View Single Post
  #8   Report Post  
Old November 19th 19, 10:20 AM posted to
Robin[_6_] Robin[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2018
Posts: 75
Default TfL fares freeze dethaws

On 19/11/2019 10:21, Recliner wrote:
Robin wrote:
On 19/11/2019 09:21, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

At a time when political promises are being made daily, it always pays
to ask about the small print.

So when Khan said

"I want to be crystal clear - no ifs, no buts - what you'll pay
if I'm elected Mayor in May 2016 is what you'll pay at the end
of my 4 years in office."

What he delivered was: all fares on buses and trams, plus single pay-as-
you-go Tube and DLR fares; but Daily and weekly price caps, plus weekly,
monthly and annual travelcards, are not included in the freeze.

So lots of people are paying many pennies more.

There are inevitable structural reasons why this might be the case, but that
simply brings the original pledge into more disrepute.

To be fair, I think he always made clear that his promise only applied to
TfL fares, and not those that included any actual or potential mainline
rail use, over which he had no control.

His manifesto had

"Freeze TfL transport fares for four
years ... Londoners won’t
pay a penny more for their travel
in 2020 than they do today."

No qualifications.

And he did exactly what he promised: he *did* freeze TfL transport fares.
He didn't, and couldn't, freeze fares set by the DfT. Travelcards and caps
that include elements of both TfL and DfT fares were accordingly not
frozen. But bus-only fares were.

That's a fine politicians answer which fails to address the second part
of his promise ("Londoners won’t pay a penny more for their travel".)
Many do even when /all/ their travel is by TfL services.

He omitted to add something like "if rail operators agree to freeze
their fares and the caps" there or in the main body of the manifesto.

So "always made clear that his promise only applied to TfL fares" seems
to me yet to be evidenced.

reply-to address is (intended to be) valid