Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
tim... wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... 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: 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/a...sted-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/ |
#62
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
#63
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 18/10/2020 16:10, Graeme Wall wrote:
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/...44/made#f00004 [2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1885/116 -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
#64
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#66
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. 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/ |
#67
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. 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. |
#68
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#69
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 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/ |
#70
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 20/10/2020 13:13, 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 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.Â* 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/ 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/governmen...ilout-12105037 -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
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 |