It’s a week now since l returned from watching the 2010 World Cup as one of a million spectators from aboard, hosted more than ably by the South Africans with the infamous vuvuzela and Makoya fun helmets, giving it all a distinctive African feel. Now, l ask myself what’s to be learnt from the World Cup 2010? Well, firstly, the World Cup has given South Africa something intangible and priceless: a deep sense of pride that it has taken on something difficult and done it well in the eyes of the world. Not surprisingly, many in Jo’berg want to build on the World Cup energy and collective spirit in the fight against crime and poverty.
Crime was a major apprehension for many sports fans going to the World Cup, but it transpired that crime was down some 60 per cent overall during the whole tournament, without a serious incident of any sort in areas like central Cape Town and Jo’berg. The tough job will be now maintaining that very low level of crime after the games with at least a commitment to maintaining the resources used to achieve that degree of policing during the tournament.
There is of course huge inequality in South Africa, with much grinding poverty, and pessimists have asked whether the world cup should have been the priority. But with the government’s proud boast that 2.7 million houses have been built in 14 years and 13 million are now in subsidised housing, they have had some success in changing the townships for the better for black South Africans. It’s clear that as South Africa leads the way in uniting Africa, global business will operate from a base there. Many of the local sponsors of the World Cup put out very strong pan-African messages, like the MTN mobile operator with its United Africa theme. Instinctively anyway many South Africans supported other African teams like Ghana once their own boys – bafana, bafana – were knocked out in earlier stages.
The world cup was also South Africa’s first real attempt at providing a modern, mass transit system with the new Gautrain in Jo’berg. Under the Apartheid regime, mass transit was primarily geared towards black people in dormitory townships, while whites were provided with world-class roads to get them to work. Although this may not have a significant benefit for poor commuters yet, with such viable alternatives in place, people may be encouraged out of their cars and onto public transport, which will in turn reduce congestion for all commuters, rich and poor alike. This is a legacy that can stand as a reminder of the unity that hosting the World Cup brought to South Africa.
l wish South Africa much success in its bid to hold the first Olympics on African soil in 2020 and this appears to be actively encouraged by the IOC with FIFA support. However, they need to sort out which city it should be based around – Jo’berg, Durban or Cape Town. They certainly have the stadiums and the infrastructure to put a very good case in all 3 cities. We could also certainly learn a thing or two from them like how to hold fan fests on big TV screens, as required by FIFA but which we lamentably failed to provide during the World Cup in London. A not too dissimilar failure to that of the England team performance, but that was to be expected. As Harold Wilson once said in 1966: “Have you ever noticed how we only win the world cup under a labour government?”
July 22, 2010
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.
June 24, 2010
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.
June 18, 2010
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.
As for the Mayor suggesting he should get some sort of funding transfer to run the PLA, this is somewhat reflects rather badly on the Boris administration as the PLA is self-financing with no recall to public funds. But then this is hardly surprising, given that at the beginning of the year, Boris’s favourite think tank, Policy Exchange put out a report called “At a Rate of Knots” which originally suggested the idea of Mayoral control over the PLA Unfortunately their report contained some basic arithmetic errors about the level of subsidies that the passenger service already gets from TfL. Please check my blog on this with the attached link; http://blog.muradqureshi.com/the-thames-highway-dodgy-dossier-faulty-arithmetic/.
This clearly suggested that the policy wonks could not grasp some basic facts & figures, so it’s hardly surprising if they still think the PLA benefits from public funding.
So certainly watch this space on the battle for the PLA.
June 18, 2010
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.
June 17, 2010
Previous page
