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.

I'm interested to know where this policy change was in the Tory
manifesto for the Mayoralty.

I didn't read the manifesto in any detail - but whenever anyone asked
me about the choice, I made sure to point out the Chavez deal, as it
wasn't well known and deserved to be mentioned. (Yes, I also gave an
assesment of Ken's pros and other cons and the pros and cons of
Boris.)

Livingstone has said "It shows that he [Johnson] is more interested in
pursuing his right-wing ideological agenda..."

True, if pursuing his right-wing ideological agenda is dismantling the
policies you implemented to pursue your left-wing ideological
agenda...

So the right thing for London's public transport users is for
politicians to play "I smash your ideology while I build mine" is it?

No. It's appalling that Livingstone should call this pursuing a
right-wing ideological agenda.