On Oct 22, 12:27*pm, David Cantrell wrote:
I'm deeply sceptical, although it's possible that the people you spoke
to were idiots. In real life, bendies provide a much better service
than other buses on a given route.

That is, I'm afraid, not true.

Route 38 had a better service before it went all bendy. *By which I mean
there were more seats (which were more comfortable) and a more frequent
service, with journey times being about the same. *There was also less
fare-dodging.

But more standing capacity with bendies, right? Which is the important
thing when the issue is bus-you-can-get-on vs bus-you-can't.

The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of
various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater
London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of
London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted
for Ken.

If what you say was true, then Livingstone wouldn't have got in in the
first place. *Nor would Labour have won the GLC elections in 1964, 1973,
and 1981.

Aye, fair; while it's true that Inner London voted for Ken this time
round, and that Outer London reliably swings Tory, I do accept it
makes more sense for the outer boroughs to be included in the
administrative unit. It's kind-of annoying that their vote dictates
what happens on issues like bendies and pedestrianisation in the
centre, which is of peripheral interest to them at best - but that's
democracy, and while democracy is crap we know pretty much every other
way of doing things is worse.

He lost because he stood as a Labour party candidate at a time when
Labour are deeply unpopular. *If he'd stayed as an independent right
from the start, he would, I am sure, have done better, maybe even well
enough to win.

I suspect you're right (although having rejoined for the second
election, I don't think he could realistically have left again for the
third). By this year, the small-c-conservative-suburban-middle-class
had finally returned to their natural Tory habitat...

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

John B gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Aye, fair; while it's true that Inner London voted for Ken this time
round, and that Outer London reliably swings Tory, I do accept it makes
more sense for the outer boroughs to be included in the administrative
unit. It's kind-of annoying that their vote dictates what happens on
issues like bendies and pedestrianisation in the centre, which is of
peripheral interest to them at best

That presupposes, of course, that those who live in outer London always
stay there and never head inside the Circulars, or the Ring Road, or
whatever your arbitrary boundary may be...

They don't. The vast majority are just as heavily affected - perhaps even
more so, when it comes to transport decisions - than those who live more
centrally. Many of those who live centrally could easily walk or cycle to
work (or for leisure/shopping/etc) should buses & tubes not be available
or viable. Those who live further out can't.

There's also those of us who live outside the boroughs whilst still being
heavily affected by TfL and the GLA, yet get no representation.

On Oct 22, 12:52*pm, Adrian wrote:
Aye, fair; while it's true that Inner London voted for Ken this time
round, and that Outer London reliably swings Tory, I do accept it makes
more sense for the outer boroughs to be included in the administrative
unit. It's kind-of annoying that their vote dictates what happens on
issues like bendies and pedestrianisation in the centre, which is of
peripheral interest to them at best

That presupposes, of course, that those who live in outer London always
stay there and never head inside the Circulars, or the Ring Road, or
whatever your arbitrary boundary may be...

There's a legal definition of Inner London; I was going with that...

They don't. The vast majority are just as heavily affected - perhaps even
more so, when it comes to transport decisions - than those who live more
centrally. Many of those who live centrally could easily walk or cycle to
work (or for leisure/shopping/etc) should buses & tubes not be available
or viable. Those who live further out can't.

For rail and tube transport, you're right. For bus transport, I
disagree - there are very few people who live in outer London boroughs
and commute into the centre via bus; buses are a way of getting people
between parts of outer London, of getting people between parts of
inner London, and of getting poor people from inner London into the
centre (and walking from Thamesmead, Stamford Hill or Hampstead Heath
to the centre isn't really commutable).

There's definitely some logic in having local control of bus services,
with the people of Hillingdon voting to keep genteel single deckers,
whilst the people of Tower Hamlets vote for bendies to funnel them
into the centre - but realistically I think it's be too
administratively complex and having it all done by TfL is more
sensible.

There's also those of us who live outside the boroughs whilst still being
heavily affected by TfL and the GLA, yet get no representation.

....or taxation. I reckon George Washington would be happy with that.

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

John B gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

That presupposes, of course, that those who live in outer London always
stay there and never head inside the Circulars, or the Ring Road, or
whatever your arbitrary boundary may be...

There's a legal definition of Inner London; I was going with that...

Three, actually...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_London

For rail and tube transport, you're right. For bus transport, I disagree
- there are very few people who live in outer London boroughs and
commute into the centre via bus; buses are a way of getting people
between parts of outer London, of getting people between parts of inner
London, and of getting poor people from inner London into the centre
(and walking from Thamesmead, Stamford Hill or Hampstead Heath to the
centre isn't really commutable).

True. But since Thamesmead isn't part of one definition, whilst the third
stretches to areas not even under GLA control at one point...

There's definitely some logic in having local control of bus services,
with the people of Hillingdon voting to keep genteel single deckers,
whilst the people of Tower Hamlets vote for bendies to funnel them into
the centre - but realistically I think it's be too administratively
complex and having it all done by TfL is more sensible.

Indeed. TfAL, not TfIL.

There's also those of us who live outside the boroughs whilst still
being heavily affected by TfL and the GLA, yet get no representation.

...or taxation.

looks at price rises in fares

On Oct 22, 1:57*pm, Adrian wrote:
There's also those of us who live outside the boroughs whilst still
being heavily affected by TfL and the GLA, yet get no representation.
...or taxation.

looks at price rises in fares

Not being subsidised as much as everyone else != being taxed.

(AIUI, Essex County Council does subsidise TfL services, hence why the
Central Line is all in zone 6 - there's presumably some kind of
representation of ECC within TfL that goes on as a quid pro quo. If
your local authority doesn't, then why not vote for a candidate who
says they will?)

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

John B wrote:

There's a legal definition of Inner London; I was going with that...

So are Newham and Haringey in Inner London (per the ONS and Census) or Outer
(per the old County and ILEA)? And the reverse for Greenwich?

On Oct 22, 1:58*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
There's a legal definition of Inner London; I was going with that...

So are Newham and Haringey in Inner London (per the ONS and Census) or Outer
(per the old County and ILEA)? And the reverse for Greenwich?

Greenwich in, Newham and Harringey out.

The 1963 London Government Act still determines central funding
levels, and Newham is still grumpy about being excluded:
http://apps.newham.gov.uk/aboutus/Po...nnerLondon.pdf

....so that'll be the legal definition, irrespective of what the
statisticians say.

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

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:20:43AM -0700, John B wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:52=A0pm, Adrian wrote:
They don't. The vast majority are just as heavily affected - perhaps even
more so, when it comes to transport decisions - than those who live more
centrally. Many of those who live centrally could easily walk or cycle to
work (or for leisure/shopping/etc) should buses & tubes not be available
or viable. Those who live further out can't.
For rail and tube transport, you're right. For bus transport, I
disagree - there are very few people who live in outer London boroughs
and commute into the centre via bus; buses are a way of getting people
between parts of outer London, of getting people between parts of
inner London

Lots of us in outer London will travel inwards by train or tube and
then use a bus for the last bit of the journey. There's also quite
a lot of people who use the bus to get from outer to inner London - to
hubs like Brixton, from where they transfer to the Victoria line.

And I, for example, find it more convenient, once I've got to Victoria
or London Bridge on the train, to use a bus for the last bit of my journey
to work instead of using two tubes.

There's a reason why major railway stations often have a bus station
attached to them y'know!

--
David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness

Just because it is possible to do this sort of thing
in the English language doesn't mean it should be done

On 22 Oct, 12:45, John B wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:27*pm, David Cantrell wrote:

I'm deeply sceptical, although it's possible that the people you spoke
to were idiots. In real life, bendies provide a much better service
than other buses on a given route.

That is, I'm afraid, not true.

Route 38 had a better service before it went all bendy. *By which I mean
there were more seats (which were more comfortable) and a more frequent
service, with journey times being about the same. *There was also less
fare-dodging.

But more standing capacity with bendies, right? Which is the important
thing when the issue is bus-you-can-get-on vs bus-you-can't.

The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of
various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater
London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of
London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted
for Ken.

If what you say was true, then Livingstone wouldn't have got in in the
first place. *Nor would Labour have won the GLC elections in 1964, 1973,
and 1981.

Aye, fair; while it's true that Inner London voted for Ken this time
round, and that Outer London reliably swings Tory, I do accept it
makes more sense for the outer boroughs to be included in the
administrative unit. It's kind-of annoying that their vote dictates
what happens on issues like bendies and pedestrianisation in the
centre, which is of peripheral interest to them at best - but that's
democracy, and while democracy is crap we know pretty much every other
way of doing things is worse.

He lost because he stood as a Labour party candidate at a time when
Labour are deeply unpopular. *If he'd stayed as an independent right
from the start, he would, I am sure, have done better, maybe even well
enough to win.

I suspect you're right (although having rejoined for the second
election, I don't think he could realistically have left again for the
third). By this year, the small-c-conservative-suburban-middle-class
had finally returned to their natural Tory habitat...

Not just conservatives; don't forget that a lot of the Left would no
sooner vote New Labour than Tory, lest their hands wither and fall
off. But one can't be sure if he had the resources to run and win as
an independent in 2004 without the New Labour machinery. And he
wouldn't just have to leave the party again, he would also have to
have yet another dramatic change of politics (as he did when he
rejoined) to convince people.

MIG wrote:

Not just conservatives; don't forget that a lot of the Left would no
sooner vote New Labour than Tory, lest their hands wither and fall
off. But one can't be sure if he had the resources to run and win as
an independent in 2004 without the New Labour machinery. And he
wouldn't just have to leave the party again, he would also have to
have yet another dramatic change of politics (as he did when he
rejoined) to convince people.

I think Labour would have certainly lost in 2004. They did actually select a
candidate before Ken returned. But hardly anyone had heard of Nicky Gavron
and she was routinely polling in fourth place and would have found it hard
to present herself as the credible anti-Livingstone alternative, even
amongst voters who didn't want the Conservatives as Simon Hughes had a
bigger profile. Labour were also still suffering a backlash over the war. So
I doubt Labour would have won without Ken.

One thing often forgotten is that the 2004 election was the *only* time the
London-wide local government (on whichever boundaries) was won by the same
party in power at Westminster since 1949. (And IIRC even in 2004 the
Assembly wasn't won by Labour.) And whilst the London County Council didn't
have such an exact match it's notable that it began with an 18 year Liberal
rule (I think in local government they used the "Progressive" label) from
1889-1907, which broadly corresponded to 20 odd years Conservative/Unionist
domination at Westminster (1886-1906), then 26 years under the Conservatives
(I think the local label was "Municipal Reform Society") from 1907 to 1933,
which was a period in which the Conservatives nationally were generally
weak, then Labour (under that label) from 1933 to 1965, again at a time when
they were nationally weak. The trend for London voters to want the
County/City Hall to be run by a different party from Whitehall is one of the
main constant features of London government, along with argument over
whether London is one community or several and conflict between boroughs,
whether east/west or inner/outer that is often reflected in different party
support levels.