Ken Livingstone lost it completely in the last Mayor’s Question Time. Putunder what I thought was relatively mild pressure by a very basic questionover his plans for the proposed New Year’s Eve party Ken lost the plot, thenlost his rag – and then lost it altogether.

I was surprised because, apart from having an a tough time during theCongestion Charging scrutiny which I chaired, he has until now consistentlykept up the cheeky chappy act, – whether attacking the government over itsplans to privatise the tube (quite rightly), planning the demise of pigeonsin Trafalgar Square (quite rightly), championing the Euro (quite rightly) orbatting away questions at Mayor’s Question Time (Assembly must do better atputting him on the spot next time).

Ken’s explosion in the Assembly was quickly followed by a strong reluctanceto attend an evidence session of my scrutiny of the Mayor’s Draft TransportStrategy – the early blueprint for all of transport and traffic plans forLondon. In the event, he did attend to answer the panel’s questions. Thenature of this line by line scrutiny is to find the weaknesses so that theMayor can take on board the advice we give and amend the document, before itgoes out to public consultation in January.

During the session, when questioned over why there were no targets fortraffic reduction, the Mayor admitted that there would not be a reduction -there would be a reduction in traffic growth – but still an overallincrease. I pointed out to him that in his manifesto he had promised toreduce actual traffic by 15%. And then he said basically that manifestosdidn’t matter because you made lots of promises in them and they had nolegal basis. Well – it’s true that they don’t have a legal basis – but I dothink it’s a bit of an expectation between the people and the person thatthey elect that they will at least make a decent effort to keep theirpromises. Not surprisingly – that news was all over the front page of theStandard. And I don’t suppose Ken was very happy about that!

This was shortly followed by the announcement that the Mayor had cancelledthe London Summit (major event) and was cancelling everything to concentrateon the tube/privatisation issue. It’s a key issue in London – so I am gladhe is going to focus all his energy on that. Labour’s plans to privatise ourtube system will be a disaster. Sadly, Labour doesn’t seem to have learntanything from the mess the Tories made of privatising our railways – nordoes Labour seem willing to head the warnings of tragedies such as theHatfield crash. The only thing rarer at the moment than a train running ontime is a transport expert who hasn’t come out against Labour’sprivatisation plans. Expert after expert has condemned the plans, but whywon’t Labour listen?

I also wonder about Ken. The pressure is enormous. Peoples’ expectations areenormous. The structure of the Mayor and Assembly is such that whatever hedoes must face scrutiny. And when he’s under close scrutiny, his talents atpolitical spin and good one-liners don’t help much. And I think herein liesa difficulty for the Mayor. He is charming and witty and more able than mostpoliticians I have met – but an executive Mayor makes all the decisions andis accountable for those decisions.

And it’s proving tougher than he thought.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2000

It could have happened to anyone. In fact, it does on a daily basis – being caught in an ‘incident’ on the tube. And this time it wasn’t a broken escalator, signal failure or any of the myriad reasons we, the travelling public, are given for being treated like cattle. I travel everyday on the tube and am sadly only too used to the usual levels of discomfort or delay,but this time I felt in real danger.

I changed from the Northern Line to the District and Circle line at Embankment. It’s a nasty, thin platform at the best of times, and the morning rush hour is certainly not the best of times. This particular day it was already extremely crowded, when another packed train drew in. After a minute or so, a voice announced that everyone must get off the train. A security incident and a small fire meant the train had to be emptied.

In fact, the platform was so full to crushing, that the twelve hundred people packed onto the train couldn’t actually all get off. The platform guard was hectoring them through the microphone: ‘the sooner you get off,the sooner the train can move out’. Faultless logic, but asking the impossible.

To make matters worse, I saw that people were still trying to come down the stairs onto the platform from the ticket hall. Nothing had been done at that point to stop even more people joining the overcrowded platform – and action was only taken when I asked the platform guard to do so. At this point, I decided for my own safety, to leave the platform via a no-entry sign and walked to my destination. It was lucky for me that I only had needed to travel one more stop.

The platform had been so crowded that at one point when the platform guard received instructions via the emergency telephone to help the driver get the doors shut, his answer to his colleagues was, ‘I can’t get to the doors. I can’t move. I can’t get down the platform’.

I telephoned the Managing Director of London Underground. My call fell on stony ground. Eventually I got an answer on his behalf from his PA. Her view was that as no one had died, everything was fine and I clearly had not understood the safety procedures put in place by the people on the ground.

I remain unconvinced. If a train has to be emptied, whatever London Underground’s emergency procedures are, I don’t believe that any platform should ever get to the point where the platform guard cannot actually move.I may be wrong – but members of the public deserve answers. I would be interested to hear from anyone who has had experiences on the tube where they felt at risk from overcrowding. Please contact me using my online surgery.

But there is also a wider issue. The Labour government still wants to push ahead with the sell-off and privatisation of parts of our tube system. You might have thought they would have learnt from the state of our railways!But even on the tube itself the warnings are already there. The Health & Safety Executive has already warned about the safety problems caused by the “shadow running” London Underground is carrying out to practice for privatisation. And if privatisation goes ahead, the private companies will be permitted to let performance standards drop by up to 5% initially.

Mayor Livingstone has made some good first steps to improve our tube system,including bringing in Robert Kiley, who sorted out the New York subway.Labour should back-off from the obsession with privatisation and let people like Kiley get on with making the tube quick, safe and reliable.

He extended this invitation in front of the massed ranks of the media andpublic at the final evidence-taking session of the Assembly’s investigationinto his plans for congestion charging. It was in jest (I trust!) andresulted from Ken informing the scrutiny panel, which I Chair, about hisplans to encourage firms to provide showers so that people can bike to work.I simply pointed out that the GLA itself has only two showers, one of whichis by Ken’s office…

Anyway, more to the point, is the substance of the investigation. Over thelast few weeks the Scrutiny Panel has conducted a rigorous examination ofKen’s proposals. Expert witnesses from professional, academic and commercialbackgrounds have come to give evidence on whether Ken can deliver congestioncharging on time and on budget; on the likely effects on London andLondoners in terms of traffic, environmental and social impacts; onenforcement, exposure to legal challenge, costs and revenues and whetherpeople will comply with the charge.

No one witnessing this final session with Ken could have failed to noticethat the cheeky chappy Ken was mostly absent. This was when the joking hadto stop. And rightly so. The introduction of congestion charging to Londonwill be the biggest civil change since the last world war. It is vital forLondon that he gets it right. A well-executed scheme will bring greatbenefits, helping to improve public transport, cut congestion on the roadsand curb air pollution.

Leading a scrutiny panel of six members from four political parties couldhave been a nightmare given the political hot potato congestion charging is.My strategy was always to put Ken’s technical proposals under the microscopeon behalf of London – and to try to avoid a political ‘for or against’ rant.My thesis being that the Conservatives who are against congestion charging,want to find the holes in the proposals to tear it to shreds, and I, as aLiberal Democrat who believes that congestion charging is essential forimproving our city, want to find the holes so that Ken can fill them inbefore he proceeds. And it worked – because we all need to find the holes.

And holes we have found. There are big questions over Ken’s timetable. Heoriginally wanted the scheme implemented by the end of 2002. Evidence wereceived indicates that this may be undeliverable. And the quicker thetimetable the higher the risk of getting it wrong. There are weaknesses inthe project management structure and dangers in the way the contract may beput together. Severe doubts have been raised as to whether he can achievethe promised improvements in public transport before the introduction ofcongestion charging and there are difficulties over who should or should notbe exempt from the charge. There is also a large degree of uncertainty overthe social impacts of his scheme and over possible changes in traffic flowsif people start taking different routes to avoid having to pay the charges.None are insurmountable in my view – but all, without doubt, need to beaddressed.

It was a three-hour grilling. Eyeball to eyeball. Ken now knows where thePanel believes the holes to be. He will get them in writing in the officialscrutiny report in November. During the session, it was clear he waslistening. The timetable began to slip even as we spoke. And that is thepoint. Ken is now advised of the dangers. It’s his call as to what he doesabout them.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2000

I have only ever taken one taxi home from a Haringey council meeting. I hadarrived by public transport, but there is no direct public transport routehome from Wood Green. So I asked reception to order a cab for me when mymeeting finished.

When the cab arrived home at my door, I asked how much I owed. The driverturned to me and said ‘No! There’s no need to pay – it’s on account.” “But Idon’t want it on account – I want to pay” I replied.

“I can’t take money” the cabbie said, “This has never happened before.”A battle ensued, which ended with him calling his head office and eventuallygetting permission for me to pay him. It certainly made me wonder what anearth was going on with the use of taxis from Haringey Town Hall. Pursuingthe matter, I discovered that if the cabbie comes for “Cllr so and so”, itis automatically on account and the councillor does not pay, unless – as Idid – they absolutely insist.

Of course, into the middle of this situation, arrives Cllr Lord Toby Harris,ex-leader of Haringey Council, with his taxi bill for £15,062. He has obviously notbeen as persuasive as myself in getting the cabbie to let him pay his fare!Now my small fledgling pursuit will be followed by a bigger pursuit, Ihope, by the District Auditor.

Haringey Council’s profligacy with our council tax money is in contrast withthe much clearer and explicit rules used by the Greater London Authority. Inthe four months since my election to the GLA, I have taken only four, maybefive, taxis. All of those, bar one, were shared with other GLA members goingto the same meetings. GLA members must use public transport whereverpossible, and all journeys by taxi are carefully recorded so that it is easyto check the rules are being followed.

At the end of the first year of accounts of the GLA, I would expect allMembers’ expenses to be scrutinised and audited rigorously. Standards inpublic life are paramount. Sadly, all this is very different from the recordof Haringey Council.

Whilst the District Auditor is investigating Lord Harris’s expenses, I hopehe has a close look at Labour Haringey’s part in this business. To date, theLabour leader, Cllr George Meehan, has supported Toby Harris to the hilt,refusing to criticise him and leaving it to others to raise the issues, askthe questions and call in the District Auditor.

We cannot judge Toby Harris’s guilt or otherwise – that must rest with theDistrict Auditor. But we can, without doubt, point the finger of blame atLabour Haringey for doing nothing to ensure that measures were in place toprevent abuse or that monitoring was in place to catch such abuse.

As usual, Labour Haringey are acting too late and doing too little. Horseand stable door are the words that spring to mind. Now they are setting up apanel to look into Members’ expenses. Pity it cost Haringey taxpayers somuch before Labour were forced to do the right thing.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2000

Ken Livingstone is a party animal. Not a Labour party animal – but a realparty animal. From his own bash at the Tate Modern to the Mansion Housedinner – Ken’s on the ‘A’ list now. Perhaps that’s why he wants all Londonto party every New Year’s Eve.

I don’t want to be a party-pooper, but Ken’s party will cost £3 millionevery year just to police. This – as I pointed out at a recent meeting ofthe new Metropolitan Police Authority – is the equivalent of 100 policeofficers. Now you simply cannot stand on a manifesto, as Ken did, whichpromises to put 2,000 police back onto London’s streets and in practicallyyour first act as Mayor knock a hundred off. I’ve suggested that if theMayor wishes to pursue his promise he look elsewhere to find the £3 millionto pay the police for their services that night.

The reality of how few police we have left is stark. At night, about 20officers police Haringey. It only takes one significant incident in one partof the borough and the rest of the borough is left unattended. Crime figuresare rising and response times are lengthening.

The policing structure in Haringey has been changing: front countersclosing, local stations closing and/or opening fewer hours and fast responsevehicles being centralised. The police line has been that this new regimewill produce more efficient and better policing. When the changes started Ilobbied senior local police officers, worried that these changes would meanrising crime in areas where reductions were being made and that responsetimes would lengthen. Sadly this is just what has happened.

A friend was concerned that if I wrote my column and stated how stark thingsare it would frighten people. I don’t want people to panic, but when thepolice commissioner himself, Sir John Stevens, states publicly that hecannot guarantee to police London safely at the current level of policeofficers, I think the government needs to take note and we citizens, inwhatever capacity, need to apply pressure. We deserve to be safe and we havea right to proper policing.

By the time this article is published, we will have heard from theGovernment as to how much the police will get in the Comprehensive SpendingReview. And I hope it is a lot – because Labour have been appalling on theirmanifesto pledge to ‘put more police on the beat, not pushing paper.’Instead, we have seen the loss of 2500 officers and thousands of civilianstaff since they came to office.

But I have no doubt it will be too little, too late. So much damage has beensustained that rebuilding our police force, recruiting and retaining themand ensuring a representative police force, will take years. And theConservatives deserve a knocking on this one too. They like to knock Labourfor cutting police numbers, but seem to hope that everyone will forget thatthey did just the same when in power!

So in order to help Ken avoid cutting police numbers – let alone our poorpolice force having to work every New Year’s Eve in perpetuity – I suggestthat Ken has his bash once every four years. And perhaps it should be theNew Year’s Eve of the last year of the Mayor’s term of office so that he cancelebrate his term’s success – or if his performance has been foundwanting – at least go out with a bang.

A man followed me home from the tube last Wednesday night. It was about 11.30pm. He had been in my carriage from Warren Street, got off at Highgate, was behind me on the first escalator, behind me on the second escalator up to Archway Road – and as I headed up the hill, I was conscious that so did he.

The few people who had started in the same direction, faded away within the first 100 metres – so it was just he and I. I crossed the road – at a point where the pavement narrowed so it would look like the natural thing to do. So did he. When I came to the turn I needed to take – so did he – albeit once again on the opposite side. I was ready for flight – was looking for which houses had lights on, which doors were near. Suddenly he ran across the road towards me and then, with a spurt of speed, arrived on the pavement ahead of me and accelerated away.

Once he was ahead of me and I had him properly in my sights, I felt OK. And then, of course, he crossed the road and went up a drive, got his keys out of his pocket, opened his front door and went home to hearth and family. He had obviously run to get ahead of me to stop me thinking he was following me. Men and women reading this will probably recognise this situation – a woman thinking she’s being followed and a man knowing that she’s thinking he is following her. That’s the situation we have arrived at because we feel unsafe, going home late at night – whether we are or not.

But while this sort of episode is a regular part of life, it is far too rare to see politicians taking a real interest. It is easy to talk about wanting better public transport – but this means little if it isn’t also backed up with real measures to not just improve buses, tubes and trains, but also to improve safety.

This is just one of the policy areas which the Mayor and London Assembly need to tackle. And public transport isn’t just about the mundane details of life like getting to and from work or food shopping. It is also about giving everyone the chance to enjoy London’s fantastic social, cultural and entertainment opportunities – eating out, cinema, theatre, pub or whatever.

We need to make journeys to and from public transport safer and we need to feel safe when we are on public transport. The safer it becomes the more people will use it – and the more people that use it late at night the safer it becomes. That is to do with attracting more people onto public transport, improving lighting, ensuring our safety whilst on our journey whether through human or technological presences and looking at ways people get home from public transport. It’s not just ‘safe routes to school’ that are needed.

There is a wealth of different policies which need to be brought together, ranging from changing the fares structure for Black Cabs so that there are more cabs available late at night to increasing the resources available to British Transport Police. And how about offering free tube or bus tickets with cinema tickets?

At the moment the Government is spending money hand over fist on expensive private consultants to try and make their plans to privatise the tube add up. That money would be far better spent on improving our tube and making it safer, rather than trying to privatise something not even Mrs. Thatcher wanted to sell off.

Judging from the results of the Mayoral and Assembly elections, Millbank’sability to get its message across is slipping. Many voters hadn’t evenrealised there was going to even be an Assembly, let alone how to vote forit without spoiling over 100,000 ballot papers. Perhaps Millbank should haveconcentrated its efforts more on the Assembly and less on poor old Frank.

It was a great night, however, for the Liberal Democrats – four of uselected to the London. And on top of that the news of our stunning victoryin the Romsey by-election! It certainly made up for the 16-hour count stuckin the QE2 conference centre, which has all the attractions of a dismalairport lounge.

The day after, we (all the parties) went into the temporary offices atRomney House. Well actually Labour met somewhere else because they ‘wantedto be alone’. They did manage to make a flying visit to put their towels onthe deckchairs (bag their offices).

I had never met Ken before. Like most Londoners, I’ve enjoyed his nasalviews on a variety of TV shows. However, nearly everyone I had met duringthe campaign who had known or worked with him didn’t have a good word to sayabout him. Not being particularly judgmental, I was glad when he respondedto our invitation to come and ‘share his vision’ with the LibDem Group. Kensaid all the right things: inclusive, informal, cross-party working, anideas hothouse, Londoners had spoken, etc. I couldn’t have put it better.Why then did it feel like the Kiss of the Spiderwoman?

Having observed the bizarre and less than admirable behaviour of politiciansin the House of Commons, and for that matter, in Haringey Council chamber, Ihave high hopes that the London Assembly will be different – but then, I ama born optimist.

I couldn’t help noticing, however, the Labour members on route to theinaugural meeting of the Assembly, all stopping to pin a red rose to theirlapels. A yucky, but harmless form of tribalism.

Sadly, I can’t say the same for the Tory tribalism exhibited during thefirst meeting. I know a week is a long time in politics, but they seem tohave already forgotten Norris’s slogan ‘Action not Politics’. The firstthing they gave to London was ‘Politics not Action’ putting down a motionagainst the ‘principle of congestion charges’. It was simply aimed at tryingto expose Labour’s problems with Ken. Labour members undoubtedly haveproblems being caught between Ken and Tony, (rock and hard place are thewords that spring to mind) but cheap political shenanigans set a sour toneat the first meeting.

The Assembly needs to fix London’s problems, not just be an old-fashionedpolitical talking shop. Congestion is a real problem – a problem that costsLondoners dear in terms of health, cost to business and loss of personaltime. If congestion charges are set sensibly, reduce traffic, cut pollutionand are only introduced after tangible public transport improvements- thenthey will have my whole-hearted support.