London Banter - View Single Post

Jeremy Double

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 12:27:22 +0200, Robin9
wrote:

e27002 aurora;149932 Wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:18:14 -0500,
wrote:
-
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:
-
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:02:07 +0100 (GMT+01:00), tolly57
wrote:
-
-- No not the country, London fares for children. Article on BBC
London news 6.30 p/m yesterday highlighted the cost of fares for
children across the capital. Because TFL run more services north
of the river children up to age 11 can travel free whereas in the
south, national rail charge over fives. About time the mayor got
control of services within the M25.
-
Or, have HMG return "London South of the Thames" to Kent and Surrey.
There are enough issues North of the River to resolve.-

Oi! Watch it you! I was born and brought up in that part of LONDON. It's

been part of the capital since at least 1854.-

The present GLA is an overweening structure that, like its predecessor
will fail. Its costs will rise, its employees will become complacent.
It will be a proxy political battle ground for national issues, and
tend towards corruption. Would that this were not so, but it is.
Power begets power.

This is already the situation but what you are suggesting is not the
solution.

So it is worse than I thought. Pretty poor show for what is still one
of the world's most important centers for commerce, banking, et al.

First, it is unlikely that most people in Bromley and Bexley will want
to re-join Kent.

Then Kentish Men and Kentish Maids are not rising up to regain their
heritage? Unlike the folks in the north of the County of Lincoln and
their Yorkshire neighbors who certainly did not like being in
Humberside.

Second, removing Bromley and Bexley will not change the
attitudes within the GLA or within County Hall.

No, it would merely release them from its ambit. Merciful release one
would have thought.

The real solution is to scrap the office of Mayor Of London and to
return
London to how it was before the Blair government inflicted this extra
layer of government upon us.

Here we agree. The whole thing is an expensive, unneeded, nonsense.

If the situation returned to the status quo ante however, Bromley and
Bexley would effectively become unitary authorities. (We called them
County Boroughs in my day. But, Whitehall is perfectly capable of
re-inventing at great taxpayer expense.). Were Bromley and Bexley
such, the county line would become arbitrary for governance purposes.

As there has been a huge change in attitude towards public transport
since 1997, most of the funding London has secured towards it in the
past
decade or so would have been forthcoming anyway.

IIRC the original LPTB covered an area much larger than the GLC, LCC
or Middlesex. Remember the green London Transport buses? We had them
all the way out to Aylesbury. The needs of commuters, and other rail
and bus users are not confined to the core of the metropolis. We need
a transportation body covering the Southeast.

The question is how should such a body be financed and regulated? One
possibility would be nominees from the local authorities in the area
covered meeting as a body to plan, finance, and provide.

A better solution might be a committee of the MPs covering the area.
Meeting as needed. In either case the body responsible for the new
LPTB would need to be able to raise funds through taxation, which
could be a portion of the Council Tax, a slice of VAT, or a mixture.

Apart from public
transport, what real, incontrovertible benefits have come with a Mayor
for
London?

Those United States have a federal law against providing aid and
comfort to the enemy in time of war. If the UK has such a law the
first GLA "Mayor" is almost certainly guilty. He is very poor excuse
for a human being.

He couldn't have been guilty: the UK hasn't declared war since the 1940s...
--
Jeremy Double