommendations include action on local and low carbon energy, especially solar and on supporting businesses to reduce their energy bills.

So the Committee is disappointed with the progress being made on carbon reduction targets,as the Mayor misses targets on emissions from homes, decentralised energy generation and retrofitting work places, by big margins. So the Mayor must try much harder in these areas, get more out of government and give more help to the boroughs. Whilst transport emissions are fairly close to their 2015 target, we urge TfL – the capital’s biggest energy consumer – to take proactive action and negotiate more vigorously for low-carbon energy, as it generates more of its own electricity.

Ian Morris’s attempt in the ES to explain 1400 years of Muslim history in 500 words neglects to mention that, theological speaking, in Islam you are meant to have a direct relation with god without any intermediary.

The history of the Sunni/Shia split is intrinsic to Islam and whilst we should attempt to understand it, our primary aim should be to stop the sectarian violence of the Middle East reaching our own shores. This would involve stopping the likes of Anjem Choudury and his mob pedalling anti-Shia rhetoric and also Sheikh Al-Habib doing the reverse by inciting anti-Sunni sentiments. We should not only react to the actions of these divisive factions, we should be proactive in our approach to stopping them.

The sectarian nature of the violence is also a very good reason not to get involved in direct action in the Middle East.

Great Sunday afternoon in Soho with a star performance from Adam Ant with a rendition of Prince Charming!

All in aid of a good cause, Great Ormond Street Hospital.

It needs to be annual event along Frith Street.

At last nights Westminster Living Street AGM, l was reminded of this slide in a presentation made by Jeremy Leach at one of its previous meeting.

The geographical spread of pedestrian & cyclist fatalities in the City of Westminster is shown well, illustrating particularly the black spots like the West End and Oxford St which are not surprising but what really stood out was the Edgware Rd, a shopping area used by residents of the City.

The City has also by some margin the highest number of pedestrians killed and seriously injured (KSI) of any borough in London, with nearly a quarter of them occurring on the Transport of London (TfL) Road Network like the Edgware Rd. Its something l will concentrating on myself over the next year or so.

Progress whilst painfully slow for 20 mph in the City of Westminster is at least making progress in the City of London, where it should be in place on the 20th of July. We trust officials in Westminster are watching the lead taken by the City Corporation. In the meantime, we need campaigners like Westminster Living Street at the vanguard of changing the culture of our street life.

So best of luck for the officers, Chair & Secretary elected last night for another year of campaigning.

The Mayor of London today admitted that he and his team are “seriously worried” over the potential cost of London’s proposed ‘super sewer’ to Thames Water customers. When pressed on the issue by Murad Qureshi AM at today’s Mayor’s Question Time, the Mayor revealed he is looking “very carefully” at the financial terms of scheme.

Thames Water plans to establish a separate company that will own the tunnel, and this company is expected to be owned by a collection of sovereign and pension funds. Investors in the scheme will receive generous returns reported to be between 14.7% and 24.1%, paid for by an 11% increase in water bills, up to £80 per year, over the next ten years.

Responding to Murad Qureshi raising the issue, the Mayor said (we) “need to be extremely wary of the system by which this is being financed and run……it is down to Ofwat and the government to see that (excessive burden on consumer bills) does not happen”. He closed by stating “I am seriously worried there is no disincentive built in to cost overruns”.

Murad Qureshi AM, Labour Londonwide Assembly Member, said:

“The delivery of the new ‘super sewer’ will be one of the biggest infrastructure projects undertaken in London this decade. And at a time when people across the capital are struggling with the rising cost of living, it is crucial that Thames Water customers are not treated as cash cows to entice investors.

“The Mayor clearly shares my concerns over rising costs, but his statement that this is a purely matter for Ofwat and the Government will do little to put Londoners at ease.”

Ends

Notes

1. Murad Qureshi is a Labour Londonwide Assembly Member.
2. The details of the returns to investors were modelled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance in their Water White Paper. 

For more information please contact Research Support Officer Nikki Salih on 0207 983 4400. Number not for publication.

This week at Planning Committee along with an article in Tribune l argued that a Brunelian vision is required at Old Oak Common for HS2, if its not to blight the life’s of  Londoners particularly those in Camden. Please find the full content of the article below;

After the second reading of the Hybrid Bill for HS2 in the House of Common and the overwhelming vote in favour by MPs for HS2 despite all the rumours of revolts by them, you would be forgiven if you thought that would be the end of the matter. But clearly the focus now turns to petitioning for mitigation and compensation against it and London needs to keep a look out here as well.

All this while l still have reservations about it all given the huge expenditure of £ 50 billion plus involved at the same time as major public service cuts by the coalition government, it does appear to be “toys for the boys” as the transport lobby made up of big business, civic leaders of Northern cities and construction professionals and contractors demand it as their new train set.  More over on recent rail trips around the country, l have been struck by the under investment in rail infrastructure other part of the country like the East of England and Cornwall. For example it can take you the same amount of time as going to Manchester from London to Norwich even though its only 120 miles away. And before the floods l went to Plymouth via Dawlish where the leader of Council, Tudor Evans stated that £ 150 million was desperately needed to improve the link with Plymouth & Exeter at Dawlish. Till the floods and the damage to the tracks running along the coastline, this had not really registered as something that needed repairing urgently by the public yet alone the government. So not even on cost benefit basis, does it really stand  up to scrutiny when you compare it with all the other rail infrastructure projects you could have funded with such an amount of money across the whole of the country. More so if you compare it against investment levels required to improve say the internet and efficient broadband speeds across the whole of the UK.

Now limiting the impact in London involves making the most of two locations though neither is going to stop the harm that’s going to be done in Hillingdon and in particular, sites of special scientific interest like the Colne Valley.

The first of them is Old Oak Common, a desolate and long-neglected part of W12, much of which is a rail yard with a canal link and derelict warehouses. Yet it has excellent connections with many tube lines; to Heathrow airport; and into central London via the new Crossrail. From this point we go to the second location where we need to limit the impact at Euston. This must be the most difficult and expensive part of HS2, as it knocks a lot of housing, park greens and centres of small businesses as new tracks lead into the station with additional platforms needed as well. The latter impact would be limited with the double deck down option similar to that in Grand Central in NYC where we have 67 tracks on two levels, which would spare the local park, social housing and small businesses in Camden.  If it can be done there a hundred years ago why not now in London particularly when British architects are doing it for the Chinese today?

So as the battle front moves to mitigating the harmful effects of HS2 in London particularly around Euston let us give full consideration to not just double deck at Euston station but also making the most of Old Oak Common, not only as the best way to limit the adverse impact in Camden with a permanent terminus but given the desolate nature of it, as a means of bringing some life back to that part of London. Historically the main rail terminus of London were all built on the edge of an expanding City of London is it proved difficult to go any further. Why not now with Old Oak Common? Which anyway will become a temporally, the terminus to HS2, much like Waterloo had been for Eurostar. Such a Brunelian vision for Old Oak Common would be in keeping with the golden age of the railways and should keep those who want to play with their new train set also happy.

Plaque put up in front of Lisson green Estate to acknowledge second home of Lords.

It is right and proper that Lords is has celebrated 200 years of being in St Johns Wood on the present site of the home of cricket but lets not forget its second home nearby albeit for a few years only.

Like many l went along to Lords on Sunday on its open day for its celebration of being in St John’s Wood for the past 200 years. During the days activities members of the public were allowed to entered the Pavilion without being escorted by a member nor wearing a tie; spectators pinicked in front of the grand stand for the first time in decades; and had a whole load of activities to keep families of cricket fans entertained for the day.

 What is often forgotten is that Lords had a second home between Dorset Square & St John’s Wood for a few years between both sites. The second home of Lords cricket ground would have lied along West of the Park Road near Regents Park mosque going through what is now known as the Lisson Green estate. Lords was here for a few years between 1811 to 1813 where the development of the Regents canal had moved it off to the present third home of Lords.

In 2005, this was acknowledged by plaques put up at both the front of the Lisson Green estate and on Park Road, as its presence is often forgotten.

So as we celebrate 200 of Lords in St Johns Wood, lets not forget this was the third home of cricket after Dorset Square site and then Park Road to Lisson Grove site, the latter more often than not forgotten about altogether.

Figures released this month show food poverty in Westminster continues to rise rapidly as the Government’s cuts hit Londoners hard. The Trussell Trust, the charity running 39 foodbanks in London, recorded an increase in people visiting its food banks in Westminster of 92%. 

In 2009 there were six food banks run by the Trussell Trust in London, and today there are 39, with numbers of visitors in the past year increasing at an alarming rate. Londonwide Assembly Member Fiona Twycross last year published a report on why growing numbers of Londoners are unable to afford enough food for themselves and their families.

Murad Qureshi, Labour Londonwide Assembly Member, said:

“Food poverty in modern Britain is a scandal. And it is horrifying that in London, one of the world’s richest cities, the number of people reliant on food banks has almost doubled in the past year.

“From April 2013 to March 2014 over 95,000 people in London 1,243 in Westminster were fed by a Trussell Trust foodbank. This includes working people whose wages simply won’t stretch and who can’t afford to buy enough food for their families.

“The Mayor has to take a lead in working with partner organisations to help lift London families out of food poverty, and it is astonishing that despite these figures the Mayor has still refused to visit a foodbank in his six years in office. I am calling on him to visit local foodbanks in Westminster so he can hear directly why people are hungry in our city.”

Ends

Notes

1. Murad Qureshi is a Labour Londonwide Assembly Member.
2. You can find Fiona Twycross’s 2013 Food Poverty report here.
3. Figures released by the Trussell Trust this month: