On 29 July, 15:09, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 28 July, 17:16, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, James Farrar wrote:
Offramp wrote in news:603ac8ce-e923-4513-acbe-
:

On 24 July, 23:41, Richard

I feel unusually annoyed about this... They are some of the best buses
ever to be used in London or anywhere else, in my controversial
opinion.

I agree entirely. I think it is odd and very wrong that one man's
fatwa could get rid of them.

He's the Mayor; we elected him.

I bloody well didn't.

Axe Greater London, i say. Let's have a mayor of London elected by people
who live in London, not some transcluded home counties buffoons who mostly
still insist that they live in 'Metropolitan Kent' or some such nonsense.

The concept of a Mayor is undemocratic and intended to allow unelected
political party officials to override the views of elected council
members (and those they represent) while hiding behind the figurehead
of the Mayor.

When you say 'the concept of a mayor', do you mean 'the implementation of
a mayor as it is in London?'. If so, would you agree that the
implementation could be improved, and if not, could you explain why you
think a mayor is different to a president?

tom

Well, I'm not particularly bothered about what it's called, which is
why I used a capital M to refer to the specific implementation.

I just generally object to representative democracy (which ain't
perfect) being cynically overruled by setting up a system where a
single elected person who can also claim a mandate and hand total
control to his/her own party.

It would be better if there were a council a bit like the GLA but with
real decision-making powers ... you could call it the GLC.