Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#72
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:10:39 +0100, "tim..." wrote:
"Trolleybus" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:11:17 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote: Arthur Figgis wrote: On 19/10/2020 10:38, tim... wrote: not helped by biased headlines like this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...sted-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. |
#73
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
tim... wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... Robin wrote: On 19/10/2020 10:04, wrote: On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100 Robin wrote: On 19/10/2020 08:37, wrote: On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri, 16 Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked: 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 ******** 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: 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 |
#74
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... Robin wrote: On 19/10/2020 10:04, wrote: On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100 Robin wrote: On 19/10/2020 08:37, wrote: On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri, 16 Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked: 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 ******** 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: 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. 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 |
#75
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
tim... wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... Robin wrote: On 19/10/2020 10:04, wrote: On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100 Robin wrote: On 19/10/2020 08:37, wrote: On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri, 16 Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked: 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 ******** 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: 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. 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/ |
#76
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... Robin wrote: On 19/10/2020 10:04, wrote: On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100 Robin wrote: On 19/10/2020 08:37, wrote: On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri, 16 Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked: 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 ******** 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: 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. 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/ 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 |
#77
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
tim... wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... Robin wrote: On 19/10/2020 10:04, wrote: On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100 Robin wrote: On 19/10/2020 08:37, wrote: On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri, 16 Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked: 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 ******** 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: 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. 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/ 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 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. |
#78
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... Robin wrote: On 19/10/2020 10:04, wrote: On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100 Robin wrote: On 19/10/2020 08:37, wrote: On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri, 16 Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked: 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 ******** 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: 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. 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/ 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 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 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 |
#79
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 15:46:57 on Thu, 22 Oct
2020, tim... remarked: 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 |
#80
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
tim... wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... tim... wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... Robin wrote: On 19/10/2020 10:04, wrote: On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100 Robin wrote: On 19/10/2020 08:37, wrote: On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri, 16 Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked: 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 ******** 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: 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. 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/ 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 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 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? 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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Congestion charge fine | London Transport | |||
Congestion Charge extension | London Transport | |||
Congestion Charge appeal question | London Transport | |||
Congestion charge cheat | London Transport | |||
Extending the congestion charge zone | London Transport |