Discussion:
Congestion charge to N/S Circular??????
Add Reply
tim...
2020-10-16 16:06:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-rally-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html

Other media available

As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this

The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone inside it
is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can walk/bus to
whatever service that they need.

People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal employment with
lives that mean that they have to have a car.

and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous

If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their ears at
the next election

It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically

but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.

OTOH, I can't help but agree that the free travel for under 18s and over 60s
is far too generous, and is ripe to be cut back (even further)
Roland Perry
2020-10-16 17:56:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-ra
lly-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone inside
it is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can walk/bus
to whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal employment
with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their ears
at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to raise
a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2020-10-16 20:11:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-ra
lly-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone inside it
is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can walk/bus to
whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal employment
with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their ears at
the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to raise a
poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
we know that

but why should car owners in this zone pay for it?

It's PT uses that benefited from the fare freeze, they should be paying for
that mistake
Recliner
2020-10-16 21:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-ra
lly-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone inside it
is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can walk/bus to
whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal employment
with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their ears at
the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to raise a
poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
we know that
but why should car owners in this zone pay for it?
It's PT uses that benefited from the fare freeze, they should be paying for
that mistake
I can't see how they could enforce a hugely enlarged CC zone anyway —
they'd need a vast number of cameras and admin support. It would also lose
the Tories every London seat (and not just inside the Circular roads).
D A Stocks
2020-10-17 03:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
I can't see how they could enforce a hugely enlarged CC zone anyway
they'd need a vast number of cameras and admin support.
ITYF most of the infrastructure is already there to support the LEZ and ULEZ
extension next year.

--
DAS
Roland Perry
2020-10-17 09:22:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-ra
lly-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone
inside it is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can
walk/bus to whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
That's only if you use it every day.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
This will be seen as the Mayor's fault, so Labour will get the flack.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
we know that
but why should car owners in this zone pay for it?
One reason is that they are (like it or not) under Tfl's umbrella, and
so are one of the more direct sources of income. Rather than for example
imposing a council tax surcharge on everyone in London.

Another is that if TfL has to drastically cut services it'll force more
vehicles onto the roads, inconveniencing existing motorists.
Post by tim...
It's PT uses that benefited from the fare freeze, they should be paying
for that mistake
Putting up fares won't solve the deficit (especially in the current
pandemic).
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2020-10-17 13:56:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-ra
lly-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone inside
it is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can walk/bus
to whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal employment
with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
That's only if you use it every day.
or if it's parked on-street
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their ears
at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
This will be seen as the Mayor's fault,
will it?

Not convinced
Post by Roland Perry
so Labour will get the flack.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to raise
a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
we know that
but why should car owners in this zone pay for it?
One reason is that they are (like it or not) under Tfl's umbrella, and so
are one of the more direct sources of income.
that's a because we can, not because we should

the original question remains.
Post by Roland Perry
Rather than for example imposing a council tax surcharge on everyone in
London.
Another is that if TfL has to drastically cut services it'll force more
vehicles onto the roads, inconveniencing existing motorists.
you may think that

I may think that

Non-users of PT asked to subsidise PT, don't think that
Roland Perry
2020-10-17 14:48:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-ra
lly-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone
inside it is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they
can walk/bus to whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
That's only if you use it every day.
or if it's parked on-street
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
This will be seen as the Mayor's fault,
will it?
Not convinced
Post by Roland Perry
so Labour will get the flack.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
we know that
but why should car owners in this zone pay for it?
One reason is that they are (like it or not) under Tfl's umbrella,
and so are one of the more direct sources of income.
that's a because we can, not because we should
the original question remains.
Post by Roland Perry
Rather than for example imposing a council tax surcharge on everyone
in London.
Another is that if TfL has to drastically cut services it'll force
more vehicles onto the roads, inconveniencing existing motorists.
you may think that
I may think that
Non-users of PT asked to subsidise PT, don't think that
I note your disagreement on pretty much anything. Perhaps we can agree
that by default we disagree, and save a lot of typing?
--
Roland Perry
Ian Jackson
2020-10-16 22:01:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-ra
lly-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone
inside it is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can
walk/bus to whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to raise
a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
--
Ian
Recliner
2020-10-16 22:42:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-ra
lly-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone
inside it is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can
walk/bus to whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to raise
a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Too many Tory-held seats.
Roland Perry
2020-10-17 09:23:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
--
Roland Perry
b***@nuttyella.co.uk
2020-10-19 07:37:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Graeme Wall
2020-10-19 08:07:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
If you had a working brain cell you'd realise why.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
b***@nuttyella.co.uk
2020-10-19 09:02:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:07:53 +0100
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
If you had a working brain cell you'd realise why.
Go on then, fill me in with your laser insight.
Robin
2020-10-19 08:22:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
One problem with that may be that the idea came from the Mayor's side:
there's a long tradition of parading the "bleeding stumps" consequences
if central government doesn't cough up.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Recliner
2020-10-19 08:34:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robin
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
there's a long tradition of parading the "bleeding stumps" consequences
if central government doesn't cough up.
The first round of central government demands weren't unreasonable, and it
was sensible for Khan to accept them. Now, emboldened, the government is
back with a humiliating set of demands that are designed to destroy Khan's
chances of re-election in six months. I suspect that he won't back down so
eaily this time, given that Bailey also agrees with him.
tim...
2020-10-19 09:38:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
there's a long tradition of parading the "bleeding stumps" consequences
if central government doesn't cough up.
The first round of central government demands weren't unreasonable, and it
was sensible for Khan to accept them. Now, emboldened, the government is
back with a humiliating set of demands that are designed to destroy Khan's
chances of re-election in six months. I suspect that he won't back down so
eaily this time, given that Bailey also agrees with him.
not helped by biased headlines like this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8853767/ANDREW-PIERCE-Sadiq-Khans-policies-add-lot-wasted-cash.html

Now, it may be true that some of Khan's policies have wasted money

but in the context of several billion pound shortfall, the examples in the
narrative are trivial

one is the equivalent of money lost down the sofa

and the other is a complaint about a legacy policy that exited during
Boris's time, is a policy that is common within many public transport
operators and for which the justification of "it doesn't cost anything
because the services are running anyway" has actually been tested in law and
the courts agreed with that assessment.
Recliner
2020-10-19 14:55:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
there's a long tradition of parading the "bleeding stumps" consequences
if central government doesn't cough up.
The first round of central government demands weren't unreasonable, and it
was sensible for Khan to accept them. Now, emboldened, the government is
back with a humiliating set of demands that are designed to destroy Khan's
chances of re-election in six months. I suspect that he won't back down so
eaily this time, given that Bailey also agrees with him.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8853767/ANDREW-PIERCE-Sadiq-Khans-policies-add-lot-wasted-cash.html
Now, it may be true that some of Khan's policies have wasted money
but in the context of several billion pound shortfall, the examples in the
narrative are trivial
one is the equivalent of money lost down the sofa
and the other is a complaint about a legacy policy that exited during
Boris's time, is a policy that is common within many public transport
operators and for which the justification of "it doesn't cost anything
because the services are running anyway" has actually been tested in law and
the courts agreed with that assessment.
For some strange reason, the ES (editor-in-chief, George Osborne) forgot to
mention the £43m+ of taxpayer funding that George Osborne and Boris wasted
on the unbuilt Garden Bridge:

<https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/garden-bridge/lbcs-long-read-the-garden-bridge-124786/>
Arthur Figgis
2020-10-19 20:13:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8853767/ANDREW-PIERCE-Sadiq-Khans-policies-add-lot-wasted-cash.html
Serious question: would many Daily Mail readers be expected to vote for
Khan at the best of times? While Bailey is not exactly a stereotypical
Mail reader's dream candidate either, he does seem to say things which
might align with their views on everything apart from that.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Recliner
2020-10-19 21:11:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by tim...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8853767/ANDREW-PIERCE-Sadiq-Khans-policies-add-lot-wasted-cash.html
Serious question: would many Daily Mail readers be expected to vote for
Khan at the best of times? While Bailey is not exactly a stereotypical
Mail reader's dream candidate either, he does seem to say things which
might align with their views on everything apart from that.
To what extent are readers' votes influenced by newspaper headlines? For
example, the Sun scrupulously says whatever Rupert dictates, but do typical
Sun readers share his politics views? The Mail traditionally appealed to
younger women, who aren't likely to be nearly as right wing
Trolleybus
2020-10-20 09:16:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:11:17 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by tim...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8853767/ANDREW-PIERCE-Sadiq-Khans-policies-add-lot-wasted-cash.html
Serious question: would many Daily Mail readers be expected to vote for
Khan at the best of times? While Bailey is not exactly a stereotypical
Mail reader's dream candidate either, he does seem to say things which
might align with their views on everything apart from that.
To what extent are readers' votes influenced by newspaper headlines? For
example, the Sun scrupulously says whatever Rupert dictates, but do typical
Sun readers share his politics views? The Mail traditionally appealed to
younger women, who aren't likely to be nearly as right wing
I remember having a heated alcohol-fuelled argument on just this with
a mature friend who was taking a media studies degree (in pre-Internet
days). I claimed that if you're only ever exposed to one side of an
argument then, of course, you'll tend to favour it. I was told that
people are exposed to many sources of information and I was accusing
newspaper readers of being too stupid to think for themselves.

The older I get the more I think I was right, as a generalisation. And
clearly the press barons are spending their money for a reason.

I don't claim to know the answer but it took me many years to realise
how strongly confirmation bias affects our opinions and just how
illogical human minds are.

It's therefore easy to come to the conclusion that getting your
opinion in early is the way to create a supporter for life (the Jesuit
approach?) but my political views were changed at University from
right to left, and this was at a place where many students' union
postholders were known to be Conservative but there was a ban on
standing for a post on a political or religious platform. What did it
for me were the well-attended union meetings (they were quorate which
meant, I think, 20% of the students present) which were the remains of
the debating society and conducted on that basis, with a structure
that allowed a wide range of views to be expressed with equal
emphasis, and an atmosphere that politely received the range of
opinions.

One union meeting included a talk on the free market by Keith Joseph.
He was applauded by all at the end, and the Q&A was polite but pointed
at times.

At another meeting we debated whether we would accept Enoch Powell
coming to speak to one of the academic departments. There was a no
platform policy adopted across the University of London but we voted
that an eminent speaker on classics was welcome, so long as he was
speaking about his specialisation, which he was.

It's only now, writing this, that I realise just how far we've fallen.
tim...
2020-10-20 12:10:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trolleybus
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:11:17 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by tim...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8853767/ANDREW-PIERCE-Sadiq-Khans-policies-add-lot-wasted-cash.html
Serious question: would many Daily Mail readers be expected to vote for
Khan at the best of times? While Bailey is not exactly a stereotypical
Mail reader's dream candidate either, he does seem to say things which
might align with their views on everything apart from that.
To what extent are readers' votes influenced by newspaper headlines? For
example, the Sun scrupulously says whatever Rupert dictates, but do typical
Sun readers share his politics views? The Mail traditionally appealed to
younger women, who aren't likely to be nearly as right wing
I remember having a heated alcohol-fuelled argument on just this with
a mature friend who was taking a media studies degree (in pre-Internet
days). I claimed that if you're only ever exposed to one side of an
argument then, of course, you'll tend to favour it. I was told that
people are exposed to many sources of information and I was accusing
newspaper readers of being too stupid to think for themselves.
The older I get the more I think I was right, as a generalisation. And
clearly the press barons are spending their money for a reason.
I don't claim to know the answer but it took me many years to realise
how strongly confirmation bias affects our opinions and just how
illogical human minds are.
that might have worked 20 years ago when perhaps 50% of people took a daily
paper

but now that we are down at less than 15%, not sure it's gonna hold true
Recliner
2020-10-20 12:58:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Trolleybus
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:11:17 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by tim...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8853767/ANDREW-PIERCE-Sadiq-Khans-policies-add-lot-wasted-cash.html
Serious question: would many Daily Mail readers be expected to vote for
Khan at the best of times? While Bailey is not exactly a stereotypical
Mail reader's dream candidate either, he does seem to say things which
might align with their views on everything apart from that.
To what extent are readers' votes influenced by newspaper headlines? For
example, the Sun scrupulously says whatever Rupert dictates, but do typical
Sun readers share his politics views? The Mail traditionally appealed to
younger women, who aren't likely to be nearly as right wing
I remember having a heated alcohol-fuelled argument on just this with
a mature friend who was taking a media studies degree (in pre-Internet
days). I claimed that if you're only ever exposed to one side of an
argument then, of course, you'll tend to favour it. I was told that
people are exposed to many sources of information and I was accusing
newspaper readers of being too stupid to think for themselves.
The older I get the more I think I was right, as a generalisation. And
clearly the press barons are spending their money for a reason.
I don't claim to know the answer but it took me many years to realise
how strongly confirmation bias affects our opinions and just how
illogical human minds are.
that might have worked 20 years ago when perhaps 50% of people took a daily
paper
but now that we are down at less than 15%, not sure it's gonna hold true
And even those who still read newspapers now have many other, faster, sources of news.
b***@nuttyella.co.uk
2020-10-19 09:04:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The Times the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ outwards as
a condition for the extra money.
Recliner
2020-10-19 09:23:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The Times the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ outwards as
a condition for the extra money.
Yes, this is a government proposal, being strongly resisted by the mayor:

Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, was embroiled in a fresh row with the
Government on Friday as he fought against an extension of the congestion
charge zone in exchange for a Transport for London (TfL) bailout.

Ministers agreed a two-week rollover of current emergency support but
proposed a dramatic extension of the congestion zone to the North and South
Circular roads as a condition of further funding.

If no long-term bailout is secured, TfL could issue a Section 114 notice
which would declare it insolvent and lead to significant cuts to services.

A source close to Mr Khan said redrawing the £15-a-day congestion zone from
central London to the suburbs was "unacceptable".

"Negotiations are ongoing to do a deal to keep TfL services running," the
source said. "Conditions such as extending a £15 congestion charge to the
North and South Circular and taking free travel away from children and
older people would be totally unacceptable to the Mayor, and he would not
ask Londoners to accept them in these exceptionally difficult times."



The London Mayor had initially been seeking a £5.7 billion bailout for
London's transport network to protect the system for the next 18 months.

A Department for Transport spokesman said: "We have agreed an extension to
the support period for the Transport for London Extraordinary Funding
Agreement, allowing further time for negotiations. These discussions will
ensure London has a safe, reliable network. It would be inappropriate to
disclose further details at this stage."

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/16/sadiq-khan-fights-against-extension-london-congestion-zone-bids/>
b***@nuttyella.co.uk
2020-10-19 10:00:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:23:13 -0000 (UTC)
A source close to Mr Khan said redrawing the £15-a-day congestion zone from
central London to the suburbs was "unacceptable".
I don't often agree with Khan but in this case he's spot on. You cannot have
a LEZ covering relatively poor areas where people live who can just about to
afford to run an old banger and certainly can't cough up this charge every
time they drive it to the shops or similar.
Robin
2020-10-19 22:12:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The Times the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ outwards as
a condition for the extra money.
The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues. And
politicians have been known to have it put about that A is seeking X so
they can then tell the public that X is unacceptable and they will fight
to their last breath to oppose it.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Recliner
2020-10-19 22:47:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robin
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The Times the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ outwards as
a condition for the extra money.
The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues.
Please show it. Every source I can find says the exact opposite.
Post by Robin
And
politicians have been known to have it put about that A is seeking X so
they can then tell the public that X is unacceptable and they will fight
to their last breath to oppose it.
I've already posted clear news reports that this is a government plan that
they're trying to force on TfL. Khan is strongly against it. And it looks
like the public is on his side:
<https://www.onlondon.co.uk/new-polling-most-londoners-blame-covid-or-government-for-tfl-financial-woes-back-ltns-and-are-satisfied-with-sadiq-khan/>
tim...
2020-10-20 12:13:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The Times the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ outwards as
a condition for the extra money.
The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues.
Please show it. Every source I can find says the exact opposite.
really, I can't find that

all I can find is Khan claiming that the DfT have told him to do this
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
And
politicians have been known to have it put about that A is seeking X so
they can then tell the public that X is unacceptable and they will fight
to their last breath to oppose it.
I've already posted clear news reports that this is a government plan that
they're trying to force on TfL. Khan is strongly against it. And it looks
<https://www.onlondon.co.uk/new-polling-most-londoners-blame-covid-or-government-for-tfl-financial-woes-back-ltns-and-are-satisfied-with-sadiq-khan/>
Robin
2020-10-20 12:34:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The Times the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ outwards as
a condition for the extra money.
The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues.
Please show it. Every source I can find says the exact opposite.
really, I can't find that
all I can find is Khan claiming that the DfT have told him to do this
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
And
politicians have been known to have it put about that A is seeking X so
they can then tell the public that X is unacceptable and they will fight
to their last breath to oppose it.
I've already posted clear news reports that this is a government plan that
they're trying to force on TfL.  Khan is strongly against it. And it
looks
<https://www.onlondon.co.uk/new-polling-most-londoners-blame-covid-or-government-for-tfl-financial-woes-back-ltns-and-are-satisfied-with-sadiq-khan/>
FWIW it was AIUI Sky who broke the story. They included in what I read
reference to "a source close to" DfT but - as I only noticed on a 2nd,
slower reading - not attributing to /that/ source the idea of extending
the CC zone.

https://news.sky.com/story/government-offers-transport-for-london-further-1bn-bailout-12105037
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Recliner
2020-10-20 12:57:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The Times the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ outwards as
a condition for the extra money.
The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues.
Please show it. Every source I can find says the exact opposite.
really, I can't find that
all I can find is Khan claiming that the DfT have told him to do this
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
And
politicians have been known to have it put about that A is seeking X so
they can then tell the public that X is unacceptable and they will fight
to their last breath to oppose it.
I've already posted clear news reports that this is a government plan that
they're trying to force on TfL.  Khan is strongly against it. And it
looks
<https://www.onlondon.co.uk/new-polling-most-londoners-blame-covid-or-government-for-tfl-financial-woes-back-ltns-and-are-satisfied-with-sadiq-khan/>
FWIW it was AIUI Sky who broke the story. They included in what I read
reference to "a source close to" DfT but - as I only noticed on a 2nd,
slower reading - not attributing to /that/ source the idea of extending
the CC zone.
https://news.sky.com/story/government-offers-transport-for-london-further-1bn-bailout-12105037
So that confirms that this idea is purely from the government, and strongly opposed by the mayor: the exact opposite of
what you said.
Recliner
2020-10-21 06:33:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The Times the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ outwards as
a condition for the extra money.
The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues.
Please show it. Every source I can find says the exact opposite.
really, I can't find that
all I can find is Khan claiming that the DfT have told him to do this
Indeed. And now apparently the government is threatening to seize control
of TfL if Khan resists their demands:

<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-condemns-government-tfl-funding-plan-a4572368.html>

Sadiq Khan has accused the Government of trying to “punish” Londoners with
a “triple whammy” of price hikes as part of a financial support plan for
TfL.

The capital’s mayor called for the “draconian” proposals, which include a
larger congestion charge zone and higher Tube and bus fares, to be
reconsidered.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps proposed the measures, for which in return
TfL would receive six months of rescue funding lasting from now until Match
next year. He also suggested that the Government would seize control of TfL
if the measures were not followed.

But Mr Khan refused to accept the proposal outlined in a letter from Mr
Shapps, telling ministers that it was “completely unacceptable,” and
“singles out Londoners for punishment.”

He: "I simply cannot accept this Government plan, which would hit Londoners
with a triple whammy of higher costs at a time when so many people are
already facing hardship.

"The Government should be supporting Londoners through this difficult time
– not making ill-advised and draconian proposals which will choke off our
economic recovery.”

Ministers want to extend the £15 Congestion Charge Zone to the North and
South circular roads in 12 months' time. This would see the zone expanded
to cover approximately four million more Londoners.

The Government also wants to increase TfL fares and is “doubling down” on
their demand to remove free travel for under-18s, City Hall said.

He wrote to Mr Khan saying that the Government would take "reserve
legislative powers allowing us if necessary to direct TfL" if the measures
were not followed.

Mr Shapps, in a letter seen by the Financial Times, said that Downing
Street's seizure of TfL would be combined with a further series of
"short-term funding settlements.”

The London Mayor said an expansion of the congestion zone would have
negative economic consequences and a council tax supplement would “place
even more reliance on an already broken form of taxation and would be
regressive”.

It comes after the Government agreed on Friday to extend its financial
support of TfL for two weeks while negotiations on a new bailout continue.

TfL boss Andy Byford described the two-week extension as a “sensible
pragmatic solution” that “keeps people’s minds focused”.

He added: “We can now get this deal done. We really are very close, and
it’s absolute top priority for all of us to get this thing across the line,
and I believe that the two weeks will suffice.”

TfL’s finances have been severely hit by the drop in travel caused by the
coronavirus pandemic. A £1.6 billion bailout agreed with Mr Khan in May put
funding in place until Saturday.

It was reported last month that Mr Khan was seeking a £5.7 billion bailout
to keep London’s transport system going for the next 18 months.

… continues with predictable union leader comments
tim...
2020-10-21 11:47:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Fri,
16
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The Times the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ outwards as
a condition for the extra money.
The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues.
Please show it. Every source I can find says the exact opposite.
really, I can't find that
all I can find is Khan claiming that the DfT have told him to do this
Indeed. And now apparently the government is threatening to seize control
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-condemns-government-tfl-funding-plan-a4572368.html>
Sadiq Khan has accused the Government of trying to “punish” Londoners with
a “triple whammy” of price hikes as part of a financial support plan for
TfL.
The capital’s mayor called for the “draconian” proposals, which include a
larger congestion charge zone and higher Tube and bus fares, to be
reconsidered.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps proposed the measures, for which in return
TfL would receive six months of rescue funding lasting from now until Match
next year. He also suggested that the Government would seize control of TfL
if the measures were not followed.
But Mr Khan refused to accept the proposal outlined in a letter from Mr
Shapps, telling ministers that it was “completely unacceptable,” and
“singles out Londoners for punishment.”
He: "I simply cannot accept this Government plan, which would hit Londoners
with a triple whammy of higher costs at a time when so many people are
already facing hardship.
"The Government should be supporting Londoners through this difficult time
– not making ill-advised and draconian proposals which will choke off our
economic recovery.”
Ministers want to extend the £15 Congestion Charge Zone to the North and
South circular roads in 12 months' time. This would see the zone expanded
to cover approximately four million more Londoners.
The Government also wants to increase TfL fares and is “doubling down” on
their demand to remove free travel for under-18s, City Hall said.
apart from it being (from a socialist POV), "The right thing to do", what is
the logical justification for 16-18s travelling free?

I can see that giving over 60s a pass encourages them to give up their car
(as it has done for me), and thus reduces the potential extra congestion my
keeping it would create.

ditto allowing parents to take, under 12s for example with them for free

but that can't be the justification for 16-18 YO, which simply seems to be
based upon the theory that they are unwaged (not all are). A basis of
assigning free travel that almost nowhere else (in the world) uses.

tim
Recliner
2020-10-22 01:22:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Fri,
16
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The Times the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ outwards as
a condition for the extra money.
The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues.
Please show it. Every source I can find says the exact opposite.
really, I can't find that
all I can find is Khan claiming that the DfT have told him to do this
Indeed. And now apparently the government is threatening to seize control
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-condemns-government-tfl-funding-plan-a4572368.html>
Sadiq Khan has accused the Government of trying to “punish” Londoners with
a “triple whammy” of price hikes as part of a financial support plan for
TfL.
The capital’s mayor called for the “draconian” proposals, which include a
larger congestion charge zone and higher Tube and bus fares, to be
reconsidered.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps proposed the measures, for which in return
TfL would receive six months of rescue funding lasting from now until Match
next year. He also suggested that the Government would seize control of TfL
if the measures were not followed.
But Mr Khan refused to accept the proposal outlined in a letter from Mr
Shapps, telling ministers that it was “completely unacceptable,” and
“singles out Londoners for punishment.”
He: "I simply cannot accept this Government plan, which would hit Londoners
with a triple whammy of higher costs at a time when so many people are
already facing hardship.
"The Government should be supporting Londoners through this difficult time
– not making ill-advised and draconian proposals which will choke off our
economic recovery.”
Ministers want to extend the £15 Congestion Charge Zone to the North and
South circular roads in 12 months' time. This would see the zone expanded
to cover approximately four million more Londoners.
The Government also wants to increase TfL fares and is “doubling down” on
their demand to remove free travel for under-18s, City Hall said.
apart from it being (from a socialist POV), "The right thing to do", what is
the logical justification for 16-18s travelling free?
I can see that giving over 60s a pass encourages them to give up their car
(as it has done for me), and thus reduces the potential extra congestion my
keeping it would create.
ditto allowing parents to take, under 12s for example with them for free
but that can't be the justification for 16-18 YO, which simply seems to be
based upon the theory that they are unwaged (not all are). A basis of
assigning free travel that almost nowhere else (in the world) uses.
It looks like Khan is winning this war of words; the floundering former
mayor of London is being outsmarted by current mayors:

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/21/boris-johnson-picking-fights-local-leaders-losing/>
tim...
2020-10-22 10:41:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Fri,
16
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected
LAs
are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris'
bluff
over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The
Times
the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ outwards as
a condition for the extra money.
The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues.
Please show it. Every source I can find says the exact opposite.
really, I can't find that
all I can find is Khan claiming that the DfT have told him to do this
Indeed. And now apparently the government is threatening to seize control
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-condemns-government-tfl-funding-plan-a4572368.html>
Sadiq Khan has accused the Government of trying to “punish” Londoners with
a “triple whammy” of price hikes as part of a financial support plan for
TfL.
The capital’s mayor called for the “draconian” proposals, which include a
larger congestion charge zone and higher Tube and bus fares, to be
reconsidered.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps proposed the measures, for which in return
TfL would receive six months of rescue funding lasting from now until Match
next year. He also suggested that the Government would seize control of TfL
if the measures were not followed.
But Mr Khan refused to accept the proposal outlined in a letter from Mr
Shapps, telling ministers that it was “completely unacceptable,” and
“singles out Londoners for punishment.”
He: "I simply cannot accept this Government plan, which would hit Londoners
with a triple whammy of higher costs at a time when so many people are
already facing hardship.
"The Government should be supporting Londoners through this difficult time
– not making ill-advised and draconian proposals which will choke off our
economic recovery.”
Ministers want to extend the £15 Congestion Charge Zone to the North and
South circular roads in 12 months' time. This would see the zone expanded
to cover approximately four million more Londoners.
The Government also wants to increase TfL fares and is “doubling down” on
their demand to remove free travel for under-18s, City Hall said.
apart from it being (from a socialist POV), "The right thing to do", what is
the logical justification for 16-18s travelling free?
I can see that giving over 60s a pass encourages them to give up their car
(as it has done for me), and thus reduces the potential extra congestion my
keeping it would create.
ditto allowing parents to take, under 12s for example with them for free
but that can't be the justification for 16-18 YO, which simply seems to be
based upon the theory that they are unwaged (not all are). A basis of
assigning free travel that almost nowhere else (in the world) uses.
It looks like Khan is winning this war of words; the floundering former
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/21/boris-johnson-picking-fights-local-leaders-losing/>
not helped by, reported yesterday:

Government spokesperson saying "we didn't suggest that the CC zone should be
extended"

to elicit the response of AN Other holding up letter from Minster saying
exactly that

I can only repeat my OP, that this is the most socially unfair idea for fund
raising that any politician has ever suggested
Recliner
2020-10-22 10:52:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Fri,
16
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody
ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on
their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected
LAs
are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris'
bluff
over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The
Times
the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ outwards as
a condition for the extra money.
The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues.
Please show it. Every source I can find says the exact opposite.
really, I can't find that
all I can find is Khan claiming that the DfT have told him to do this
Indeed. And now apparently the government is threatening to seize control
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-condemns-government-tfl-funding-plan-a4572368.html>
Sadiq Khan has accused the Government of trying to “punish” Londoners with
a “triple whammy” of price hikes as part of a financial support plan for
TfL.
The capital’s mayor called for the “draconian” proposals, which include a
larger congestion charge zone and higher Tube and bus fares, to be
reconsidered.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps proposed the measures, for which in return
TfL would receive six months of rescue funding lasting from now until Match
next year. He also suggested that the Government would seize control of TfL
if the measures were not followed.
But Mr Khan refused to accept the proposal outlined in a letter from Mr
Shapps, telling ministers that it was “completely unacceptable,” and
“singles out Londoners for punishment.”
He: "I simply cannot accept this Government plan, which would hit Londoners
with a triple whammy of higher costs at a time when so many people are
already facing hardship.
"The Government should be supporting Londoners through this difficult time
– not making ill-advised and draconian proposals which will choke off our
economic recovery.”
Ministers want to extend the £15 Congestion Charge Zone to the North and
South circular roads in 12 months' time. This would see the zone expanded
to cover approximately four million more Londoners.
The Government also wants to increase TfL fares and is “doubling down” on
their demand to remove free travel for under-18s, City Hall said.
apart from it being (from a socialist POV), "The right thing to do", what is
the logical justification for 16-18s travelling free?
I can see that giving over 60s a pass encourages them to give up their car
(as it has done for me), and thus reduces the potential extra congestion my
keeping it would create.
ditto allowing parents to take, under 12s for example with them for free
but that can't be the justification for 16-18 YO, which simply seems to be
based upon the theory that they are unwaged (not all are). A basis of
assigning free travel that almost nowhere else (in the world) uses.
It looks like Khan is winning this war of words; the floundering former
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/21/boris-johnson-picking-fights-local-leaders-losing/>
Government spokesperson saying "we didn't suggest that the CC zone should be
extended"
to elicit the response of AN Other holding up letter from Minster saying
exactly that
I can only repeat my OP, that this is the most socially unfair idea for fund
raising that any politician has ever suggested
What do you think of the other government demand, that council tax be
raised to partially cover the TfL black hole? It would have to be a
non-trivial amount per household to make much of a difference, let's say
£100 in band D.
tim...
2020-10-22 14:46:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Fri,
16
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody
ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on
their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected
LAs
are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential
way
to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris'
bluff
over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of
GDP
it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The
Times
the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ
outwards as
a condition for the extra money.
The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues.
Please show it. Every source I can find says the exact opposite.
really, I can't find that
all I can find is Khan claiming that the DfT have told him to do this
Indeed. And now apparently the government is threatening to seize control
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-condemns-government-tfl-funding-plan-a4572368.html>
Sadiq Khan has accused the Government of trying to “punish” Londoners with
a “triple whammy” of price hikes as part of a financial support plan for
TfL.
The capital’s mayor called for the “draconian” proposals, which
include
a
larger congestion charge zone and higher Tube and bus fares, to be
reconsidered.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps proposed the measures, for which in return
TfL would receive six months of rescue funding lasting from now until Match
next year. He also suggested that the Government would seize control
of
TfL
if the measures were not followed.
But Mr Khan refused to accept the proposal outlined in a letter from Mr
Shapps, telling ministers that it was “completely unacceptable,” and
“singles out Londoners for punishment.”
He: "I simply cannot accept this Government plan, which would hit Londoners
with a triple whammy of higher costs at a time when so many people are
already facing hardship.
"The Government should be supporting Londoners through this difficult time
– not making ill-advised and draconian proposals which will choke off our
economic recovery.”
Ministers want to extend the £15 Congestion Charge Zone to the North and
South circular roads in 12 months' time. This would see the zone expanded
to cover approximately four million more Londoners.
The Government also wants to increase TfL fares and is “doubling down” on
their demand to remove free travel for under-18s, City Hall said.
apart from it being (from a socialist POV), "The right thing to do",
what
is
the logical justification for 16-18s travelling free?
I can see that giving over 60s a pass encourages them to give up their car
(as it has done for me), and thus reduces the potential extra
congestion
my
keeping it would create.
ditto allowing parents to take, under 12s for example with them for free
but that can't be the justification for 16-18 YO, which simply seems to be
based upon the theory that they are unwaged (not all are). A basis of
assigning free travel that almost nowhere else (in the world) uses.
It looks like Khan is winning this war of words; the floundering former
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/21/boris-johnson-picking-fights-local-leaders-losing/>
Government spokesperson saying "we didn't suggest that the CC zone should be
extended"
to elicit the response of AN Other holding up letter from Minster saying
exactly that
I can only repeat my OP, that this is the most socially unfair idea for fund
raising that any politician has ever suggested
What do you think of the other government demand, that council tax be
raised to partially cover the TfL black hole?
at least it's fair to all Londoners
Post by Recliner
It would have to be a
non-trivial amount per household to make much of a difference, let's say
£100 in band D.
100 pound for all, is tiny in comparison to a 5 grand CC charge levied on a
minority

Personally, I don't accept the premise that PT has to be self funding, but
we are where we are on that one
Roland Perry
2020-10-22 15:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Personally, I don't accept the premise that PT has to be self funding,
but we are where we are on that one
Even with these extra 'taxes', it won't be.

All we are arguing about is the amount of subsidy.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2020-10-22 15:28:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Personally, I don't accept the premise that PT has to be self funding,
but we are where we are on that one
Even with these extra 'taxes', it won't be.
All we are arguing about is the amount of subsidy.
Or, more specifically, where the subsidy comes from. In the absence of most
tourists and many commuters, fare revenues won't come close to meeting
operating costs.
b***@nuttyella.co.uk
2020-10-22 16:01:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:28:04 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Personally, I don't accept the premise that PT has to be self funding,
but we are where we are on that one
Even with these extra 'taxes', it won't be.
All we are arguing about is the amount of subsidy.
Or, more specifically, where the subsidy comes from. In the absence of most
tourists and many commuters, fare revenues won't come close to meeting
operating costs.
They need to be realistic and scale back the tube services until ridership
goes up again. From my personal experience however the buses are as crowded
as they're allowed to be. Odd how the snowflakes seem to be scared of trains
but not buses.
Recliner
2020-10-22 16:06:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:28:04 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Personally, I don't accept the premise that PT has to be self funding,
but we are where we are on that one
Even with these extra 'taxes', it won't be.
All we are arguing about is the amount of subsidy.
Or, more specifically, where the subsidy comes from. In the absence of most
tourists and many commuters, fare revenues won't come close to meeting
operating costs.
They need to be realistic and scale back the tube services until ridership
goes up again. From my personal experience however the buses are as crowded
as they're allowed to be. Odd how the snowflakes seem to be scared of trains
but not buses.
Yes, I've been on buses lately carrying a lot more than the stated maximum.
Arthur Figgis
2020-10-22 17:48:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
goes up again. From my personal experience however the buses are as crowded
as they're allowed to be. Odd how the snowflakes seem to be scared of trains
but not buses.
Or that people who used trains have more alternatives (work from home,
drive, etc)
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Recliner
2020-10-22 15:26:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Post by b***@nuttyella.co.uk
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Fri,
16
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody
ridiculous
If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on
their
ears at the next election
It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected
LAs
are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with
this
politically
but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.
It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential
way
to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.
After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?
Some of the media is speculating already.
If Khan had a working pair of bollocks he'd have called Boris'
bluff
over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of
GDP
it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.
Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The
Times
the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ
outwards as
a condition for the extra money.
The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues.
Please show it. Every source I can find says the exact opposite.
really, I can't find that
all I can find is Khan claiming that the DfT have told him to do this
Indeed. And now apparently the government is threatening to seize control
<https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-condemns-government-tfl-funding-plan-a4572368.html>
Sadiq Khan has accused the Government of trying to “punish” Londoners with
a “triple whammy” of price hikes as part of a financial support plan for
TfL.
The capital’s mayor called for the “draconian” proposals, which
include
a
larger congestion charge zone and higher Tube and bus fares, to be
reconsidered.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps proposed the measures, for which in return
TfL would receive six months of rescue funding lasting from now until Match
next year. He also suggested that the Government would seize control
of
TfL
if the measures were not followed.
But Mr Khan refused to accept the proposal outlined in a letter from Mr
Shapps, telling ministers that it was “completely unacceptable,” and
“singles out Londoners for punishment.”
He: "I simply cannot accept this Government plan, which would hit Londoners
with a triple whammy of higher costs at a time when so many people are
already facing hardship.
"The Government should be supporting Londoners through this difficult time
– not making ill-advised and draconian proposals which will choke off our
economic recovery.”
Ministers want to extend the £15 Congestion Charge Zone to the North and
South circular roads in 12 months' time. This would see the zone expanded
to cover approximately four million more Londoners.
The Government also wants to increase TfL fares and is “doubling down” on
their demand to remove free travel for under-18s, City Hall said.
apart from it being (from a socialist POV), "The right thing to do",
what
is
the logical justification for 16-18s travelling free?
I can see that giving over 60s a pass encourages them to give up their car
(as it has done for me), and thus reduces the potential extra
congestion
my
keeping it would create.
ditto allowing parents to take, under 12s for example with them for free
but that can't be the justification for 16-18 YO, which simply seems to be
based upon the theory that they are unwaged (not all are). A basis of
assigning free travel that almost nowhere else (in the world) uses.
It looks like Khan is winning this war of words; the floundering former
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/21/boris-johnson-picking-fights-local-leaders-losing/>
Government spokesperson saying "we didn't suggest that the CC zone should be
extended"
to elicit the response of AN Other holding up letter from Minster saying
exactly that
I can only repeat my OP, that this is the most socially unfair idea for fund
raising that any politician has ever suggested
What do you think of the other government demand, that council tax be
raised to partially cover the TfL black hole?
at least it's fair to all Londoners
Post by Recliner
It would have to be a
non-trivial amount per household to make much of a difference, let's say
£100 in band D.
100 pound for all, is tiny in comparison to a 5 grand CC charge levied on a
minority
Yes, thinking about it, the charge would have to be quite a bit higher to
raise significant money. Maybe closer to £500?
Post by tim...
Personally, I don't accept the premise that PT has to be self funding, but
we are where we are on that one
Yup, though capital expenditure isn't covered by the fares, even in good
times.
Robin
2020-10-17 06:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-rally-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone inside
it is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can walk/bus
to whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal employment
with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If residents get the same 90% discount as with the current CC that'd be
547.5. That'd be a vote-loser but reduce it in respons to the outcry
and you end up with somrthing similar to the 100+ pounds some Boroughs
charge for a residents parking permit and still a nice little earner.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
tim...
2020-10-17 07:00:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-rally-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone inside
it is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can walk/bus
to whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal employment
with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If residents get the same 90% discount as with the current CC that'd be
547.5.
only for the first vehicle

many families are going to have 2

and

"As part of temporary changes to the Congestion Charge, the residents'
discount is closed to new applicants"
Robin
2020-10-17 07:39:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-rally-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone
inside it is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can
walk/bus to whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If residents get the same 90% discount as with the current CC that'd
be 547.5.
only for the first vehicle
many families are going to have 2
the discount is limited to one vehicle per /resident/ not per household.
See Annex 3 to the Order: "At no time may particulars of more than one
vehicle be entered in the register, in relation to any one individual
who is a qualified resident."
Post by tim...
"As part of temporary changes to the Congestion Charge, the residents'
discount is closed to new applicants"
...to discourage car ownership in the CC zone. I suggest they'd never
get away with that within the N/S circulars. Apart from anything else a
lot of Assembly Members (and MPs) would be clobbered.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
tim...
2020-10-17 09:36:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-rally-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone inside
it is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can walk/bus
to whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal employment
with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If residents get the same 90% discount as with the current CC that'd be
547.5.
only for the first vehicle
many families are going to have 2
the discount is limited to one vehicle per /resident/ not per household.
See Annex 3 to the Order: "At no time may particulars of more than one
vehicle be entered in the register, in relation to any one individual who
is a qualified resident."
Post by tim...
"As part of temporary changes to the Congestion Charge, the residents'
discount is closed to new applicants"
...to discourage car ownership in the CC zone. I suggest they'd never get
away with that within the N/S circulars. Apart from anything else a lot
of Assembly Members (and MPs) would be clobbered.
but it's potentially being imposed upon these people by national government

the opposition parties looking for re-election locally can argue that they
have clean hands

by my count, the Tories have 2 constituencies and 1 assembly seat in this
new CC zone, not already inside the old one

tim
Recliner
2020-10-17 10:06:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-rally-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone inside
it is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can walk/bus
to whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal employment
with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If residents get the same 90% discount as with the current CC that'd be
547.5.
only for the first vehicle
many families are going to have 2
the discount is limited to one vehicle per /resident/ not per household.
See Annex 3 to the Order: "At no time may particulars of more than one
vehicle be entered in the register, in relation to any one individual who
is a qualified resident."
Post by tim...
"As part of temporary changes to the Congestion Charge, the residents'
discount is closed to new applicants"
...to discourage car ownership in the CC zone. I suggest they'd never get
away with that within the N/S circulars. Apart from anything else a lot
of Assembly Members (and MPs) would be clobbered.
but it's potentially being imposed upon these people by national government
the opposition parties looking for re-election locally can argue that they
have clean hands
by my count, the Tories have 2 constituencies and 1 assembly seat in this
new CC zone, not already inside the old one
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.

I suppose this confirms that the Tories have completely written off their
already very slim chances of winning the London mayoralty next year.
Robin
2020-10-17 10:54:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-rally-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone inside
it is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can walk/bus
to whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal employment
with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If residents get the same 90% discount as with the current CC that'd be
547.5.
only for the first vehicle
many families are going to have 2
the discount is limited to one vehicle per /resident/ not per household.
See Annex 3 to the Order: "At no time may particulars of more than one
vehicle be entered in the register, in relation to any one individual who
is a qualified resident."
Post by tim...
"As part of temporary changes to the Congestion Charge, the residents'
discount is closed to new applicants"
...to discourage car ownership in the CC zone. I suggest they'd never get
away with that within the N/S circulars. Apart from anything else a lot
of Assembly Members (and MPs) would be clobbered.
but it's potentially being imposed upon these people by national government
the opposition parties looking for re-election locally can argue that they
have clean hands
by my count, the Tories have 2 constituencies and 1 assembly seat in this
new CC zone, not already inside the old one
I had in mind MPs from other constituencies with accommodation inside
the zone - plus others such as Dominic Cummings :)
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
I suppose this confirms that the Tories have completely written off their
already very slim chances of winning the London mayoralty next year.
I took that as given when Bailey was selected
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Recliner
2020-10-17 11:03:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robin
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-rally-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone inside
it is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can walk/bus
to whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal employment
with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If residents get the same 90% discount as with the current CC that'd be
547.5.
only for the first vehicle
many families are going to have 2
the discount is limited to one vehicle per /resident/ not per household.
See Annex 3 to the Order: "At no time may particulars of more than one
vehicle be entered in the register, in relation to any one individual who
is a qualified resident."
Post by tim...
"As part of temporary changes to the Congestion Charge, the residents'
discount is closed to new applicants"
...to discourage car ownership in the CC zone. I suggest they'd never get
away with that within the N/S circulars. Apart from anything else a lot
of Assembly Members (and MPs) would be clobbered.
but it's potentially being imposed upon these people by national government
the opposition parties looking for re-election locally can argue that they
have clean hands
by my count, the Tories have 2 constituencies and 1 assembly seat in this
new CC zone, not already inside the old one
I had in mind MPs from other constituencies with accommodation inside
the zone - plus others such as Dominic Cummings :)
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
I suppose this confirms that the Tories have completely written off their
already very slim chances of winning the London mayoralty next year.
I took that as given when Bailey was selected
There were rumblings about replacing him with someone electable, but
nothing came of them.
Graeme Wall
2020-10-17 11:42:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Robin
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/sadiq-khan-and-shaun-bailey-rally-against-extension-of-congestion-charge-zone-a4571826.html
Other media available
As a disinterested party, I can't believe that anyone is seriously
suggesting this
The N/S Circular area isn't like the central area where everyone inside
it is moderately well off, or lives in a bubble where they can walk/bus
to whatever service that they need.
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal employment
with lives that mean that they have to have a car.
and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous
If residents get the same 90% discount as with the current CC that'd be
547.5.
only for the first vehicle
many families are going to have 2
the discount is limited to one vehicle per /resident/ not per household.
See Annex 3 to the Order: "At no time may particulars of more than one
vehicle be entered in the register, in relation to any one individual who
is a qualified resident."
Post by tim...
"As part of temporary changes to the Congestion Charge, the residents'
discount is closed to new applicants"
...to discourage car ownership in the CC zone. I suggest they'd never get
away with that within the N/S circulars. Apart from anything else a lot
of Assembly Members (and MPs) would be clobbered.
but it's potentially being imposed upon these people by national government
the opposition parties looking for re-election locally can argue that they
have clean hands
by my count, the Tories have 2 constituencies and 1 assembly seat in this
new CC zone, not already inside the old one
I had in mind MPs from other constituencies with accommodation inside
the zone - plus others such as Dominic Cummings :)
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
I suppose this confirms that the Tories have completely written off their
already very slim chances of winning the London mayoralty next year.
I took that as given when Bailey was selected
There were rumblings about replacing him with someone electable, but
nothing came of them.
Find an electable tory at the moment.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Roland Perry
2020-10-17 12:59:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2020-10-17 13:17:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
Your main home has to be in the zone to qualify, and the vehicle must be registered with the DVLA in your name and at
the address you are using to apply for the discount. Otherwise it wouldn't be a *residents'* discount.
Roland Perry
2020-10-17 14:02:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
Your main home has to be in the zone to qualify, and the vehicle must
be registered with the DVLA in your name and at
the address you are using to apply for the discount. Otherwise it
wouldn't be a *residents'* discount.
OK, so the same issue applies today for people living just outside the
existing zone, as for an extended zone.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2020-10-17 14:49:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
Your main home has to be in the zone to qualify, and the vehicle must
be registered with the DVLA in your name and at
the address you are using to apply for the discount. Otherwise it
wouldn't be a *residents'* discount.
OK, so the same issue applies today for people living just outside the
existing zone, as for an extended zone.
No, as a glance at a map should explain to you.
Roland Perry
2020-10-17 15:45:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
Your main home has to be in the zone to qualify, and the vehicle must
be registered with the DVLA in your name and at
the address you are using to apply for the discount. Otherwise it
wouldn't be a *residents'* discount.
OK, so the same issue applies today for people living just outside the
existing zone, as for an extended zone.
No, as a glance at a map should explain to you.
Why does it make a difference to the inconvenience of a zone on your
doorstep if you are living just the wrong side of Euston Road, or just
the wrong side of the North Circular?
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2020-10-17 13:51:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get the
discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
you have to live inside the zone

the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in the
zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day
Roland Perry
2020-10-17 14:03:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents
get the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone
itself
you have to live inside the zone
the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day
Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2020-10-17 16:03:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
you have to live inside the zone
the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day
Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?
that's what they do inside now

but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical

which is what Recliner said earlier
Roland Perry
2020-10-17 16:10:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents
get the discount, or only those living inside the rather small
zone itself
you have to live inside the zone
the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street
in the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day
Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?
that's what they do inside now
but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical
which is what Recliner said earlier
So you'll only have to pay of you venture out. Sounds fair enough to me.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2020-10-17 17:21:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
you have to live inside the zone
the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day
Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?
that's what they do inside now
but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical
which is what Recliner said earlier
So you'll only have to pay of you venture out.
we don't know the rules, as it's not been agreed

and hopefully never will be
Recliner
2020-10-17 20:02:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
you have to live inside the zone
the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day
Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?
that's what they do inside now
but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical
which is what Recliner said earlier
So you'll only have to pay of you venture out.
we don't know the rules, as it's not been agreed
and hopefully never will be
Yes, that's the key point: this is a threat from the government, not a TfL
plan.
Roland Perry
2020-10-18 08:30:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
you have to live inside the zone
the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day
Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?
that's what they do inside now
but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical
which is what Recliner said earlier
So you'll only have to pay of you venture out.
we don't know the rules, as it's not been agreed
and hopefully never will be
Yes, that's the key point: this is a threat from the government, not a TfL
plan.
But without agreeing to something like this, TfL will be bankrupt and
have to "cease trading". The public will perceive agreement to such a
plan as something the mayor was complicit in.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2020-10-18 08:58:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
you have to live inside the zone
the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day
Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?
that's what they do inside now
but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical
which is what Recliner said earlier
So you'll only have to pay of you venture out.
we don't know the rules, as it's not been agreed
and hopefully never will be
Yes, that's the key point: this is a threat from the government, not a TfL
plan.
But without agreeing to something like this, TfL will be bankrupt and
have to "cease trading". The public will perceive agreement to such a
plan as something the mayor was complicit in.
No, I'm pretty sure Boris and his floundering government will get the blame
if TfL is forced to issue a Section 114 order, the equivalent of bankruptcy
for a public body. Even local Tories will blame Boris.
Roland Perry
2020-10-18 09:12:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the
option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
you have to live inside the zone
the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day
Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?
that's what they do inside now
but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical
which is what Recliner said earlier
So you'll only have to pay of you venture out.
we don't know the rules, as it's not been agreed
and hopefully never will be
Yes, that's the key point: this is a threat from the government, not a TfL
plan.
But without agreeing to something like this, TfL will be bankrupt and
have to "cease trading". The public will perceive agreement to such a
plan as something the mayor was complicit in.
No, I'm pretty sure Boris and his floundering government will get the blame
if TfL is forced to issue a Section 114 order, the equivalent of bankruptcy
for a public body. Even local Tories will blame Boris.
I disagree, the electorate will blame the Labour mayor for the
mismanagement which got TfL into that situation.

Which includes him failing to arrange a similar deal that national TOCs
have for funding during the pandemic.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2020-10-18 09:26:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the
option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
you have to live inside the zone
the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day
Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?
that's what they do inside now
but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical
which is what Recliner said earlier
So you'll only have to pay of you venture out.
we don't know the rules, as it's not been agreed
and hopefully never will be
Yes, that's the key point: this is a threat from the government, not a TfL
plan.
But without agreeing to something like this, TfL will be bankrupt and
have to "cease trading". The public will perceive agreement to such a
plan as something the mayor was complicit in.
No, I'm pretty sure Boris and his floundering government will get the blame
if TfL is forced to issue a Section 114 order, the equivalent of bankruptcy
for a public body. Even local Tories will blame Boris.
I disagree, the electorate will blame the Labour mayor for the
mismanagement which got TfL into that situation.
Which includes him failing to arrange a similar deal that national TOCs
have for funding during the pandemic.
The DfT was given immediate, effectively unlimited, Treasury funding, which
was denied to TfL because it's under a Labour mayor. It wasn't TfL
mismanagement that caused TfL's revenues to collapse after the government
ordered a lockdown.

Boris probably won't be an MP by 2024, but this episode would probably put
paid to his chances of re-election if he were.
Graeme Wall
2020-10-18 09:55:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or
working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the
option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
you have to live inside the zone
the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day
Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?
that's what they do inside now
but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical
which is what Recliner said earlier
So you'll only have to pay of you venture out.
we don't know the rules, as it's not been agreed
and hopefully never will be
Yes, that's the key point: this is a threat from the government, not a TfL
plan.
But without agreeing to something like this, TfL will be bankrupt and
have to "cease trading". The public will perceive agreement to such a
plan as something the mayor was complicit in.
No, I'm pretty sure Boris and his floundering government will get the blame
if TfL is forced to issue a Section 114 order, the equivalent of bankruptcy
for a public body. Even local Tories will blame Boris.
I disagree, the electorate will blame the Labour mayor for the
mismanagement which got TfL into that situation.
Which includes him failing to arrange a similar deal that national TOCs
have for funding during the pandemic.
The DfT was given immediate, effectively unlimited, Treasury funding, which
was denied to TfL because it's under a Labour mayor. It wasn't TfL
mismanagement that caused TfL's revenues to collapse after the government
ordered a lockdown.
Boris probably won't be an MP by 2024, but this episode would probably put
paid to his chances of re-election if he were.
He will be an MP in 2024 but probably not PM after January.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2020-10-18 10:06:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or
working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the
option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone
itself
you have to live inside the zone
the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day
Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?
that's what they do inside now
but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical
which is what Recliner said earlier
So you'll only have to pay of you venture out.
we don't know the rules, as it's not been agreed
and hopefully never will be
Yes, that's the key point: this is a threat from the government, not a TfL
plan.
But without agreeing to something like this, TfL will be bankrupt and
have to "cease trading". The public will perceive agreement to such a
plan as something the mayor was complicit in.
No, I'm pretty sure Boris and his floundering government will get the blame
if TfL is forced to issue a Section 114 order, the equivalent of bankruptcy
for a public body. Even local Tories will blame Boris.
I disagree, the electorate will blame the Labour mayor for the
mismanagement which got TfL into that situation.
Which includes him failing to arrange a similar deal that national TOCs
have for funding during the pandemic.
The DfT was given immediate, effectively unlimited, Treasury funding, which
was denied to TfL because it's under a Labour mayor. It wasn't TfL
mismanagement that caused TfL's revenues to collapse after the government
ordered a lockdown.
Boris probably won't be an MP by 2024, but this episode would probably put
paid to his chances of re-election if he were.
He will be an MP in 2024 but probably not PM after January.
He will soon stand down as an MP once he ceases to be PM. He doesn't like
parliament, wouldn't enjoy being a backbench MP, and certainly wouldn't
want to have to declare his future earnings in the Register of Members'
Financial Interests. Like Blair and Cameron, he will depart swiftly to make
lots of money. He similarly won't want a peerage.
Roland Perry
2020-10-18 09:57:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or
working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the
option of
a resident's discount.
What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone itself
you have to live inside the zone
the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day
Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?
that's what they do inside now
but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical
which is what Recliner said earlier
So you'll only have to pay of you venture out.
we don't know the rules, as it's not been agreed
and hopefully never will be
Yes, that's the key point: this is a threat from the government, not a TfL
plan.
But without agreeing to something like this, TfL will be bankrupt and
have to "cease trading". The public will perceive agreement to such a
plan as something the mayor was complicit in.
No, I'm pretty sure Boris and his floundering government will get the blame
if TfL is forced to issue a Section 114 order, the equivalent of bankruptcy
for a public body. Even local Tories will blame Boris.
I disagree, the electorate will blame the Labour mayor for the
mismanagement which got TfL into that situation.
Which includes him failing to arrange a similar deal that national TOCs
have for funding during the pandemic.
The DfT was given immediate, effectively unlimited, Treasury funding, which
was denied to TfL because it's under a Labour mayor. It wasn't TfL
mismanagement that caused TfL's revenues to collapse after the government
ordered a lockdown.
That won't stop the electorate blaming the labour mayor for failing to
overcome your alleged treasury bias. Or indeed for failing to find some
other source of funding to keep TfL afloat.
Post by Recliner
Boris probably won't be an MP by 2024, but this episode would probably put
paid to his chances of re-election if he were.
Even though he's in a fairly safe seat with a 7,000 majority?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2020-10-17 12:57:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
"As part of temporary changes to the Congestion Charge, the
residents' discount is closed to new applicants"
...to discourage car ownership in the CC zone. I suggest they'd
never get away with that within the N/S circulars. Apart from
anything else a lot of Assembly Members (and MPs) would be clobbered.
but it's potentially being imposed upon these people by national government
the opposition parties looking for re-election locally can argue that
they have clean hands
Which will be difficult when the mayor responsible for agreeing to the
charge is from their party.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2020-10-17 14:52:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
"As part of temporary changes to the Congestion Charge, the
residents' discount is closed to new applicants"
...to discourage car ownership in the CC zone. I suggest they'd
never get away with that within the N/S circulars. Apart from
anything else a lot of Assembly Members (and MPs) would be clobbered.
but it's potentially being imposed upon these people by national government
the opposition parties looking for re-election locally can argue that
they have clean hands
Which will be difficult when the mayor responsible for agreeing to the
charge is from their party.
Shaun Bailey isn't mayor, and in any case, hasn't agreed to it. Sadiq Khan
certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.
Roland Perry
2020-10-17 15:47:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Robin
Post by tim...
"As part of temporary changes to the Congestion Charge, the
residents' discount is closed to new applicants"
...to discourage car ownership in the CC zone. I suggest they'd
never get away with that within the N/S circulars. Apart from
anything else a lot of Assembly Members (and MPs) would be clobbered.
but it's potentially being imposed upon these people by national government
the opposition parties looking for re-election locally can argue that
they have clean hands
Which will be difficult when the mayor responsible for agreeing to the
charge is from their party.
Shaun Bailey isn't mayor, and in any case, hasn't agreed to it.
He won't be the one implementing it.
Post by Recliner
Sadiq Khan certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the
TfL services (apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.
That'll be fun.
--
Roland Perry
Arthur Figgis
2020-10-17 20:08:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.
TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.

It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Roland Perry
2020-10-18 08:31:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, at
21:08:06 on Sat, 17 Oct 2020, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Recliner
certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.
TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.
It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.
There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2020-10-18 08:51:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
21:08:06 on Sat, 17 Oct 2020, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Recliner
certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.
TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the
end of the month.
It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.
There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.
It's the only commuter service TfL is legally obliged to operate. It
became free from 1889 after the the Metropolitan Board of Works took
over and removed tolls from the bridges in West London. The original Act
of Parliament, in 1811, set up a commercial ferry, which was taken over
in 1844 by the Eastern Counties Railway.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
tim...
2020-10-18 11:09:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Recliner
certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.
TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.
It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.
There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.
It's the only commuter service TfL is legally obliged to operate.
but it didn't during the hand over phase to the new ships

https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/woolwich-ferry-to-close-for-three-months-1-5708840
Recliner
2020-10-18 14:01:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Recliner
certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.
TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.
It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.
There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.
It's the only commuter service TfL is legally obliged to operate.
but it didn't during the hand over phase to the new ships
https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/woolwich-ferry-to-close-for-three-months-1-5708840
Yes, I wonder how that was handled? Did it need something from parliament?
Graeme Wall
2020-10-18 14:18:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Recliner
certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.
TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.
It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.
There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.
It's the only commuter service TfL is legally obliged to operate.
but it didn't during the hand over phase to the new ships
https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/woolwich-ferry-to-close-for-three-months-1-5708840
Yes, I wonder how that was handled? Did it need something from parliament?
Technically it now comes under TfL[1] so they could gives themselves
permission to suspend services temporarily.

[1] Free service originally agreed by the Metropolitan Board of Works,
control passed to the newly formed LCC, then to the GLC. When Thatcher
abolished the latter it became the responsibility of the Secretary of
State for transport. It then passed to TfL on the formation of the GLA.

It is not clear where the legal obligation to operate the service
derives from.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2020-10-18 14:35:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Recliner
certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.
TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.
It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.
There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.
It's the only commuter service TfL is legally obliged to operate.
but it didn't during the hand over phase to the new ships
https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/woolwich-ferry-to-close-for-three-months-1-5708840
Yes, I wonder how that was handled? Did it need something from parliament?
Technically it now comes under TfL[1] so they could gives themselves
permission to suspend services temporarily.
[1] Free service originally agreed by the Metropolitan Board of Works,
control passed to the newly formed LCC, then to the GLC. When Thatcher
abolished the latter it became the responsibility of the Secretary of
State for transport. It then passed to TfL on the formation of the GLA.
It is not clear where the legal obligation to operate the service
derives from.
So if TfL does run of money within the next fortnight, presumably it could
stop the ferry, along with all its trains, trams and buses?
Graeme Wall
2020-10-18 15:10:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Recliner
certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.
TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.
It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.
There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.
It's the only commuter service TfL is legally obliged to operate.
but it didn't during the hand over phase to the new ships
https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/woolwich-ferry-to-close-for-three-months-1-5708840
Yes, I wonder how that was handled? Did it need something from parliament?
Technically it now comes under TfL[1] so they could gives themselves
permission to suspend services temporarily.
[1] Free service originally agreed by the Metropolitan Board of Works,
control passed to the newly formed LCC, then to the GLC. When Thatcher
abolished the latter it became the responsibility of the Secretary of
State for transport. It then passed to TfL on the formation of the GLA.
It is not clear where the legal obligation to operate the service
derives from.
So if TfL does run of money within the next fortnight, presumably it could
stop the ferry, along with all its trains, trams and buses?
The legal obligation is from a Transport Act of 1884. That may have a
derogation for essential maintenance but I suspect Khan would argue that
doesn't apply in this case.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2020-10-18 15:24:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Recliner
certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.
TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.
It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.
There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.
It's the only commuter service TfL is legally obliged to operate.
but it didn't during the hand over phase to the new ships
https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/woolwich-ferry-to-close-for-three-months-1-5708840
Yes, I wonder how that was handled? Did it need something from parliament?
Technically it now comes under TfL[1] so they could gives themselves
permission to suspend services temporarily.
[1] Free service originally agreed by the Metropolitan Board of Works,
control passed to the newly formed LCC, then to the GLC. When Thatcher
abolished the latter it became the responsibility of the Secretary of
State for transport. It then passed to TfL on the formation of the GLA.
It is not clear where the legal obligation to operate the service
derives from.
So if TfL does run of money within the next fortnight, presumably it could
stop the ferry, along with all its trains, trams and buses?
The legal obligation is from a Transport Act of 1884. That may have a
derogation for essential maintenance but I suspect Khan would argue that
doesn't apply in this case.
Well, he's a former lawyer, so he might get it right. He certainly has more
attachment to the law than Boris ever did.
Arthur Figgis
2020-10-19 20:23:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
The legal obligation is from a Transport Act of 1884. That may have a
derogation for essential maintenance but I suspect Khan would argue that
doesn't apply in this case.
Looks like[1] it is Section 14 of the Metropolitan Board of Works
(Various Powers) Act 1885, but that is not available on line:[2].


[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1044/made#f00004
[2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1885/116
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Roland Perry
2020-10-18 14:25:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Recliner
certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.
TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.
It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.
There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.
It's the only commuter service TfL is legally obliged to operate.
but it didn't during the hand over phase to the new ships
https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/woolwich-ferry-to-close-for-three
-months-1-5708840
Yes, I wonder how that was handled? Did it need something from parliament?
It's unrealistic to demand any specific infrastructure operates 365 days
a year. Perhaps there's an allowance for maintenance periods in the
legislation.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2020-10-18 08:55:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
21:08:06 on Sat, 17 Oct 2020, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Recliner
certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.
TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.
It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.
There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.
Yes, I believe that is the case:

From the PM's local paper:

<https://www.hillingdontimes.co.uk/news/18799870.tfl-bailout-row-plans-extend-congestion-charge/>

TfL has relied on Government cash during the coronavirus crisis, after its
income from passenger fares fell 90 per cent at the peak of the virus.

If a new deal cannot be agreed with Government, the network will be forced
to issue a Section 114 order – the equivalent of bankruptcy for a public
body.

The transport authority would then only be allowed to operate services it
is required to by law – taxi licensing, free school buses for some
children, and the Woolwich Ferry.


———————

My guess is that the current mayor would easily win that game of chicken
with the former mayor.
Roland Perry
2020-11-01 09:41:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The TfL support deal was done yesterday just before the midnight
deadline, and doesn't include extending the Congestion Charge zone, but
keeps the current temporary arrangements in place.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2020-11-01 09:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
The TfL support deal was done yesterday just before the midnight
deadline, and doesn't include extending the Congestion Charge zone, but
keeps the current temporary arrangements in place.
Thanks, that's good news. It's been rather lost in all the lockdown
announcements.
Recliner
2020-11-01 10:01:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
The TfL support deal was done yesterday just before the midnight
deadline, and doesn't include extending the Congestion Charge zone, but
keeps the current temporary arrangements in place.
Thanks, that's good news. It's been rather lost in all the lockdown
announcements.
The BBC report:

Transport for London (TfL) has secured a £1.8bn government bailout, to keep
Tube and bus services running until March 2021.

The funding will ensure TfL can address its financial shortfall due to the
loss of passengers as a result of Covid-19.

The exact amount of money involved is subject to passenger revenue in the
coming months.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the deal was "not ideal" but he fought hard
against the "very worst" proposals.

"The only reason TfL needs government support is because its fares income
has almost dried up since March," he added.

Without a bailout the network would be forced to issue a Section 114 order,
the equivalent of bankruptcy for a public company.

Discussions on longer-term sustainable funding continue, TfL said.

Amendments to the Congestion Charge introduced in June as part of a
previous bailout - a 30% increase in the fee and longer operating hours -
will remain in place due to the new deal.

Mr Khan said last month the government wanted TfL to extend the charging
zone to the North and South Circular roads, covering around four million
more Londoners.

TfL Commissioner Andy Byford said: "The agreement will enable TfL to
continue to support the capital for the remainder of the financial year as
discussions on longer-term sustainable funding continue.
"Reaching this agreement with the government allows us to help London
through this next phase of the pandemic.

"We will continue to work with the mayor and the government on our
longer-term funding needs."

The government has been contacted for comment.

TfL said it would receive a "core amount of £1bn", consisting of a £905m
grant and £95m of borrowing.

Last month Boris Johnson claimed TfL was "effectively bankrupted" before
coronavirus, and proposals to hike charges were "entirely the
responsibility" of Mr Khan.

It costs £600m a month to keep the network running on its current reduced
service.

The lockdown has led to a 95% cut in people using the Tube compared to this
time last year. [I think that's out of date.]

The number of bus passengers has also dropped, by 85%, and customers no
longer have to tap-in to pay for rides as part of measures to protect
drivers. [That is no long true, and buses don't look quite that empty now.]

Most TfL services are still running, but 7,000 staff - about 25% of the
workforce - have been furloughed to cut costs. [I hadn't realised TfL had
furloughed so many staff. I wonder if that is also out of date?]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54768723

—————
Graeme Wall
2020-11-01 10:36:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
The TfL support deal was done yesterday just before the midnight
deadline, and doesn't include extending the Congestion Charge zone, but
keeps the current temporary arrangements in place.
Thanks, that's good news. It's been rather lost in all the lockdown
announcements.
Transport for London (TfL) has secured a £1.8bn government bailout, to keep
Tube and bus services running until March 2021.
The funding will ensure TfL can address its financial shortfall due to the
loss of passengers as a result of Covid-19.
Now Khan can hope to sit it out until Boris resigns in the New Year.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2020-11-01 10:43:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
The TfL support deal was done yesterday just before the midnight
deadline, and doesn't include extending the Congestion Charge zone, but
keeps the current temporary arrangements in place.
Thanks, that's good news. It's been rather lost in all the lockdown
announcements.
Transport for London (TfL) has secured a £1.8bn government bailout, to keep
Tube and bus services running until March 2021.
The funding will ensure TfL can address its financial shortfall due to the
loss of passengers as a result of Covid-19.
Now Khan can hope to sit it out until Boris resigns in the New Year.
Yes, good point, though my guess is that Boris will aim to hang on for
slightly longer than that. But he must be enviously looking at the huge
amounts Theresa May is earning for her speeches. Imagine — people actually
paying to listen to Theresa May! And, unlike Boris, she doesn't even need
the money: no kids, no divorces, well-paid spouse, no expensive hobbies or
holidays.
Graeme Wall
2020-11-01 14:45:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
The TfL support deal was done yesterday just before the midnight
deadline, and doesn't include extending the Congestion Charge zone, but
keeps the current temporary arrangements in place.
Thanks, that's good news. It's been rather lost in all the lockdown
announcements.
Transport for London (TfL) has secured a £1.8bn government bailout, to keep
Tube and bus services running until March 2021.
The funding will ensure TfL can address its financial shortfall due to the
loss of passengers as a result of Covid-19.
Now Khan can hope to sit it out until Boris resigns in the New Year.
Yes, good point, though my guess is that Boris will aim to hang on for
slightly longer than that.
That depends on the ERG…
Post by Recliner
But he must be enviously looking at the huge
amounts Theresa May is earning for her speeches. Imagine — people actually
paying to listen to Theresa May!
No accounting for taste!
Post by Recliner
And, unlike Boris, she doesn't even need
the money: no kids, no divorces, well-paid spouse, no expensive hobbies or
holidays.
Have you seen her mortgage?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2020-11-01 15:49:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
The TfL support deal was done yesterday just before the midnight
deadline, and doesn't include extending the Congestion Charge zone, but
keeps the current temporary arrangements in place.
Thanks, that's good news. It's been rather lost in all the lockdown
announcements.
Transport for London (TfL) has secured a £1.8bn government bailout, to keep
Tube and bus services running until March 2021.
The funding will ensure TfL can address its financial shortfall due to the
loss of passengers as a result of Covid-19.
Now Khan can hope to sit it out until Boris resigns in the New Year.
Yes, good point, though my guess is that Boris will aim to hang on for
slightly longer than that.
That depends on the ERG…
Post by Recliner
But he must be enviously looking at the huge
amounts Theresa May is earning for her speeches. Imagine — people actually
paying to listen to Theresa May!
No accounting for taste!
Post by Recliner
And, unlike Boris, she doesn't even need
the money: no kids, no divorces, well-paid spouse, no expensive hobbies or
holidays.
Have you seen her mortgage?
I'd suspect it's zero. Even if their properties hadn't already been paid off long ago, she's earned more than enough
since stepping down to pay off any remaining mortgage.
Marland
2020-11-01 18:22:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
The TfL support deal was done yesterday just before the midnight
deadline, and doesn't include extending the Congestion Charge zone, but
keeps the current temporary arrangements in place.
Thanks, that's good news. It's been rather lost in all the lockdown
announcements.
Transport for London (TfL) has secured a £1.8bn government bailout, to keep
Tube and bus services running until March 2021.
The funding will ensure TfL can address its financial shortfall due to the
loss of passengers as a result of Covid-19.
Now Khan can hope to sit it out until Boris resigns in the New Year.
Yes, good point, though my guess is that Boris will aim to hang on for
slightly longer than that.
That depends on the ERG…
Post by Recliner
But he must be enviously looking at the huge
amounts Theresa May is earning for her speeches. Imagine — people actually
paying to listen to Theresa May!
No accounting for taste!
Post by Recliner
And, unlike Boris, she doesn't even need
the money: no kids, no divorces, well-paid spouse, no expensive hobbies or
holidays.
Have you seen her mortgage?
Or her shoe collection and handbag collection.

GH
Recliner
2020-11-02 14:37:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Marland
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
The TfL support deal was done yesterday just before the midnight
deadline, and doesn't include extending the Congestion Charge zone, but
keeps the current temporary arrangements in place.
Thanks, that's good news. It's been rather lost in all the lockdown
announcements.
Transport for London (TfL) has secured a £1.8bn government bailout, to keep
Tube and bus services running until March 2021.
The funding will ensure TfL can address its financial shortfall due to the
loss of passengers as a result of Covid-19.
Now Khan can hope to sit it out until Boris resigns in the New Year.
Yes, good point, though my guess is that Boris will aim to hang on for
slightly longer than that.
That depends on the ERG…
Post by Recliner
But he must be enviously looking at the huge
amounts Theresa May is earning for her speeches. Imagine — people actually
paying to listen to Theresa May!
No accounting for taste!
Post by Recliner
And, unlike Boris, she doesn't even need
the money: no kids, no divorces, well-paid spouse, no expensive hobbies or
holidays.
Have you seen her mortgage?
Or her shoe collection and handbag collection.
Much cheaper than Boris's collection of women and children.

Loading...