Trolling much?

asdf wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 12:27:32 +0100, Tom Barry wrote:

‘Boris Johnson’s announcement today that he is doubling bus and tram
fares for people on Income Support is a direct attack on the poorest
Londoners.'
Calling it a doubling of fares, when in fact it's returning the fare to
the normal level, is about as bad as claiming you've abolished the 10p
tax band, when in fact you raised the 10% tax band to 20% !
It's a doubling if 90/45 = 2, which it does. I don't see the tax rate
analogy, personally. Boris had the opportunity to preserve the scheme as
he found it or double fares for people on income support and chose the
latter. There's only so much spin this can take, really.

I suppose it depends on whether the original halving of fares was only
supposed to be a sort of temporary "special offer" (as Boris seems to
be claiming), or whether it was intended to be permanent.

The New Deal version has presumably been going for a few years and, not
being backed by Venezuelan oil money, presumably continues.

The TfL website for the scheme contains no suggestion of it being
temporary and no inkling of the change, incidentally (something like a
last application date or last validity date would be useful).

There's a requirement to re-apply every six months to prove you're still
eligible, so presumably they just stop renewing them at some point, in a
few months time when everyone's forgotten this weekend's news.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/faresandtickets/5568.aspx

Tom

"Paul Scott" wrote in message

"Boris Johnson will not renew anwith which provides cheap fuel for
London's buses once the agreement ends later this year. The mayor of
London said half-price bus and tram fares for 250,000 Londoners on
income support, which was also funded by the deal, would still be
honoured. Mr Johnson said he thought many Londoners were
uncomfortable with how the scheme was funded."

I've been following this thread, but no-one has explained how this
scheme actually worked. For example, I very much doubt that Chavez
shipped special cargos of cheap oil directly to London. Presumably the
buses still get fuelled in their depots using diesel distributed in the
usual way, from the usual sources (probably not Venezuela). So, did
Chavez remit the subsidy as cash, directly to Ken? And did any actually
arrive, anyway?

It's also unclear what concrete help TfL has actually provided to deal
with Caracas's traffic problem. Does it now have shiny new Citaro
bendy-buses (or second-hand RMs) clogging up the streets, bus lanes with
unpredictable timing, speed and red light cameras, red routes, a
congestion charge, a fiendishly complex smart card ticketing scheme and
traffic lights that are much more likely to be red than green? Or has
nothing actually changed (which is what pieces in the Guardian diary
suggest) -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/23/venezuela:
The Diary's queries about what the Livingstonians ever did for Caracas
in return for $15m-worth of Venezuelan oil finally elicit a response: "A
party of 12 Caracas planners came to London earlier this year to look at
traffic enforcement, bus priority and planning of interchange, ie rail
to bus to tube." And? "They came for a week." Anything else? "Er, TfL
remains available to give expert advice to Caracas." Phew. For a while
there we feared Venezuela's capital had been ripped off.

So, if Chavez really has been sending millions of dollars in cash to
London in return for nothing much, you have to ask if his motivation was
similar to his offer of free oil to FARC?

On Mon, 26 May 2008 12:49:00 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
wrote:

Anyway, the premise that Sky TV is a luxury item is flawed. It's
always been targeted as being affordable to low income groups. It's a
fraction of the cost of a monthly bus pass for one person, for
instance.

That it might be, but it is still a non-essential item, not *that*
cheap if you have movies and sports, and if I were running short of
money it would[1] be the first thing to go.

[1] If I had it... I don't watch enough TV to make it worthwhile.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Mon, 26 May 2008 21:17:18 +0100, Tom Barry
wrote:

* If he'd announced it by saying 'I'm scrapping it because I don't
believe that being on income support entitles you to cut-price
transport' I'd have applauded his political courage and honesty.
Instead, what sticks in the mind is the sneaky way it came out and the
dishonesty of the official spin.

It can't be just that, as if it was he'd have scrapped the discount
but *retained* the oil deal.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On May 26, 9:29*pm, alex_t wrote:
Trolling much?

I probably foolishly responded to a few in this discussion.

On May 26, 9:24*pm, James Farrar wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:37:55 +0100, Paul Corfield





wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2008 23:33:28 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

On Sun, 25 May 2008 14:49:12 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"Boris Johnson will not renew anwith *which provides cheap fuel for London's
buses once the agreement ends later this year. The mayor of London said
half-price bus and tram fares for 250,000 Londoners on income support, which
was also funded by the deal, would still be honoured. Mr Johnson said he
thought many Londoners were uncomfortable with how the scheme was funded."

Always seemed a bit odd to me...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7419227.stm

Applause.

What - for sneaking out a controversial announcement, that will double
fares for the poorest people, in the middle of a bank holiday weekend
hoping people wouldn't notice?

The timing of the announcement was poor, yes.

But breaking the link with a reprehensible South American dictator is
to be applauded.

What the hell are you talking about? A reprehensible dictator
(actually elected president) who not only didn't execute the people
who organised a military coup against him, but let them continue to
broadcast criticism of his government till their licence ran out.

(And yet this is still reported over here as censorship. Jeez, what
planet are people on?)

Our previous Prime Minister was mates with Pinochet. Now there's a
reprehensible dictator ...

Recliner wrote:

I've been following this thread, but no-one has explained how this
scheme actually worked. For example, I very much doubt that Chavez
shipped special cargos of cheap oil directly to London. Presumably the
buses still get fuelled in their depots using diesel distributed in the
usual way, from the usual sources (probably not Venezuela). So, did
Chavez remit the subsidy as cash, directly to Ken? And did any actually
arrive, anyway?

It's also unclear what concrete help TfL has actually provided to deal
with Caracas's traffic problem.

Scheme started 30/9/2007. Scheme announced abandoned 25/5/2008. That's
not exactly a length of time you could expect much to happen in, is it?
On the other hand, any deal you signed where you got cheap fuel in
return for not much at all you'd consider good from your point of view?

Anyway, a European subsidiary of the Venezuelan oil company hands over
two tranches of cash (US dollars) annually based on TfL's calculations
of the expected diesel use on London Buses during the year (which is
presumably September to September, since that's when it started).
There's an adjustment at the end of the year if the diesel price
changes, which it has, to put it mildly. Since it's calculated net of
tax it's not unreasonable to assume that the Venezuelans owe us some money.

The money is only supposed to be spent on providing discounted bus and
tram travel for people on income support using PAYG and bus passes,
although the second yearly payment includes extra cash to fund the
administration of the scheme, both the discount and the TfL advice.
It's a bit unclear whether 'provision' includes the actual buses or just
the loss in fare earnings.

The money should already be here, since the first lot arrives shortly
after the scheme starts and the next six months later, which was
probably last month. There is a 50 day window (20 days for TfL to
request it, 30 days to pay up) so it's not impossible that the second
tranche arrived when Boris was Mayor. It goes to TfL, not the Mayor,
since they administer the discount scheme.

What isn't explained anywhere is what happens if the money coming in
more than covers the cost of the scheme. Conversely, if there is a
surplus at the end, what will Boris do with it? It is always possible
that the cost of the scheme exceeds the Venezuelan contribution, though,
but without actual figures it's hard to say. Does anyone know the
annual bus mileage and the average bus fuel consumption?

Tom

On Mon, 26 May 2008, MIG wrote:

On May 26, 9:24*pm, James Farrar wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:37:55 +0100, Paul Corfield

wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2008 23:33:28 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

On Sun, 25 May 2008 14:49:12 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"Boris Johnson will not renew anwith *which provides cheap fuel for London's
buses once the agreement ends later this year. The mayor of London said
half-price bus and tram fares for 250,000 Londoners on income support, which
was also funded by the deal, would still be honoured. Mr Johnson said he
thought many Londoners were uncomfortable with how the scheme was funded."

Always seemed a bit odd to me...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7419227.stm

Applause.

What - for sneaking out a controversial announcement, that will double
fares for the poorest people, in the middle of a bank holiday weekend
hoping people wouldn't notice?

The timing of the announcement was poor, yes.

But breaking the link with a reprehensible South American dictator is
to be applauded.

What the hell are you talking about? A reprehensible dictator (actually
elected president) who not only didn't execute the people who organised
a military coup against him, but let them continue to broadcast
criticism of his government till their licence ran out.

I have no comment on Chavez's reprehensibility or otherwise, but
'dictator' is factually incorrect.

(And yet this is still reported over here as censorship. Jeez, what
planet are people on?)

Here's a clue: which version of this makes a better story in the papers?

Our previous Prime Minister was mates with Pinochet. Now there's a
reprehensible dictator ...

And Pinochet wasn't much better.

Cheers for the set-up!

tom

--
If this is your first night, you have to fight.

On Mon, 26 May 2008, MIG wrote:

On May 26, 8:39*am, Tom Barry wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

Which part of LU did he privatise? I take it you're not referring to the
PPP, which he fought tooth and nail.

A number of people on the left (the very hard left, this is) see the
closure of the ELL and its incorporate into a privately operated London
Overground as a privatisation. I don't, particularly, because it's a
good idea and you have to set it against the fact that greater public
control applies on the rest of LO, the creation of which is hardly a
right-wing act.

My understanding is that LO will be run on the same model as the DLR, as a
concession. My further understanding is that whilst the DLR is built,
maintained and operated by a private company, the assets belong to TfL,
who also set the fares and service level. That doesn't sound like
privatisation to me. It's not a million miles from what happened to the
tube, though, although on the DLR, it seems to work a lot better.

Is my understanding right, though? Do TfL own the DLR assets? The the
tracks and stations? The trains? The other chattels? If not, would they
revert to them if the concession was terminated? Would they have any kind
of right to buy them at set price?

Er, because Ken admitted that it was privatisation?

Hmm. I'm surprised to hear that.

LO is a step in the right direction. ELL is a step in the opposite
direction. The best outcome would have been for LU operations to be
extended, running all the services on the extension.

Why?

And what do you suppose Boris's clique will make of the example? Which
next bit of LU will be handed over to a private franchise, as warned by
the "hard left"

Hopefully, any and all bits where this would improve value for money for
the travelling public.

("hard" is a strange word to use about such soft people)?

"Such soft people"? As my old technology teacher once pointed out, we're
all equal on the Mohs scale.

tom

--
If this is your first night, you have to fight.