In message , at 02:48:43
on Mon, 27 Jun 2011, remarked:

The Cambridge Guided Bus was also "sold" on the basis of having a
similar trendy looking bendy bus in the fliers - but once it was
approved the promoters backpedalled and said that they never
intended to imply it would have anything other than normal buses.
Yeah, right.

To be fair, that was a change of promoters. Cambridgeshire County Council
have never sold the scheme on the basis of bendy buses.

So who was it produced the documents in question. Weren't they
circulated around the time of the infamous "would you like high quality
transport" questionnaire?

It's still being sold as superior, though, through leather seats and wifi.

People would probably prefer a more frequent service, especially
off-peak.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:08:57 on
Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Paul Corfield remarked:

It's still being sold as superior, though, through leather seats and wifi.

Lets see how well those leather seats survive chavs being sick on them
on a saturday night and schoolkids stabbing them with pencils.

Given the buses have been in service for months and months I suspect
they're holding up very well. Stagecoach have used the same vehicle
types in various places across the country with the same level of
finish / facilites.

There's nothing wrong with "leather seats" as such, but you need more
than that to transform a service.
--
Roland Perry

Paul Corfield wrote:

When campaigning for Boris & the local Assembly candidate in 2007/8 along
a
good chunk of the 25's route we found the policy going down very well on
the
doorstep or for that matter at bus stops.

Well I trust you're looking forward to an electoral bounce next year
in those well known Conservative areas like Manor Park, Bow, Mile End
and Whitechapel ;-)

I'd very much like to look forward to it (and also in Stratford and Forest
Gate ) but on a more serious point very few people cast & change their
vote on the basis of one single policy, even if they do agree with it.
People tend to vote more on perceptions of right priorities, competence,
honesty and so forth, which the policies feed into. It's rare for a single
issue to be such a vote switcher.

Livingstone had never really had hard competition before and I got the
impression that both his camp and a lot of the London Labour Party had
come
to regard London as theirs to govern by divine right, with elections a
formality to rubber stamp. (The reaction of many Labour activists when
Livingstone lost said it all.) And with such arrogance often comes over
things, which the Standard picked up on and ran with. I don't think they
took the prospect of defeat seriously until it was too late.

An interesting view. A quick check of history would have shown that
the leadership of the LCC and GLC switched between parties so it was
entirely plausible that the Mayoralty would too. I can't imagine that
Ken is not steeped in London's political history so he must have known
there was a risk of him losing. Still I am not familiar with the
machinations of political parties so I am probably talking cobblers

The LCC switched parties just twice in its 76 year history (Progressives
lost to Municipal Reform in 1907 who in turn lost to Labour in 1934).

The GLC was more volatile, switch control at four out of six elections
(1967, 1973, 1977, 1981) and was *always* won by the party in Opposition
nationally.

(For those wondering, the Inner London Education Authority - comprised
1965-1986 of the GLC members for the old LCC area, bar North Woolwich, and
then directly elected 1986-1990, was Conservative controlled in 1967-1970
but otherwise Labour held throughout its existence. ILEA was abolished from
1990 with education passing to the boroughs.)

However London has changed a lot since 1981 and there has been a noticeable
leftwards shift. What were once regular electoral bellweathers have steadily
shifted into safe territory with changes in both demographics and the
relationship between demographics and voting. In the last general election
the Conservatives had their weakest swing outside Scotland (and I think
Northern Ireland but the UCUNF arrangement confuses things) in London and of
the six southern & Midlands regions it was their weakest by some margin.
Current London opinion polls show the Conservatives trailing Boris by some
distance. The result overall is that London increasingly feels a naturally
left leaning city, even if the Conservatives are still able to win some
seats, and when coupled with a seemingly always popular incumbent it seemed
that the Mayoralty was going to be Labour in all but exceptional
circumstances (e.g. the nomination f-up of 2000).

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:32:15 +0100
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
People tend to vote more on perceptions of right priorities, competence,
honesty and so forth, which the policies feed into. It's rare for a single

Yeah , right. People - if they even think when they vote and don't just vote
for the party they've always voted for or their parents voted for - usually
just vote for the party they think will benefit them the most , not the
country as a whole.

distance. The result overall is that London increasingly feels a naturally
left leaning city, even if the Conservatives are still able to win some

Depends what you mean by london. If you just mean the inner city chavvy dole
scroungers and immigrant infested scumbag areas or the right-on muesli munching
camden and hampstead areas then yes. If you mean the outer suburbs then mostly
no.

B2003

In message , Roland Perry
writes

There's nothing wrong with "leather seats" as such

I expect they'll help to keep vegetarians at bay.
--
Paul Terry

d wrote:

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:32:15 +0100
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
People tend to vote more on perceptions of right priorities, competence,
honesty and so forth, which the policies feed into. It's rare for a single

Yeah , right. People - if they even think when they vote and don't just
vote
for the party they've always voted for or their parents voted for -
usually
just vote for the party they think will benefit them the most , not the
country as a whole.

Possibly quite true, although many do believe their interests and the
country as a whole's interests coincide and vote for those with priorities
to help such interests. But substantially the point stands - single policies
rarely do much on their own, though the adoption of the policy helps the
overall image.

distance. The result overall is that London increasingly feels a naturally
left leaning city, even if the Conservatives are still able to win some

Depends what you mean by london. If you just mean the inner city chavvy
dole
scroungers and immigrant infested scumbag areas or the right-on muesli
munching
camden and hampstead areas then yes. If you mean the outer suburbs then
mostly
no.

You've put your finger on part of the problem. Traditionally the outer
suburbs don't feel a great connection to "London", especially when its
regional governance has been very much focused on inner London. The postal
addresses out there historically not including "London" in them don't help
in reminding them they are actually under the GLA. Boris's campaign in 2008
identified the outer suburbs as an area of potential if the vote could be
got out (and it's telling that some of the local Labour Parties most
sceptical if not hostile to Livingstone are in the outer suburbs) and
managed to tap into it. More normally the voting patterns across Greater
London as a whole see the left on top now.

d wrote:

There were attacks on the buses before Bojo's campaign. Part of it is down
to London exceptionalism, especially as the bendies coincided with the
phasing out of the Routemaster, but also the buses were never terribly
well
sold to portions of the public who have to use them.

Why do you need to "sell" a bus? People will know if they like it as soon
as they use it.

Yes and in the case of the bendy there was a lot of dislike. But you need to
sell some of the basics - in particular insufficient was done to convince
both customers and fare dodgers that they weren't a "free bus". On the 25 it
was very rare to encounter ticket inspections at least east of Mile End - so
rare that even when fare dodgers were caught they were still overall better
off.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:42:58 +0100
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
wrote:
Why do you need to "sell" a bus? People will know if they like it as soon
as they use it.

Yes and in the case of the bendy there was a lot of dislike. But you need to

I'm not so sure. I think there was a small very vocal minority who couldn't
stand them and made damn sure everyone knew it , but the vast majority of
users were more than happy with them. I used them intermittently for a while
and I found them a pleasure to use. Far nicer than having to crawl up the
staircase in a double decker and hang on for dear life while the driver
floors it and then when I get to the top deck its more like a greenhouse than
a method of transport. And thats without the obligatory yoofs hanging around
on the back seat.

B2003

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
02:48:43 on Mon, 27 Jun 2011, remarked:

The Cambridge Guided Bus was also "sold" on the basis of having a
similar trendy looking bendy bus in the fliers - but once it was
approved the promoters backpedalled and said that they never
intended to imply it would have anything other than normal buses.
Yeah, right.

To be fair, that was a change of promoters. Cambridgeshire County
Council have never sold the scheme on the basis of bendy buses.

So who was it produced the documents in question. Weren't they
circulated around the time of the infamous "would you like high
quality transport" questionnaire?

I have to admit I've forgotten who they were. I know it wasn't the County
Council because those other people upset my constituents big time by
proposing various road alterations close to Drummer Street that the County
knew nothing about. They've been anti-guided bus ever since, even though
it will barely affect them if at all. The County denied all knowledge of
the original promoters with bendies and started their own proposals some
time later.

It's still being sold as superior, though, through leather seats and
wifi.

People would probably prefer a more frequent service, especially
off-peak.

YMTTBICPC

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 19:21:29 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2011\06\26 10:30, Peter wrote:

I suspect that they will be recycled. Swansea has had a number of
second-hand bendy buses imposed upon it - no idea where they came
from. thjey all have personalised number plates to hide the fact from
the morons in the council that they are rejects.
They were initially planned torun as far as Mumbles, but then it was
discovered that it was impossible for them to turn around to make the
return journey!

Then I'd call that a proposal rather than a plan.

No, it was a plan - the council wanted something to replace the
Mumbles Railway and came up with a bendybus route to the village.
However, due to the incompetence of both the councillors and the
traffic planners. We are talking about a council who designated one of
the busiest streets in Swansea as a pedestrian area - excellent -
except for the double decker buses that were permitted to share it.
--
Cheers

Peter

(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)