SOS for London Ambulance Service

While we are right to be concerned about what’s happening to the NHS in London, spare a thought for the London Ambulance Service (LAS).

We are potentially talking about the closure of up to 8 A&E’s in Greater London, so this will inevitably increase movement across the region in order for ambulances to reach the nearest A&E.  Set against a backdrop of an increasing population in London with a  projected growth from 8.2 million to 9 million by 2020 and more critically an ageing one too, this does not bode well for improving patient care.  The assumption is that the LAS will pick up the slack by having to travel further when the service itself has to cope with a 19 per cent reduction in its budget as a result of the Nicholson Challenge and the consequent cut in 500 odd front line staff.  Moreover in a recent report by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), it was suggested that the LAS was not only understaffed but also under equipped.

So, at the lasr MQT, I asked the mayor what he was doing to help the LAS which will be the single remaining pan-London health service provider after April 2013.  I asked, for example what representations he’d made about the findings of the CQC which not only highlighted dangerous understaffing but also the lack of equipment to promote the care and welfare of patients.

The short answer is, not alot but you can watch the Mayor’s response for yourself above. So much for looking out for Londoners in their hour of need.

 

“There is an alternative”

The key points of Labour’s proposals are:

·         A Jobs Guarantee for all 16-24 year olds who have been out of work for 1 year or more. In <city w:st=”on”><place w:st=”on”>Westminster</place></city> this would help 135 young people

·         Cut transport fares by 1% so they are in line with inflation. Londoners living in Zone one and travelling aound Zone One on a yearly travelcard would save £197.27

·         Re-allocate business rates to protect frontline police and fire services. In <city w:st=”on”>Westminster</city>, <city w:st=”on”><place w:st=”on”>Westminster</place></city> fire station is earmarked for closure, this would be kept open and police front counter provision will be maintained.

·         Freeze the Mayor’s share of the Council Tax which is currently only saving households 7 pence per week

·         Start the process of setting up a London-wide lettings agency

Local Labour <place w:st=”on”><city w:st=”on”>London</city></place> Assembly Member Murad Qureshi Am said:

 “As the economy stumbles and splutters towards a triple-dip recession the Mayor needs to help the economy and help ordinary Londoners. Cutting fares by one per cent will save residents in <city w:st=”on”><place w:st=”on”>Westminster</place></city> £197.27 on their annual travelcard.

“Our Jobs Guarantee for 16-24 year olds out of work for over a year will put 135 young people in <city w:st=”on”>Westminster</city> into work, and benefit 7,500 long-term unemployed young Londoners across <city w:st=”on”><place w:st=”on”>London</place></city>.

“Boris has cut his share of the council tax by less than 10 pence a week per household, but at the same time has whacked up fares above inflation for the fifth year running. He must be stupid to think Londoners won’t notice this.”

Ends

Notes

1.      Murad Qureshi is a Labour Londonwide Assembly Member.

There is an alternative

As more people struggle to heat their homes whilst the energy companies continue to increase their profits, the Labour Group on the London Assembly have today presented an alternative.

London Assembly Labour’s alternative budget for London is an effort to make Mayor of London Boris Johnson invest in meaningful projects that will help struggling Londoners. Boris’s record as Mayor is pathetic; he has failed to deliver anything but vanity projects and has overseen cuts to London’s frontline emergency services.

With fuel bills increasing by up to 11 per cent this year, fuel poverty is rising in London. National Energy Action has calculated that, for every 1 per cent increase in energy prices, 40,000 households are pushed into fuel poverty nationally.  The most recent round of price hikes will have pushed an estimated additional 266,000 into fuel poverty.

With this in mind, London Assembly Labour proposes to action a research project in to the establishment of community energy cooperatives in London. The study would draw on the experiences of successful energy cooperatives, such as Brixton Energy, to establish what would be required to introduce a borough-wide energy cooperative, culminating in a ward-level pilot study.

We would commit £500,000 towards establishing community energy cooperatives in London. This is an essential investment. Energy prices are an increasing worry for families who are finding the cost of living spiralling out of control. Families are choosing between food and fuel and this can be seen by the surge in the number of people visiting food banks as they struggle to buy the basic provisions to survive.

It is critical that energy becomes more affordable. Energy cooperatives enable the members to become invested in the energy they produce and use. Where the community owns a stake of the energy that is being generated, the benefits are spread across the membership, helping to keep more of the money the energy generates in the local community. Further, co-operative ownership of the energy supply also democratises the process of energy consumption and production, while reducing the opaqueness surrounding pricing under a market dominated by a small number of companies.

Boris talks a good game and is adept at making speeches laying the blame for London’s problems at David Cameron’s door, but he has singularly failed to use the powers and resources at his command to improve life for ordinary Londoners. Our budget alternative puts forward tangible suggestions that could help Londoners now and build a future not reliant on the “˜big six’ energy companies.

We have a simple message for Boris, he is the Mayor of London, a great city of over 8 million people with drive and determination. He should be standing up for Londoners and helping them during these difficult times.

Murad Qureshi is a Labour Londonwide Assembly Member and spokesperson for the Labour Group on environmental and health issues.

Click here to view article

Is Obama going to be the first Asian American US President?

 

Is Barack Obama the first Asian president of the United States? (JG Graphic) 

 
It is sometimes said that Bill Clinton was the first black president of the United States, such was his popularity among the black electorate. So by the same token, is Obama, in his second term, going to become the first Asian president of the US? With the overwhelming endorsement of Asian-American citizens, his first trip to Asia already undertaken this term and his foreign policy tilt toward the East, this may not be as strange as it sounds.

Somewhat overlooked when analyzing the results of the 2012 US presidential elections, was the extent to which Asian-Americans backed Obama. The figure was up to 73 percent; surpassing the Latino and female vote. Romney’s China-bashing was ill-received, and seat uncomfortably with Asian-Americans. Attacking China as an economic cheat served only to raise fears among Asian-Americans, thereby alienating this group of voters.

Asian-Americans make up 3.4 percent of the national electorate, and it is estimated by some that by 2050, this figure will rise to 10 percent. In states like California, it could be at least 20 percent from the present 11 percent. So the Asian-American vote is growing and its potential should not be underestimated.

Obama’s appeal to the average Asian-American is mirrored by a wider global appeal, illustrated well by Pew Research and the fact that much of the world cheered the November re-election of Obama. This support was not necessarily be seen as an endorsement of US foreign policy. In particular there is still widespread opposition to US drone strikes as part of his anti-terrorism policy; his failure to meet expectations that he would tackle climate change; and crucially his failure to position the US as a more even-handed broker between Israel and Palestine. Yet, his popularity in Asia, especially Southeast Asia, is undented.

His relationship with South Asian countries is, however, more complex. In 2009, in Muslim-majority countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, people hoped he would be different from the administration of George W. Bush. But after Obama’s winning of a second term in the White House, his popularity in these countries has never been lower. In Indonesia he enjoys massive popularity; this is not surprising considering that Obama has placed a lot of importance on relations with this Muslim-majority country. As for relations with China, this is likely to evolve into a working but competitive one, particularly in the context of wider Asia geopolitics, as illustrated by his trip to Myanmar.

So what should we make of his recent trip to Myanmar? It was part of a three-leg tour which also took in Thailand and Cambodia for an Association of Southeast Asian Nations conference in mid-November. This made him the first US president to visit Myanmar and meet President Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the pro-democracy movement.

The White House itself has spoken of a “pivot” toward Asia, as the Americans’ strategic focus becomes the fast-growing Asian countries, away from war and terrorism in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Clearly this trip to Myanmar reflects a watershed in policy and focus following the importance the US has placed on normalizing relations with Myanmar. For the US, this represents an opportunity to have a greater stake in the region, partly to counter the influence of China.

Interestingly, in his book “Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power” academic and journalist Robert Kaplan observes the following:

“In short, Burma [Myanmar] provides a code for understanding the world to come. It is a prize to be fought over, as China and India are doing so right now. Recognizing the importance of what Burma and its neighbors represent at a time of new energy pathways, unstable fuel prices, and seaboard natural disasters. … For the US, Indian Ocean states like Burma are now, or should be, central to their calculations.”

Importantly, he wrote this well before Obama’s re-election, so clearly someone is listening in the State Department.

Further, Kaplan, based on his knowledge of the State Department, argues that the appointment of special envoys for Israel-Palestine; Afghanistan-Pakistan, and North Korea, will free up the US secretary of state to concentrate on the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific regions. Structurally at least, the State Department is now better organized then it has been for some time to respond to a rising India and China. Indeed John Kerry, the newly appointed secretary of state, should consider himself fortunate to be taking over at such a time of freed-up resources within the State Department.

So, Asians both in the US and abroad are set to have even more dealings with Obama in his second term. He is naturally more in tune with the region — having lived in Indonesia in his formative years and by having an Asian half-sister. This backdrop inevitably acts to make him culturally more approachable and appealing to the Asian electorate. The future of American power lies in the East; this notion is strengthened by the re-election of President Obama, who has already made a clear play for Asia. Based on recent policy and the apparent lean toward Asia, it looks as though Obama himself would have little trouble being perceived as the first Asian US president.

This blog was published as an article in the Jakarta Globe on the 31st of  January 2013.

Londoners shouldn’t have been left out in the cold by Davey & Boris

Fuel Poverty is growing, yet with energy prices skyrocketing by up to 11 per cent this winter it is unlikely many people are unaware of this growing crisis.

Fuel-poverty-woman-wrapped-up-and-shivering-indoors

National Energy Action estimates that as a direct result of the recent round of price hikes, an additional 266,000 households were made fuel poor. That is equivalent to a town a little bigger than Stoke-on-Trent.

In London the picture is stark. Before the price hikes, well over half a million London households were fuel poor. Yet London has got a raw deal from the energy companies – and not just on pricing.

Since April 2008, energy companies have been required to deliver home insulation measures to households as part of the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target, a programme that was renewed by the coalition following the election.

However, figures from the Energy Savings Trust show that while 14.7% of homes nationally have received measures, the number for London is only 7.2%.

London has been hindered because it is in general more expensive to insulate homes in London due to the higher occurrence of solid wall properties and flats. Despite their huge profits, this has given energy companies little incentive to retrofit homes in London when they can do it much cheaper in other regions.

The energy companies’ shortfall has been matched by a failure of the mayor to deliver his own target to retrofit 200,000 homes in London by 2012. In the end, the Mayor delivered in 88,000 homes.

What is worse, from this April the Mayor will no longer be directly funding home retrofit measures and will instead rely on those very same energy companies to retrofit London homes once the new Energy Company Obligation and Green Deal are fully introduced.

This is a dangerous strategy and one that could leave Londoners cold.

CERT essentially failed due to the lack of regional targets compelling energy companies to deliver their obligations in London – allowing a flight of measures out of London and into the regions where retrofitting was cheaper. But despite the stronger focus on solid wall insulation within ECO, these regional targets are still absent. Furthermore, the lack of interest so far in the Green Deal should be a worry for the Mayor.

But the situation is worse than that.

As a result of the gap between the end of the existing retrofitting schemes and the new schemes becoming fully functional, the Insulation Industry Forum predicted 625 jobs will be lost in London during 2013.

The energy secretary, Ed Davey, has failed to commit to introducing regional targets. Given the evidence, this should be a minimum assurance he – particularly as a London MP – should be instituting within the scheme. Without this the government is letting down hard pressed households who could desperately use a little help to reduce their energy bills.

This blog was published on Left Foot Forward on the 1st of Feb, Fuel Poverty awareness day.

Londoners shouldn’t be left out in the cold

Since April 2008 energy companies have been required to deliver home insulation measures to households as part of the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target. However, Energy Savings Trust figures show that while 14.7% of homes nationally have received measures, the number for <city w:st=”on”><place w:st=”on”>London</place></city> is only 7.2%.  The figures for the following boroughs are:

  • <city w:st=”on”><place w:st=”on”>Westminster</place></city> ““ 2.1%

  • Kensington & Chelsea ““ 0.9%

  • <city w:st=”on”><place w:st=”on”>Kingston-Upon-Thames</place></city> ““ 7.7%

  • <city w:st=”on”><place w:st=”on”>Richmond-Upon-Thames</place></city> ““ 4.6%

  • Hounslow ““ 5.9%

The figures are bad news for the Boris Johnson, who has himself failed to meet his own target to retrofit 200,000 homes by 2012, delivering only 67,000. From April the Mayor will no longer be directly funding home retrofit measures and will instead rely on energy companies to deliver such measures.

As a result of the gap between the end of the existing retrofitting schemes and the new schemes becoming fully functional, the Insulation Industry Forum predicted that 625 jobs will be lost in <city w:st=”on”><place w:st=”on”>London</place></city> during 2013.

Labour Londonwide Assembly Member Murad Qureshi said:

“With energy prices rising by up to 11 per cent this winter, fuel poverty is becoming an even bigger problem in <city w:st=”on”><place w:st=”on”>London</place></city>. But, with only half the number of homes receiving insulation measures in <city w:st=”on”>London</city> compared to elsewhere in the <country-region w:st=”on”><place w:st=”on”>UK</place></country-region>, it is not just on pricing that Londoners are getting a raw deal from energy companies.

“Given that mayoral investment in home insulation will end soon and that the energy companies have completely failed to help Londoners save money and keep warm, I worry that we will continue to see more Londoners having to choose between heating, eating and paying the rent.

“On Fuel Poverty Awareness Day I encourage all Londoners who are struggling to heat their homes to ensure they are getting all the help available. It should not be a choice between food and fuel. It is essential that energy companies do all they can to help Londoners reduce their fuel consumption and live in more energy efficient homes. Energy companies are not doing enough to deliver on their responsibilities and Londoners are being left out in the cold.”

Ends

Notes

1.      Murad Qureshi is a Londonwide Assembly Member and Labour Group spokesperson on environment and health issues.

2.      Energy Saving Trust CERT Summary Report can be found here http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Publications2/Housing-professionals/HEED-PDFs/HEED-publications-for-UK/CERT-reports-Q16/CERT-Summary-Report-Q16-by-Local-Authority

3.      The London Assembly Health and Public Services Committee’s Fuel Poverty report can be found here http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Fuel%20poverty%20-%20Final%20report.pdf

999 services “devastated” in Westminster

The Mayor is accused of holding “˜sham consultations’ across London for his draft Police and Crime Plan. The Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime Stephen Greenhalgh will be attending the consultation in Westminster tonight but as yet the Mayor has not attended any of the consultation sessions.

Across London, 999 services are being threatened:

<dir><dir>

The London Fire Brigade’s budget has been cut by the Mayor and government by £45 million for the next two years. Boris Johnson wants to close 12 fire stations, lose 18 fire appliances and axe 520 firefighter posts

London Ambulance Service is currently being cut by £53 million (19%) of it’s budget by 2015/16, resulting in 890 job cuts, of which 560 will be frontline jobs

The Metropolitan Police have already lost 2,147 police officers and 1,682 PCSOs since May 2010. The Mayor has earmarked 65 police stations and front-counters for closure. The Met’s own Chief Financial Operating Officer has labelled the Met’s Budget for the coming year as ‘very risky’

NHS London delivered efficiency savings of around £1 billion in 2011/12 and is committed to further savings of £600 million in 2012/13 and £500 million in 2013/14. Eight

A&Es are due to be closed across London

Murad Qureshi is a Labour Londonwide Assembly Member

The Metropolitan Police’s Chief Financial Operating Officer spoke at the London Assembly Budget and Performance Committee, 9th January 2013.

</dir></dir>

"I’m concerned that cuts to frontline services in Westminster will place immense pressure on an already stretched ambulance service. The government and the Mayor are cutting too far, too fast and these cuts will inevitably endanger families and communities across the capital.

"The Mayor can’t give a straight answer about the affect on the London Ambulance Service of his proposed cuts, particularly with the proposed closure of eight A&Es across London. Under current plans, with London’s population both growing and ageing, the London Ambulance Service which operates across London is set to bear the brunt."

Ends

Notes

<dir><dir></dir></dir>

SOS for Lewisham A&E

 

The front of the demo last saturday at Lewisham

The front of the demo last saturday at Lewisham

Last Saturday, in a show of solidarity, l joined the huge demo in Lewisham over the proposed closure of the A&E at Lewisham Hospital. The banner which caught my eye the most during the demo was one saying “We can bail out the banks but not the hospitals”.  It makes the point well.  Indeed, the banks were bailed out for hundreds of billions of pounds whilst hospitals are asking for a relatively small proportion of that sum – tens of millions to help them survive. 

In the case of Lewisham Hospital, the problem stems from the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) which the South London Health Trust (SLHT) entered into to redevelop two other hospitals. The government plans are to save the PFI by sacrificing Lewisham Hospital. 

The point about PFIs started me thinking. In London, we had similar private finance procurement brought back into the public domain. Yes, it was a Tory Mayor; Boris Johnson who brought the PPP on the tube up-grade back in-house after the government imposed the contract on TfL. So why can’t the same be done with PFIs? After all, it’s not as though the British banking fraternity doesn’t owe us a few favours!  What we need is for the Trusts to opt out of these PFIs with are saddled with huge annual fees and which cut into the operating costs of the hospitals.  If Government policy centred more on saving hospitals, rather then closing them down, as it did with the banks, these proposals would look a lot less like an ideological drive towards reducing public services. 

We will hear this afternoon the fate of Lewisham A&E from the State of Secretary for Health, Jeremy Hunt.  It is clearly a much loved and well run emergency service.  The recommendation to close this special service from the Trust Special Administrator (TSA) should be thrown out as Lewisham which is not even part of the South London Healthcare NHS Trust, is being targeted in a re-organisation of services across the area following the trust’s financial problems. If the Secretary of State does follow the TSA recommendation it will rightly face a legal challenge by Lewisham Council. 

For further information on the PFI arrangement, analysis of it within the South London Health Trust (SLHT) and the impact on Lewisham hospital, please visit www.PeopleBeforeProfit.org.uk.

Poor air quality causes deaths in London as well

Dear Editor,

I read with much interest your editorial ‘Smoke Alarms’ on air pollution in China of the 19th of January.

You are right to say air pollution has a human and economic cost in Chinese cities, but let’s not forget it is still an issue in London today. Every year nearly 4,300 premature deaths result from the poor air quality London. That is almost 20 times the number of road fatalities. In fact, in the central London boroughs of Westminster, Camden and Kensington & Chelsea the problem is so bad that 8.3 per cent of all deaths can be attributed to air pollution. It is a silent killer.

London’s problem is not getting better either. Nitrogen dioxide levels in several areas across the capital are already many times above Government annual limits for 2013. So while the problem in London is not as acute as in Chinese cities, it is a serious policy concern that the Mayor has utterly failed to get a grip of.

Murad Qureshi AM

The letter was published in the FT Weekend of the 26th of January 2013.

Municipal capitalism comes down to London

Manchester Airport Group comes down to London

 

Following last weekend’s announcement that Manchester Airport Group (MAG) were successful in bid for Stansted airport, it appears that Greater Manchester local authorities will now have more say on the operational side of aviation in London & the South-East then any London authority, let alone the Mayor of London.  

The Stansted sale is part of the drive by Britain’s competition regulator, The Competition Commission to loosen the grip of Heathrow Airport Holdings – formerly BAA – on the UK airport market and in particular in London & the South-East.  When the Competition Commission broke-up the monopoly that BAA had over the London market, it precipitated BAA’s biggest marketing drive in a an effort to convince us how desperately we needed an expanded Heathrow for the sake of our economy.   This was not surprising in some ways, as BAA had in effect a private monopoly of airports in London & the South East with its holding, not only of Heathrow, but also Stansted & Gatwick.  If anything, this break up should have happened earlier, when BAA was first privatised.  For the London consumers of air travel, whether for business or leisure, this should result in more choice as we see all three airports now competing.     

So where are MAG getting the £1.5 billion to fund the acquisition? Well to reassure residents of the North West, it’s not their councils who sit on the board of MAG who are putting up the cash.  Its largest stake holder is Manchester City Council with 55 per cent; the other local councils in Greater Manchester – Bolton, Rochdale, Stockport, Wigan, Salford, Tameside, Oldham, Trafford & Bury – have a 5 per cent stake each.

As part of the transaction, Australian infrastructure investment group Industry Funds Management (IFM) will become an investor in MAG, invest new equity and take a 35.5 percent stake in the enlarged group. So whilst it is at present publically owned by local authorities from the North-West, its being partly privatised to fund the new acquisition, though the majority control will remain amongst the local authorities.

Interestingly, although we are growing accustomed to the annual adverse impact of snow on UK aviation, when the first recent bout occurred in December 2010, Manchester airport was seen as a beacon of good practise in the way it handled heavy snow “up North” much better then the “southern softie” Heathrow airport. In fact it was used to illustrate an instance where public ownership had out performed its private counterpart.

But lets not get to starry eyed about it all, as the leader of Manchester City Council, Sir Richard Leese has said ” MAG is a key driver  of jobs and growth in the north of England and the acquisition of Stansted will help us deliver maximum value for Manchester City Council and the other local authority shareholders”

So while London local authorities and the Mayor are kept out of the action, a majority publically owned airport operator like MAG, (albeit partly privatised to fund the purchase of Stansted) is leading the way when it comes to the implementation of competition policy. It has a ring of municipal capitalism from “up North” about it, which has made its way down South, nonetheless,  I certainly welcome it.