The groups, including representatives in Kent, are opposed to plans to build an enormous hub airport off Kent.

Originally mooted by London Mayor Boris Johnson, Boris Island was said to be a 20-year project costing anything up to £70billion.

Then, in November last year, world-renowned architect Lord Foster unveiled a more ambitious project on the Hoo Peninsula.

If built, it would more than double the capacity of Heathrow, handling up to 150 million passengers each year, 24 hours every day. It would have four runways, each 4km long.

But both projects have attracted huge criticism, including attacks from Medway Council, which claims the project is unviable, expensive and an environmental hazard.

Now demonstrators are set to gather at City Hall – just one day after Mr Johnson said he was committed to pushing through the scheme.

They claim the Mayor has championed the scheme in the face of opposition from local politicians and environmental campaigners and despite the Estuary being beyond London’s borders.

Campaigners from No Estuary Airport, the Campaign against Climate Change and AirportWatch will be joined at their protest by London Assembly members Jenny Jones, Caroline Pidgeon and Murad Qureshi.

Phil Thornhill from the Campaign against Climate Change said: “There is at the moment no way of sustaining air travel on a large scale without precipitating a potentially catastrophically high level of climate destabilising emissions which will wreck the future for everyone.

“Boris Island is not the answer. We need to think more deeply and imaginatively on how we organise transport systems for the future that are truly sustainable.” 

Click here to view article

Afghanistan is set to dominate the discussions of NATO 2012 Chicago summit this coming weekend. This all the while when Afghanistan is a tragedy and not one the West is ever going to end particularly if its not going to deal with key issues like the Durand line and Pashtun nationalism.

The Soviet Union were there for most of the 1980’s and had to retreat and the only person who appears to have survived going through there has been Alexander the Great locally still known as Sukindar. Thats not surprising as he was just passing through and not setting up camp for a decade or so, something NATO & the Soviet Union should have both learnt before getting involved. 

But  you do have to ask what the North Altantic Treaty Organisation(NATO) is doing in South Asia in the first place? South Asia is a mighty long way from the Atlantic and NATO principal region of operation is Europe when it was orginally set-up. Don’t forget the premise of the alliance was to  ” keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down” in Europe.

But l don’t have much hope for this summit on Afghanistan by NATO, if its not going to deal with the Durand line dispute and Pashtun nationalism demands. Particularly if the main players in the region are not there as well. If these issues and actors  are ignored, all peaceful efforts going for the last ten years would go in vain and the whole region once again turn into devastating political turmoil.  I personally blame British imperialists like Durand that hatched up such lines in the first place!  

Ethnic map of the Pakistan & Afghanistan

 

Mayoral obsession - Thames Estuary Airport

During the recent GLA election period we had a debate at the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) where we heard why a Thames Estuary airport is not a viable option for providing additional national hub runway capacity for London and the South-East.

Firstly this is not a new idea at all.  Different versions of the same idea have been around since 1943 and  been rejected every time.  Most recently we’ve had the Mayor’s proposal in Shivering Sands and the Foster proposal in the Isle of Grain to consider.

Secondly, its not clear where the space for the airport actually exists in the Thames Estuary anyway.  The coastlines along both Kent & Essex are largely protected,  and we have busy shipping lanes and wind farms being constructed.  Lets not also forget what the CEO of NATs Richard Deakins recently said of the Foster proposal, that its in the worst position possible for incoming flights into London!  Willie Walsh of British Airways has  also been quoted as saying “…..its only for the birds”.

The proposal also poses a real threat to the West London economy as Heathrow is responsible for 114,000 jobs and gross value added of £ 5.3 billion.  That’s 1 in 5 jobs locally.  The reality is that any Thames Estuary airport proposal is only viable if Heathrow is closed and air traffic is forced East.  Quite simply,  two hubs in London is not viable and it’s not clear that either passengers or the airlines are willing to go there (judging by Medway council’s survey of the airlines and GLA Economics Report ” Come fly with me”.

It goes without saying that the wildlife and local environment impact is huge, with the propsed sites in the middle of one of the most important sites for wild birds in Europe.  This could easily cause noise, congestion and pollution problems in outer London suburbs like Bromley, Bexley and Havering as well.  

In the meantime, we are seeing better efficiencies in managing airports.  For example the A380 double decker planes landing at Heathrow have increased the passenger capacity of  Heathrow airport greatly without causing too much local environmental concerns like noise and air pollution.  Indeed if you consider available capacity by passenger numbers, there is potential across all the “London” airports.  For example at Heathrow another 20 million passengers can be accommodated at the terminals.

In short,  this is not the revolutionary new idea we have been led to believe.  The space for it is questionable & the Mayor does not have any juridiction over the Estuary anyway.  There is also the threat to Heathrow and the West London economy; and of course the biggest question about the threat to the environment in the Estuary.  What we need is a different approach altogether which links up the spare capacity amongst “London” airports with better links and connectivity between airports.

For all these reasons and more l’ll be joining the protests outside City Hall on Friday morning against the Mayor’s support for the crazy old idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary.

On 3rd May Londoners face a choice between a Labour Mayor and a Tory Mayor. That choice is this simple, and its a clear choice that matters on May 3. It’s a choice between a Conservative party that will carry on ripping off Londoners and a Labour party determined to make you better off.

The Conservative Party has:

• Pushed Britain back into recession
• Hiked up bus, rail, Tube, tram and DLR fares
• Introduced a ‘granny tax’ to fund a tax-cut for the rich
• Hit young people and students, including scrapped the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA)
• Cut funding for childcare
• Allowed rip-off energy companies to hike up bills

A Labour Mayor of London would:

•  Cut fares, saving the average fare-payer £1,000 over four years
•  Reverse Boris Johnson’s police cuts
• Create a £30-a-week London EMA for 16-19 year olds
• Provide grants and loans for childcare 
• Offer Londoners cheaper electricity and heating through a London Energy Co-op
• Oppose the granny tax paid for by the tax cut for the richest – and freeze Council Tax

The central choice on Thursday is between a Conservative Party continuing to rip you off, or a Labour Party that will make you better off.

Don’t let the Tories get away with it. Vote Labour in London on Thursday.

Offending islamophobic comments in London Elects booklet

Having had a number of constituents complain to me about an offending islamophobic remark in the GLA election booklet on page 9, I have written a letter of complaint to London Elects, the election commissioners of the GLA election on the 3rd of May.  

The offending  quote from Robert West reads  ” I’m backing BNP because they support our traditional christian faith. We need strong leadership to protect our national identity from the threat of Islam ”   This is clearly islamophobic in its intent.

In my letter I have asked London Elects to explain how it saw fit to sanction such  islamophobic comments.  It is simply not good enough for them to tell us it’s not its role to make value judgements about the contents of the booklet from all the various political parties.  Such remarks fall foul of Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, as it denotes that all persons of the islamic faith pose a threat to the wider population.  This is not only untrue, it is also detrimental to race relations between different faith communities to promote this belief.

Public authorities like London Elects must have due regard to the need to “eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited under the Act….and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it”   This has clearly not happened in this instance.

All this when l had earlier in the week complained about London Elects permitting political slogans on the ballot paper.  Lawyers at London Elect need to consider this again along with how the islamophobic comments were permitted to be published in the first place.  

Unfortunately, the damage has been done because the booklet has already hit the door mats of millions of homes!  Furthermore the quote from Robert West can also be found on the London Elects website. This at least can be dealt with and must be taken down immediately. You can email them at info@londonelects.org.uk or phone 020 7983 4444 to complain.

Ultimately the best way to counter this injustice now, would be to make sure that the BNP does not get another one of its numbers back into the London Assembly as they did in 2008.  For this, we have to make sure that enough people vote across all the political parties to ensure the BNP do not make the 5 per cent threshold needed to get one of their Assembly Member which were only serve to peddle further their islamophobic views.

I hope all readers will go out next Thursday and use their vote to stop this threat and such negatives messages reaching voters again next time round.

Offending ballot paper with slogans!

Like many over this past weekend, l received my postal vote for the GLA election which will take place on the 3rd of May.  There are 3 three ballot papers and the one which caught  my eye is the pink one, which is the vote for the Assembly across London.  There are some parties who have incorporated tag lines or slogans beside their name which is clearly designed to nab voters at the very last moment by igniting an emotional reaction in voters encouraging a reactionary vote.  For example, number 2 on the ballot is the Christian Peoples Alliance with the linet ” Supporting traditional marriage”    This continues further down the ballot paper to number 4 where the English Democrats tell us their are ” Putting England first!”.  Then at number 8 we have the National Front saying its ” Putting Londoners First” and finally number 9 is the House Party with the line ” Homes for Londoners”.  It seems to me, that these smaller parties are being allowed to bend the rules in order to help them get some last minute campagining across to voters at the critically point at which boxes are ticked off.  

Both the major parties could quite easily have slogans of their own, for example the Tories could have “The Boris Party” after its name.  Labour could have “For the many not a few”?

There is also another dimension which strikes me in this, and that is the prejudices which are revealed in the slogans .  For example, the Christian People’s Party seem to be having a go at homosexuality and the plethora of other relationships which exist outside of wed-lock.  Should those who are have to face these prejudices and indeed the rest of voters have to face these sorts of subliminal prejudices at the point of voting?  The English Democrats and National Front on the other hand are trying to define who is one of them, again in a subliminal way trying to exclude many of the communities in London.

The Election Commission should not have allowed any such slogans in the first place.  Although, as much as these slogans are used to identify certain types of parties, voters can also use them to identify who not to vote for!  It is probably premature to start mentioning any lessons to be learned from this forthcoming election but I hope that this is one practice which will not be carried through to the elections in 2016.

The much-loved “snackeria” in Charing Cross Road was originally set to close next month after the council granted developers Montagu Evans and freeholder Gascoyne Holdings Ltd permission to convert the famous deli into a premises suitable for a chain café.

But its proprietor, Gaby Elyahou, said Gascoyne Holdings Ltd, the company of landowner the Marquess of Salisbury, had now informed him he could stay open until August.

Gaby’s, which was established in 1965, serves up delicious and affordable salad, falafel, salt beef and Mediterranean dishes.

Soho resident and longtime campaigner David Bieda, who has supported the campaign to save Gaby’s, stopped off in the deli on Wednesday to congratulate Mr Elyahou on the apparent stay of execution.

He was joined by Labour London Assembly Member and Marylebone resident Murad Qureshi, who has written to the Marquess of Salisbury and this week received a lengthy reply confirming that he was aware of the furore around the Gaby’s saga.

The deli is popular with actors including Simon Callow and Henry Goodman, who have performed there in support of the Save Gaby’s campaign.

View article here

SRtRC dvd on homophobia

Last night at the new HQ of Unison in Euston, l attended the launch of the Show Racism the Red Card(SRtRC) dvd against homophobia.

As ever,  SRtRC demonstrated their credentials as an organisation comiiteed to promoting equality in all walks of life by venturing into this arena when they could have stuck with their normal ground in tackling racism in sport.  It’s difficult enough to deal with racism in its many forms like the recent growth in islamophobia, let alone homophobia at the sametime.  It was only after the careful cultivation of the Northern Rock Foundation, that they moved into this altogether different front.  And we are all the better for it, judging by the contents of the dvd launched yesterday.  It was immediately apparent to me that SRtRC’s experience with dealing with racism will be very useful in the battle against homophobia.

Yet showing homophobia the red card in football is clearly going to be more challenging then in cricket and rugby were we  at least have players confident enough to “come out”  like Gareth Thomas and Steven Davies respectively.  You only have to look at the Justin Fashanu case to realise it’s a particularly charged issue in the dressing rooms of many football clubs with well groomed footballers being labelled as being gay on the terraces.  Football needs a different approach as no doubt social class may well be playing apart here.  It’s the only factor that may divide the game from rugby and cricket. 

This said, learning to tolerate  players regardless of their sexual orientation is not the only lesson  football could learn from these other popular field sports in the UK in such a social campaign.  For example, they could adopt TV replays when critical decisions have to be made on the field of play by referees – this is an aside I know, but one I couldn’t resist after last weekend’s football events.