On 12 May, 18:56, James Farrar wrote:
According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Whatever one might interpret that to mean, it's all Boris Johnson's
idea.

Why didn't anyone think of it before (whatever it means)?

First Great Western are to be the first according to the radio.
Boris has done it so fast, it's a pity Ken did not try it (;-)

Ken was trying, but apparently Boris has adopted a "less
confrontational" approach which appears to be paying dividends.

Or, in the real world, Ken had already achieved it (Oyster was already
scheduled for roll-out on National Rail by 2009) but Boris took the
credit, and the Standard has let him get away with taking the credit.

Still, I'm sure the London press will be happy to apply just the same
levels of scrutiny to the new mayor that it applied to his
predecessor. Oh yes.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:

Or, in the real world, Ken had already achieved it (Oyster was already
scheduled for roll-out on National Rail by 2009) but Boris took the
credit, and the Standard has let him get away with taking the credit.

Still, I'm sure the London press will be happy to apply just the same
levels of scrutiny to the new mayor that it applied to his
predecessor. Oh yes.

Boris's campaign could have done without the headache of the row over
routemaster costs. And which newspaper made an issue of it?

Anyway if you want an anti-Boris Livingstone-nostalgic paper, buy the
Grauniad. Or try getting "The Evening Communist" started and successful.

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

Boris's campaign could have done without the headache of the row over
routemaster costs. And which newspaper made an issue of it?


The Guardian. Dave Hill's piece appeared around about the first week in
March and proved to be entirely correct.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...london08.boris

When did the Standard lay into it?

Anyway if you want an anti-Boris Livingstone-nostalgic paper, buy
the Grauniad. Or try getting "The Evening Communist" started and
successful.

If you like your transport finances to pass more than a superficial
examination you're a Communist? Interesting. *makes note*

Tom

Tom Barry wrote:

Boris's campaign could have done without the headache of the row over
routemaster costs. And which newspaper made an issue of it?

The Guardian. Dave Hill's piece appeared around about the first week in
March and proved to be entirely correct.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...london08.boris

When did the Standard lay into it?

Before then - late February and earlier in March. Their website keeps
crashing my browser but amongst the search results:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa... is/article.do

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ers/article.do

Anyway if you want an anti-Boris Livingstone-nostalgic paper, buy
the Grauniad. Or try getting "The Evening Communist" started and
successful.

If you like your transport finances to pass more than a superficial
examination you're a Communist? Interesting. *makes note*

I meant that more for the sore losers currently whining about the Standard
and claiming it swung the result of the election against their beloved Ken.
(Although I find all the "I'm devastated for London" or "Not in my name"
comments from Labour activists far worse - they're not fooling anyone.)
Never mind the fact that other papers were vehemently anti-Boris or that the
newspaper market is the way it is.

There's a pretty good rebuttal of this line by Gilligan in the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...is-821013.html

On 13 May, 08:38, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
Tom Barry wrote:
Boris's campaign could have done without the headache of the row over
routemaster costs. And which newspaper made an issue of it?
The Guardian. *Dave Hill's piece appeared around about the first week in
March and proved to be entirely correct.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...london08.boris
When did the Standard lay into it?

Before then - late February and earlier in March. Their website keeps
crashing my browser but amongst the search results:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...443386-details...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...448187-details...


There is a substantial difference between stories which point out the
candidates were "clashing" over an issue, as above, and those which
make ficationalized ad hominem attacks against one - and only one - of
them.

Running a story that Livingstone had pointed out that Boris's sums
were rubbish isn't specifically anti-Boris, it's just basic reporting.
Running a story that one of Ken's campaign chiefs was an active
terrorist - which was, you know, not true - is extremely anti-Ken; the
equivalent would have been to splash with "BNP CAMPAIGNS FOR BORIS",
which they didn't do.

You seem like a bright enough chap. I don't honestly believe you can't
see the difference in scale there.

Anyway if you want an anti-Boris Livingstone-nostalgic paper, buy
the Grauniad. Or try getting "The Evening Communist" started and
successful.
If you like your transport finances to pass more than a superficial
examination you're a Communist? *Interesting. *makes note*

I meant that more for the sore losers currently whining about the Standard
and claiming it swung the result of the election against their beloved Ken..
(Although I find all the "I'm devastated for London" or "Not in my name"
comments from Labour activists far worse - they're not fooling anyone.)
Never mind the fact that other papers were vehemently anti-Boris or that the
newspaper market is the way it is.


Yes, the newspaper market is the way it is in that the Standard has a
monopoly in London. That's offensive at the best of times, before they
start swinging an election based on their own personal prejudices.

The Guardian, of course, isn't a London newspaper.

Jonn

On Tue, 13 May 2008 01:33:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Yes, the newspaper market is the way it is in that the Standard has a
monopoly in London.

That used to be true in the evening.

The Guardian, of course, isn't a London newspaper.

Really? Remind me where Farringdon Road is.

On 13 May, 17:20, James Farrar wrote:
Yes, the newspaper market is the way it is in that the Standard has a
monopoly in London.

That used to be true in the evening.

The Guardian, of course, isn't a London newspaper.

Really? Remind me where Farringdon Road is.

Hmm. I'd question whether the Economist was a "London magazine", or
the IHT a "Paris newspaper"...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Tue, 13 May 2008, James Farrar wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 01:33:14 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Yes, the newspaper market is the way it is in that the Standard has a
monopoly in London.

That used to be true in the evening.

The Guardian, of course, isn't a London newspaper.

Really? Remind me where Farringdon Road is.

Judging by the columns of theirs i've read in the last couple of years, in
orbit round planet almost, but not quite, exactly unlike ours.

tom

--
When you mentioned INSERT-MIND-INPUT ... did they look at you like this?

wrote:

You seem like a bright enough chap. I don't honestly believe you can't
see the difference in scale there.

As I said the site was crashing my browser (and has a dire search engine) so
I grabbed the first stable links I could get. I remember more substantial
pieces in the Standard but it's always been one of the worst of online
papets.

Yes, the newspaper market is the way it is in that the Standard has a
monopoly in London.

Only because the other evening paids have died out. The Standard is, of
course, under much pressure from the freesheets but has managed to carve out
a niche for itself. But it's not as if the Standard has a guaranteed
monopoly - there's nothing but market forces stopping a rival paper from
trying to offer an alternative.

That's offensive at the best of times, before they
start swinging an election based on their own personal prejudices.

The Guardian, of course, isn't a London newspaper.

It hasn't really been the "Manchester Guardian" in decades. It is part of
the national-based-in-London press and so in one sense *is* a London paper,
albeit not a local focused one. Do you think any of the national papers
would have given anything like even proporional coverage to a hypothetical
Mayoral election in, say, Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool?

On May 14, 6:59*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
wrote:
You seem like a bright enough chap. I don't honestly believe you can't
see the difference in scale there.

As I said the site was crashing my browser (and has a dire search engine) so
I grabbed the first stable links I could get. I remember more substantial
pieces in the Standard but it's always been one of the worst of online
papets.

Yes, the newspaper market is the way it is in that the Standard has a
monopoly in London.

Only because the other evening paids have died out. The Standard is, of
course, under much pressure from the freesheets but has managed to carve out
a niche for itself. But it's not as if the Standard has a guaranteed
monopoly - there's nothing but market forces stopping a rival paper from
trying to offer an alternative.

That's offensive at the best of times, before they
start swinging an election based on their own personal prejudices.
The Guardian, of course, isn't a London newspaper.

It hasn't really been the "Manchester Guardian" in decades. It is part of
the national-based-in-London press and so in one sense *is* a London paper,
albeit not a local focused one. Do you think any of the national papers
would have given anything like even proporional coverage to a hypothetical
Mayoral election in, say, Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool?

One thing the Standard does seem to have a monopoly on, and which I
have been very aware of as someone who doesn't buy newspapers, is
those fake handwritten boards on every street corner proclaiming
"Boris Does a Thing" every single day.

I'm sure that must have an effect.