On 8/28/2015 5:23 PM, Recliner wrote:
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:19:04 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:22:52 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...
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.

Hows that going to make fares cheaper for kids?

Something on which the respective counties would make a determination.
I believe most counties provide a child subsidy for buses.

round 'ere (Kent) they are stopping paying for bus passes to school

the idea that they might have any money to subsidise leisure fares is pure
fantasy

So gaining the tax base of erstwhile metropolitan (Northeast) Kent
would be distinctly advantageous. By sensible investment and suitable
carrots they might event tempt some businesses to cross the Thames.

Perhaps it's time that you recognised that London is rather more than just
the City?


And at its present extent is fifty years old.


--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

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.

Neither of us are being geographically very specific. So, let's
review. Prior to 1965 the boroughs of Bromley and Bexley were in
Kent. At that point, without resource to a plebiscite, these were
annexed to the newly formed GLC.

At that time the "inner" boroughs Greenwich, Woolwich et al were in
the London County Council area. The LCC was formed in 1889 and
encompassed those hitherto parts of Kent. Prior to 1889 Middlesex
existed only North of the Thames.

There was however the unelected, and unpopular, Metropolitan Board of
Works. It carried out certain functions in the London Census Area.
Perhaps that is the London to which you refer?

Review over, unless you have something to add. Let's deduce.

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.

Unfortunately I doubt HMG at that time will have the wisdom to "divide
and conquer". Rather they will come up with a bigger more
encompassing structure. Such is the nature of these things.

For any number of reasons smaller, manageable, municipalities and
counties are better. Not least because of the tendency to compete on
quality of life issues, and the attraction of jobs. Moreover, as time
passes people put down roots and civic pride boosts the local
identity.

A brief look at the Metropolis of Atlanta is instructive. At first
sight, at a map of the Sovereign State of Georgia, Atlantis appears to
be a major metropolis to the middle north of the state.

However, a closer look shows a county line running north to south thru
the metropolis. Atlanta is in fact a City within the County of
Fulton. The Eastern half of the Metropolis is primarily the City of
Decatur in the County of DeKalb. ( DeKalb County does have other
municipalities, and unincorporated areas).

Is the region poorer for this split? Absolutely not. The local
authorities are able to cooperate when needed. With surrounding
Counties they jointly built and operate the marvellous Marta Rail
Transit system.

OTOH the municipalities each have their own style and compete to
attract business. Each has its distinct character and demographic.

This of course would not be a model attractive to people who love to
control.

In message , at 08:25:46 on
Sat, 29 Aug 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
A brief look at the Metropolis of Atlanta is instructive. At first
sight, at a map of the Sovereign State of Georgia, Atlantis appears to
be a major metropolis to the middle north of the state.

However, a closer look shows a county line running north to south thru
the metropolis. Atlanta is in fact a City within the County of
Fulton. The Eastern half

The split is more like 90:10

of the Metropolis is primarily the City of
Decatur in the County of DeKalb. ( DeKalb County does have other
municipalities, and unincorporated areas).

But the City of Atlanta is separately governed, and has for example its
own sales tax which differs from other parts of Fulton/DeKalb.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:14:28 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 08:25:46 on
Sat, 29 Aug 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
A brief look at the Metropolis of Atlanta is instructive. At first
sight, at a map of the Sovereign State of Georgia, Atlantis appears to
be a major metropolis to the middle north of the state.

However, a closer look shows a county line running north to south thru
the metropolis. Atlanta is in fact a City within the County of
Fulton. The Eastern half

The split is more like 90:10

of the Metropolis is primarily the City of
Decatur in the County of DeKalb. ( DeKalb County does have other
municipalities, and unincorporated areas).

But the City of Atlanta is separately governed, and has for example its
own sales tax which differs from other parts of Fulton/DeKalb.

Precisely, the setting of tax rates is part of the localized
competition to which I refer. Unfortunately not available to UK
municipalities.

In message , at 09:37:55 on
Sat, 29 Aug 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
A brief look at the Metropolis of Atlanta is instructive. At first
sight, at a map of the Sovereign State of Georgia, Atlantis appears to
be a major metropolis to the middle north of the state.

However, a closer look shows a county line running north to south thru
the metropolis. Atlanta is in fact a City within the County of
Fulton. The Eastern half

The split is more like 90:10

of the Metropolis is primarily the City of
Decatur in the County of DeKalb. ( DeKalb County does have other
municipalities, and unincorporated areas).

But the City of Atlanta is separately governed, and has for example its
own sales tax which differs from other parts of Fulton/DeKalb.

Precisely, the setting of tax rates is part of the localized
competition to which I refer.

Yes, but it's competition between three separate entities, not two.

Unfortunately not available to UK municipalities.

Different rates of VAT in different towns in the UK would be a
nightmare. Apart from anything else it makes it virtually impossible to
implement a "tax inclusive" price list.

However that kind of competition *does* exist between different EU
countries.
--
Roland Perry

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

First, it is unlikely that most people in Bromley and Bexley will want
to re-join Kent. Second, removing Bromley and Bexley will not change the
attitudes within the GLA or within County Hall.

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.

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

Has either Mayor dealt effectively with the housing crisis? Has either Mayor
pursued policies likely to reduce air pollution? Has either Mayor devised a
strategy for creating employment for the large number of people who leave
school barely able to read, write and do basic arithmetic?

After the old GLC was abolished by Thatcher's government - in my opinion,
one of only two things that dreadful government got right: the other was
defeating Scargill - London was quite well run. I would love to go back to that
arrangement.

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.

The only positive thing about the second one is that he is an
improvement on the first. Not exactly a high bar is it? Why would
the people of greater london elect someone who belongs in a poor music
hall skit?

Has either Mayor dealt effectively with the housing crisis?

Absolutely not. There is plenty of opportunity for developing TODs
arrange major transit nodes, Camden Town Station and West Hampstead to
name just two. Why aren't the boroughs pursuing this?

Has either
Mayor
pursued policies likely to reduce air pollution?

The Congestion Charge comes to mind. But, why was that not
accompanied by investment in surface electric transit. If the stick
is applied so should the carrot.

More trams, some trolley buses are need along with less cars. How
about a Plexiglass tube above the length of Oxford Street with
travellators, and frequent elevators. It could even have third floor
access directly into some of the department stores.

Has either Mayor
devised a
strategy for creating employment for the large number of people who
leave
school barely able to read, write and do basic arithmetic?

That is more a national problem than a Southeast one. Parents bear
the responsibility to see that their offspring go out into world
capable of supporting themselves and their families. Most, devolve it
to others and do not give a damn about the results.


After the old GLC was abolished by Thatcher's government - in my
opinion,
one of only two things that dreadful government got right: the other was

defeating Scargill - London was quite well run.

Here we differ. The years of tepid socialism were culminating in
piles of garbage in the street, a growing rat population, and the dead
were unburied. Can you imagine how this added to the emotional load
of the families and friends of the recently decease?

Margaret Hilda Baroness Thatcher was raised up to restore our United
Kingdom. She achieved so much before the cowards in the tory party
had their palace coup.

This included trades union legislation and the defeat of Scargill and
co. Decent people were making a living again and the UK's national
esteem was being restored.

I would love to go back
to that
arrangement.


You make a compelling case. You have all but sold it to me.

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.

First, it is unlikely that most people in Bromley and Bexley will want
to re-join Kent. Second, removing Bromley and Bexley will not change the


really - how many hgibe their address as Bromley Kent - I suspect that
Bromley at least think themselves as part of Kent not London

attitudes within the GLA or within County Hall.

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.

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

Has either Mayor dealt effectively with the housing crisis? Has either
Mayor
pursued policies likely to reduce air pollution? Has either Mayor
devised a
strategy for creating employment for the large number of people who
leave
school barely able to read, write and do basic arithmetic?

Sort of since 2000 schooling in London has improved more than elswhere
in England
https://www.cfbt.com/en-GB/Research/Research-library/2014/r-london-schools-2014





After the old GLC was abolished by Thatcher's government - in my
opinion,
one of only two things that dreadful government got right: the other was

defeating Scargill - London was quite well run. I would love to go back
to that
arrangement.


--
Mark

Mark Bestley wrote:
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.

First, it is unlikely that most people in Bromley and Bexley will want
to re-join Kent. Second, removing Bromley and Bexley will not change the


really - how many hgibe their address as Bromley Kent - I suspect that
Bromley at least think themselves as part of Kent not London

attitudes within the GLA or within County Hall.

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.

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

Has either Mayor dealt effectively with the housing crisis? Has either
Mayor
pursued policies likely to reduce air pollution? Has either Mayor
devised a
strategy for creating employment for the large number of people who
leave
school barely able to read, write and do basic arithmetic?

Sort of since 2000 schooling in London has improved more than elswhere
in England
https://www.cfbt.com/en-GB/Research/Research-library/2014/r-london-schools-2014

What does that have to do with the mayor?

In message , Mark Bestley
writes

really - how many hgibe their address as Bromley Kent - I suspect that
Bromley at least think themselves as part of Kent not London

I'm in Loughton Essex, on the tube & most buses are red. Until fairly
recently the Police were Met (now Essex)

Ilford & Romford are nominally Essex for Post Code purposes and most
people assume they are in Essex but in fact they are in London Boroughs

The annoying thing (to me) is that residents of Ilford & Romford (and a
number of other "Essex" places are entitled to Freedom Passes but I'm
not.

Bromley residents (if eligible) are also entitled to Freedom Passes
although as far as I'm concerned "out in the sticks"
--
Bryan Morris
Public Key http://www.pgp.uk.demon.net - 0xCC6237E9