Here’s my February report - a little late but action packed as always! This was the month in which we finally finished debating the Mayor’s budget. Getting the budget out of the way, as the lead member and Budget Committee Chair, is a personal relief – it has taken up most of my time since about October. More pleasantly, February was also a month in which my Party has reselected me to be the candidate again next year. To those of you who played a role in this: thanks, and I will keep ploughing those furrows, subject to the will of the voters in 14 months time and my own good behaviour, of course.

The Mayor has, as always, had an interesting month. He got his budget through, and is clearly gearing up for the elections. In the budget debates, there were illuminating skirmishes which will help to set the terms for the election. As far as my interesting relationship with the Mayor is concerned, I have to report a big bust-up between us. This included my calling him a ‘lazy liar’ and being banned from speaking at the Assembly (even though the ban was lifted about an hour later). Hooligan behaviour perhaps but, remarkably, taken in good spirit by virtually everyone. Was I saying what others were thinking? An outrageous suggestion…….

The Budget

As stated, this was concluded this month. Because of the current balance of power in the Assembly, attempts by opposition members to amend his budget are an ultimately doomed exercise – in the end the Mayor gets his way, as the required 2/3rds vote is blocked by his supporters. However, that doesn’t stop us from having an illuminating debate, which can highlight areas of concern. Although a Mayor will rarely admit it, this type of examination does lead to changes. I have written extensively on this year’s budget already and there were no late surprises. In summary, the key points this year are:

•    The pressure of Government grant cuts inevitably meaning service cuts. City Hall has not however been treated as badly as some London Councils although grant cuts are still of the order of 20% over three years.
•    The Mayor’s claims he has protected services – this is less than clear
•    In particular, a bitter argument about cuts in police numbers. These are clearly happening but the Mayor is (sort of) pretending that they are not.  
•    Police number cuts this year cushioned by raiding reserves and using additional precept cut from elsewhere – a cynical pre-election manoeuvre?
•    Above inflation fare rises (7% this year) for this and future years.
•    A collapse in funding for jobs, training and regeneration at a time when London arguably needs it most.
•    A future threat to Fire Services, having raided their reserves this year.

The Police Numbers debate

Without a change of budget plans, police numbers would have gone down by 1100 this year, and again next year, as a consequence of a recruitment freeze. In his final budget, the Mayor has agreed a limited resumption of recruitment, and numbers will now only reduce by about 600 in next year’s budget. I welcomed this, naturally.

It was over the consequence for overall numbers that the Mayor and I had a row in the Assembly, in which I accused him of lying. He asserts that police numbers will have grown over his term in office, while I believe this is fairly clearly untrue. To the extent that it may be almost true this would be only as a result of recruitment during his first year as Mayor – which was under the final budget approved by Ken Livingstone, his predecessor.

It is unambiguously the case that police numbers went up steadily under Ken and that they have flat-lined and begun to fall under Boris Johnson. He is of course a Mayor who (says he) believes in ‘low taxes’ (even if not low fares) but, as they say, you cannot have your cake and eat it – the increased police in London were substantially funded by increased Council Tax. Reducing, or freezing, Council Tax will have the opposite effect. Police numbers, and the consequence for public safety and fear of crime, will be an election issue.

LDA Budget

You may recall that there was a delay in agreeing a budget for the London Development Agency – the body that brought us the Olympics and funds jobs, training, regeneration and plans for London’s economy into the future. From the Labour side, and while we have no problem with ‘folding’ the LDA into City Hall, we argue that these powers are necessary, and particularly so at a time of economic difficulty. The new Government is abolishing the LDA and doesn’t really agree with this. Although the Mayor broadly supports this view, he argues that London is a special case and that he still needs funds for these things – a curious position to take. There is an argument going on between City Hall and Government about future regeneration funding for London, which has still not been resolved. We do know, by the way, that the reduced funds, when they finally appear, will be a cut of about 70% on what the LDA had before – but haggling continues over the details.

The Mayor’s performance - concerns

All Mayors will defend their positions, but there is a widely held and deeper frustration with the present Mayor among Assembly members – that when he appears in front of us (and this happens elsewhere too) he simply doesn’t prepare. When he doesn’t know an answer he simply blusters, changes the subject or waffles. He has had the most expensive education money can buy (anywhere in the world… think about it) and so should know better but after three years his approach, initially a little disarming, is frustrating. More important, it is also extraordinarily discourteous to Londoners – he gives the impression he cannot be bothered to take his responsibilities seriously.

I think this character question is another election issue. A big challenge for those of us who think this, however, is the need to persuade the wider public to see through his charming, witty, entertaining manner to a similar conclusion. His charm remains a powerful and disarming weapon.  

Transport performance

It was always conveniently the case, under both the previous Mayor and the current one that tube failures could be blamed on the PPP, the private public partnership agreement created by Government to carry out the works and imposed on London when the GLA was created. As readers will know, this finally unravelled in 2010. As a result, the Mayor can normally no longer deflect performance issues to the contractors. It is becoming clear that performance of the tube, including frustration about weekend closures, which I know particularly wind-up many of you in City and East London, is a continuing problem and that there is a risk that the Mayor may be judged not to be getting a grip on this. It is interesting that the loss of the PPP ‘get out of jail free’ card is causing some political challenges for the Mayor, who is Chairman of Transport for London. This may become a further growing area of debate as the Mayoral election approaches. 

Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA)

Readers will know that the Government is replacing Police Authorities - in London’s case the MPA - with ‘Police and Crime Commissioners’. In the case of London, this will be the Mayor, who will be able to delegate the job to someone else – almost certainly under this mayoralty Kit Malthouse. At the same time, the London Assembly will become responsible for the scrutiny of the Mayor’s policing role. This is a big new role for the Assembly, although of course those members – currently I am one – who sit on the Police Authority will have considerably less committee work at Scotland Yard. Provisionally, the new arrangements will start on 1st October this year in London - the actual date depends on Parliament completing the legislation.

It is fair to say that this is a controversial proposal. The Mayor will assume additional powers, but of course alongside these come new responsibilities. Although I would prefer to stick with the current arrangements, I have less problem with this change than do many, as long as there is a proper transparency and accountability as a part of it. However, my fear is that Parliament will not get this right and that a combination of reduced transparency and maverick decision-making by the Mayor or his appointee will cause controversy and risk distracting us from the detailed day-to-day oversight of policing that London needs. With power concentrated in fewer hands, there is a risk of unhealthy and unaccountable relationships and power structures too. Such fears are being expressed in Parliament too. In the case of London there have already been a number of run-ins suggesting that this might be a quite likely risk here.

Olympic Stadium

The decision has been taken, and West Ham are to take over the Olympic stadium. I must declare that, by birth, I come from a ‘Tottenham Hotspur family’, and so part of me felt a little pang at the decision but that was personal. I remain unambiguously clear that from a regeneration and community point of view the West Ham decision, and their proposals, is the right one for m y constituents. And it, of course, avoids a potential catastrophe for the Tottenham area if they lost their club. Commercially it is clearly a shakier bid financially but that is perhaps the price for the community outputs. I will not summarise these here as they have been reported everywhere else.

I have two further thoughts. First, I have a feeling that we have not heard the very last of this matter …….  Money, and dual football-athletics use, may still prove a challenge. And second there is a wider risk that the excitement and attention-grabbing plans for the stadium might distract from the need for more comprehensive regeneration, involving existing communities, for a much wider area. Which takes us to the MDC.

Mayoral Development Corporation

The Government and Mayor have proposed that after the Olympics, a ‘Mayoral (Urban) Development Corporation’ (an MDC) will be created for the Olympic Park. This will substantially be the same as the LDDC but with a few quite important differences. I broadly support the idea but with some quite significant caveats, on which I will write in the next, or next but one, report.  

Thames Tideway Tunnel

You may be aware that Thames Water plans to build a ‘super sewer’, following a route from Hammersmith in West London beneath the Thames to Limehouse, in Tower Hamlets, then to West Ham, and then to Beckton sewage treatment plant, in Newham. Its purpose is to stop sewage from flowing at times of high rainfall into the Thames. I strongly support this but, as with all major construction projects, it causes problems. The biggest of these in East London is a plan to take over and build in the King Edward Memorial Park in Shadwell. The park would be returned after the works but it would be greatly altered and it would be disrupted for between 3 and 7 years. It is in an area with very little open space. I have decided to support the campaign. I have met with local residents to hear their worries, then with Thames Water to hear their response. I am hoping to take a deputation to meet the Mayor, who is currently not acknowledging these local concerns, and to change his mind.

Cyclists in the City (and elsewhere)

I tend to support cycling initiatives because they point to a calmer and more sustainable environment.  I have recently been copied into an email campaign from a group ‘Cyclists in the City’ about their concerns that the Corporation of London is not particularly sympathetic to their needs. On the back of this I met with the Corporation and discussed their concerns. I tend to agree that the City, while not hostile, does not give the same attention to cycling priority as most other Boroughs. Their argument is that their streets are pretty calm and safe anyway. I am examining their relative accident performance to try to understand this better. The City have a very clear view of their priorities for ‘Urban Realm’. I know that most people have an opinion on or experience of cycling/cyclists and I would be interested in hearing yours.

The A13 50mph scheme

This has finally been implemented, with average speed cameras over quite a long stretch of road, and with the speed limit raised. There is evidence to suggest that as a result the traffic will run more smoothly and accidents will fall. Lets see whether this happens – we are guinea pigs for London in this.

Finally - Olympic tickets

My position is that ordinary Londoners should not be squeezed out but the prices unveiled will for many Londoners be prohibitive. Given that the bid was won on the basis it would be affordable and inclusive this is a disappointment. Median gross household income in the 6 Olympic boroughs is £21,112 a year. The average price of the cheapest tickets is about £31. If you want to register for Olympic tickets go here: Registration for tickets for the Games