Since the scandal surrounding the resignation of Dominique Strauss-Kahn from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) broke, you’d be forgiven for thinking the inevitable because judging by the glowing words in leading papers across Europe and the US, it appears that it is a fait accompli that it will be Ms Lagarde, Finance Minister of France who will be replacing him.  

A not so dissimilar thing happened when the American Robert Zoellick walked (some would say strolled) into the World Bank job when Paul Wolfowitz resigned.  So the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) are right to challenge this and the continued duopoly of Europe and the USA over the IMF and the World Bank respectively. 

The IMF & the World Bank were founded as the two main financial organisations of the post-war economic restructuring. Though their roles have changed over time, their symbolism remains constant, particularly in asserting the importance of economic co-operation against isolationism.   However, this principal should be extended further so that the choice of leaders at their head becomes more transparent and open rather then a political stitch up.   We could for example, learn from the appointment of the Director General of the World Trade Organisation. This was a hotly contested battle the last time with the two leading candidates splitting their term between Mr Michael Moore of New Zealand and Dr Supachai Panitchpakdi of Thailand.
 

However, it is not only the structural nature of the IMF, which has been called into question.  It should also reflect on its stagnant economic ideology. Take for example the response to the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98.  During the 1990’s, the IMF developed an economic philosophy whereby it issued large rescue loans contingent on extensive “conditionality” generally including tight fiscal policy, widespread privatisation and other structural reform.  Namely, most fund members believe in markets and market-based solutions to problems, which is quite different from the interventionist instincts of many in Asia. The application of this philosophy in the Asian financial crisis of 1997/98 caused lingering resentment among some emerging market borrowers forced to undertake extensive medium term restructuring of their economies in return for short-term crisis loans.   
 

Added to this mix is the rapidly evolving global economy which has changed radically particularly with the rise of the emerging economies.  For example, the huge US current account deficit is financed by the inflow of surplus savings from countries like China. According to the IMF’s own statistics, the share of the EU in global output and purchase power parity, will shrink from 25 per cent in 2000 to 18 per cent in 2015 reflecting well the growth in South-South trade particularly between India & China. Appointing an IMF MD from outside Europe would be a belated but significant recognition of this shift in economic influence. Indeed the G7 forum of the main industrialised economies has naturally expanded to become G20, to reflect this change.  Is it not time, therefore, for the IMF and World Bank to do the same with its share-holding make up? On the IMF Executive Board the US and European Union countries are dominant with their respective 17 and 32 per cent share blocks.  How then, can the Dutch continue to sustain a similar shareholding to India?
 

Also the leading candidate is not without baggage. The first thing to land in the IMF in-tray for the new MD is the impending Euro zone crisis again.  Ms Lagarde has a public record of defending the indefensible according to the Economist magazine, as she has already played a central role in forming the euro zone’s response to its debt crisis.  Here the IMF would have to be an impartial arbiter of good economic policy and thus the only organisation, which could force a rethink of the euro zone strategy towards Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Could the poacher really become game keeper, and retain creditability on this critical issue? This when it is regarded that the IMF has been soft on Europe so far and a lot tougher with Asian countries during its financial crisis in the late 1990s. 
 

So with the 10th of June deadline fast approaching, a stitch-up would truly be a disgrace.  Such powerful and influential international posts like this should be filled according to merit. Otherwise, what’s the difference between this selection process and the FIFA election of its “President for Life”, Sepp Blatter which we recently witnessed? 

At least each country’s football federation shared an equal vote, as opposed to the share percentage bias enjoyed by the US and Europe on the IMF Executive Board.  This must change as well, but first Europe’s monopoly on the IMF leadership needs to end.  If it refuses to change, then its very relevance within the global economy will inevitably be called into question, particularly with the increasingly relevant and influential emerging economies. 

Click here to view full article

Managing demand better with water meters is one of the ways forward in reducing our demand for water during the summer

Before the news hit the Radio and papers today, l’d already been asking the relevant authorities like Thames Water and the Environment Agency about the likelihood of a drought in London given the picture in other parts of the country like the East of England.

Looking at the latest assessment of water resources in London, I’ve been told the following; Firstly, the first quarter of the calendar year (Jan-March) saw  83% of the long term average rainfall, however March was unseasonally dry as we had only 22 % of the long term average rainfall.  This was followed by an exceptionally dry April.  Nevertheless, Thames Water do not anticipate having to impose restrictions at this time like a hosepipe ban.

The call comes in the Assembly’s response to the Mayor’s final Air Quality Strategy which sets out City Hall’s policies and measures to tackle poor air quality which is linked to an estimated 4,300 premature deaths every year.

Assembly Members are calling on the Mayor to set tougher targets than required by European standards. AMs also back the Mayor’s calls for Ministers to devise an national plan to deal with nitrogen dioxide.

Murad Qureshi, Chair of the Environment Committee said: “London’s poor air quality has a serious impact on the health of Londoners and contributes to thousands of people dying prematurely each year.

“We welcome the Mayor’s commitment to reducing pollution in the capital and are pleased he has taken on board some of our recommendations. However, he needs to aim even higher if he really wants to clean up London’s air.”

Click here to view the full article

With the capital on the brink of surpassing the EU’s regulations on particulate matter (PM10), the Commission insisted the city provide updated proposals on air monitoring by this deadline.

It is thought that London could be on the receiving end of a £300 million fine if action is not taken to cut down on emissions.

Despite feeling confident that the plans will appease the Commission, the London Assembly has called on mayor Boris Johnson to be even more ambitious with his targets.

Indeed, chair of the Environment Committee Murad Qureshi said he was pleased that Mr Johnson had taken the group’s recommendations on board, but more needs to be done.

"London’s poor air quality has a serious impact on the health of Londoners and contributes to thousands of people dying prematurely each year," he remarked.

A number of measures have been taken to reduce London’s PM10 levels and a new prototype green bus is currently undergoing trial ahead of a possible launch across the city.

Click here to view full article

At this weeks plenary session at City Hall the Assistant Met Police Commissioner Tim Godwin was asked "can you guarantee that police numbers won’t reduce further?"

The Assistant Commissioner replied:

At the same time the Met are dropping Police Officers, they are also reducing Police Community Support Officers by almost 1,000 – leading to a significant fall in the uniformed policing presence in the capital.

There are also plans afoot to cut skilled and experienced officers from specialist units. Plans are being considered to cut the Met’s jewel in the crown – the Homicide and Serious Crime Command – moving some officers to Operations Trident and Sapphire but also losing another 60 specialist officers.

London Assembly Member Murad Qureshi said: "the Mayor must stop playing politics with Londoner’s safety. This Government’s cuts supported by this Mayor are clearly having a detrimental impact on the Met’s ability to maintain police numbers"

Murad goes on " Specialist units like Operation Trident, the Met’s specialist black-on-black crime unit will also be overloaded with more work and therefore risk losing their focus . This service has an excellent record of achievement which simply cannot be sustained with the scale of cuts proposed"

Ends

Notes

1. Murad Qureshi is a London wide Assembly member.

2. In the Met’s 2011-14 Policing Plan, police numbers in London are set to decline by almost a thousand from the peak level of 33,260 last year down to 31,460 by 2014. The Policing Plan identifies savings of £163m in 2011/12, rising to £322.8m in 2013/4. However, even with these savings, there will be a budget gap for the following years projected to be a massive £92.8m in 2012/13 rising to £174.3m in 2013.

3. Operation Trident details:

Key Responsibilities:

Key Units:

For further information please contact Nikki Salih on 020 7983 4400

In the Mayors column today in the Daily Telegraph, he clearly thinks as the saying goes ” Football is the gentlemen game played by thugs while rugby is the thugs game played by gentlemen”. Such class distinctions are clear as hell in London and l’m glad to say that when l choose my secondary school it came down to a simple choice between Marylebone Grammar school which played rugby or Quintin Kynaston comprehensive which played football. This for myself was a very straight forward choice to make for the beautiful game.

As for the Champions league final itself, l thought we were still just in the game after the first half but got taken apart in the second, as we gave them far to much space in the front of our box and didn’t have enough counter attacks. I would have played Fletcher in the second half to cover the hole which Messi exploited but that’s history now. As for the different styles of play between the English and Spanish game, this was also evident in the school teams l played for in West London. As the Spanish School in London had a very particular way of playing which was far more skillful but we often overcame with a distinctly English game. Who knows when the English game will rein supreme again in European football as it has in previous eras but the distinctions are much more blurred now as the United team that played was very much a multi-racial and cultural one with a Mexican, Korean and Ecaduorian playing in the first team and play in a style in the premiership where United can itself dominate possession just like FC Barca did on the night.  

How did London come out of it all? I suspect many more watch this game and us hosting the final then the figures put around in the media. Its well known that it was prime time TV in Mexico, Korean and yes even Egypt, illustrating well the global reach of the game. This was the biggest club fixture in the world where the teams are often much better then those that national sides can put together for the World cup tournament. So l am very surprised at the rather low figures of the global audience for the game in comparison for example with the recent Royal Wedding. If its suggested that some 2 billion watched the wedding then given the reach football has globally l am sure it would have had at least similar figures for the Champions League final. It would certainly be much greater audience then the Superbowl which is essentially just watched by North America and not the world like professional football. As the Champions League final in London at least offered the two best teams in Europe made up of stars from right across the football world on a saturday evening for the first time.  

As for the travel arrangements these could have been much better in London over a bank holiday weekend for sports fans. As we didn’t just have the UEFA Champions League final but also the Aviva Premiership Rugby final between Leicester & Saracens at Twickenham on Saturday afternoon and the play-off between Reading & Swansea at Wembley on Monday. Its all very well getting the transport sorted for one-offs like the Olympics next year but can we get public transport sorted for these annual events as well. These annual sporting events are clearly important to the fans attracted by them but not a priority for public transport planning in London which my previouse investigation at the London Assembly investigated.

Britain uses more energy than it produces and the gap is set to widen as older power stations are shut down and North Sea gas and oil production declines.

Environment Chair Murad Qureshi said: "We’ve become dependent on foreign imports to sustain our energy demands which places us in a precarious position.

"London is a major power consumer, so we want to know how the Mayor and energy producers plan to increase production to close the gap and reduce future price hikes."

The Assembly’s environment committee is hearing about progress of a wind farm in the Thames Estuary and from producers about other possible forms of renewable energy to power London.

It is questioning the London wind farm project director Richard Rigg, the Association of Electricity Producers renewable energy chief Alastair Tolley, the GLA’s Climate Change policy manager Peter Daw and London Recycling Board’s business development chief Wayne Hubbard in a public meeting this-morning at City Hall, near Tower Bridge.

Click here to view the full article

Can we trust him whilst we are putting him up in London?

As Obama finally caught up with Osama last week in what has widely been attributed as an “extra judicial killing”, it was refreshing to note the Mayor of London in his regular Daily Telegraph column yesterday, also calling for universal acceptance that this was an “execution”. In fact, this is not a dissimilar position which Ken Livingstone expressed last week. Yet Ken’s views were labelled as “extreme”. I suspect that there will now be less finger pointing about this at Ken who wasthe first to articulate the views of a society who are accustomed to thinking within the parameters of the rule of law and due processes.

Interestingly, shortly after 9/11, Boris argued even more fervently, that in the interests of promoting civilisation above barbarism, them vs us etc, Bin Laden had to be put on trial. I totally concur but why is it then, that we continue to shield someone in London, who in all probability, knew that Osama Bin Laden was based in Pakistan during his reign?

We have to ask ourselves, why are we putting up people like, Parvez Musharraf, when he’s not been honest about the security risks to us all from his own country guests? After all he was the President during the 9/11 atrocities and a member of the army that runs Pakistan as a state within a state. I have indeed been asking these questions to the Mayor and not getting any straight answers, before the recent events. Maybe it’s now time that I did!

So while the Mayor also raises his own questions about whether we can trust Pakistani intelligence service, my question is whether we can trust the man at it’s head and whom we are having to put up in our city at Londoner’s expenses, Parvez Musharraf.

During a recent trip to Pakistan, David Cameron made the surprising admission that Britain was responsible for many of the world’s problems, including Kashmir. This was refreshing, especially coming from a British Prime Minister. The historian and Labour MP Tristram Hunt, on the other hand, in a recent Daily Mirror column concludes that Britain has little for which it needs to apologise. When the East India Company first went into India, it was because it was one of the richest places in the world.

When the British Raj left, it had become one of the poorest. Clearly, something happened in between which left India in such a state. But Hunt says little to address this. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s longest serving Prime Minister (1947-1964) in his book, The Discovery of India, gave the most powerful chronicle of the harm done by the combined impact of the East India Company and the British Raj. Nehru’s account concluded: “Those parts of India which have been the longest under British rule are the poorest today.” Bengal, Bihar and Orissa were a few of the examples he used. There was also much concern voiced by commentators in the United Kingdom about the mismanagement of the Empire. Adam Smith raged against the mercantile capitalism of the East India Company and others condemned the British Raj for being complicit in the Bengal famine of 1943. Other examples of the mess the British left was the creation of a Pakistan, which comprised of two areas with 1,000 miles between them and a potential adversary in-between. (It is not surprising the east abandoned the west part during the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971.) India was also left to deal with the princely states. These were given the option of remaining in India or opting out. This triggered the long-running dispute over Kashmir. To top it all, when independence was declared in August 1947, the boundaries of the two new states had yet to be disclosed to the general public, causing much of the panic that ensued and resulting in more than 500,000 deaths as 14 million people literally swapped countries. Many consider this episode to have been one of the worst cases of maladministration in the history of empires. Lord Moutbatten and Lord Radcliffe, who presided over the partitioning of India, have a lot to answer for. More recently, a group of elderly frail Kenyans from the Kikuyu tribe have began their High Court fight for compensation for the pain and suffering they endured in concentration camps during the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. They claim they suffered at the hands of the colonial regime after being detained and tortured by the British.

Some 20,000 people died in the camps. So I find myself defending the Prime Minister’s remarks on this subject. The history of India should serve as lesson for all of us. We should refrain from interfering in conflicts such as that in Kashmir. My grandfather taught me that history is often just the victor’s version of events. That’s something even respected historians such as Tristram Hunt would do well to remember.

Murad Qureshi is a Labour member of the London Assembly

Click here to view the full article

The Mayor announced the measures last November whereby two of London’s most polluted sites were treated with a dust suppressant solution with the intention that it would stick to the carriageway and stop the dangerous PM10 particles from circulating in the air.  The Mayor hailed this as a “wonderful contraption that tackles air quality head on” promising that it would “have an immediate impact on air quality in the most polluted areas of Central London”.

Last Thursday, the monitoring station at Marylebone Road recorded yet another “bad air day” for the 36^th time this year alone and is now up to 40.  This number exceeds the level of exceedances permitted by the EU for an entire year and comes 2 months earlier then it did last year.

Air quality in London is the worst in Europe and according to Boris Johnson himself contributes to the early deaths of more than 4,000 people in the city.

Murad Qureshi, Labour’s environment spokesman on the London Assembly, said: "The dust suppressant trial was simply a temporary measure by the Mayor to keep the EU off our backs with the threat of its £300million fine. I believe If Boris Johnson hadn’t abolished the Western Extension Zone, delayed the next phase of the Low emission zone applying to the most polluting vehicles and cancelled six monthly inspections for taxis then we would not be in such a bad state today”

Murad also says:

“ If the Mayor doesn’t take drastic action now, we are in serious danger of incurring major fines by the EU and confirming our position as the dirty man of Europe just before we host the Olympic games.  This while London risks breaching our undertaking to the IOC with regards to air quality standards during the games”

Ends

Notes

The Mayor’s scheme was announced on the 12^th November 2010

The EU exceedance is recorded on the London Air Quality Network website

Report of the IOC Evaluation Commission for the Games of the XXX Olympiad in 2012

For further information please contact Nikki Salih on 020 7983 4400