For those not following the London Mayoral election the Liberal Democrats
are in the process of selecting their candidate. Applications closed
yesterday (June 17) and following interviews & appeals the shortlist will be
formally announced on July 12, with a postal ballot declared on August 12.

However three main candidates are already emerging:

* Lembit Öpik - former MP for Montgomeryshire and ex Lib Dem spokesperson
for various portfolios including Wales, Northern Ireland, Housing, Education
and Business. Best known for supporting unusual causes such as asteroid
deflection shields and making it easier to use Segways, for a high media
profile and a high profile personal life. Website:
http://www.lembit4london.co.uk/

* Brian Paddick - 2008 candidate, former member of the Metropolitan Police
who finished up as Deputy Assistant Commissioner. Achieved notoriety whilst
Borough Commander (or whatever the post formally is) of Lambeth (2000-2002)
for his approach to cannabis. He has been a very late surprise entry into
the race this time round. I haven't seen if he has a website live yet.

* Mike Tuffrey - sitting London Assembly Member (list), Lib Dem group leader
2006-2010, also former leader of Lambeth Borough Council (1994-1998) and one
of the joint last ever members elected to the Greater London Council.
Website: http://miketuffrey.com/

Amongst the transport policies, Öpik is pledging a 24 hour tube. Whenever
anybody questions the viability of this online his campaign manager insists
that it just requires political will to be done and New Year's Eve shows
that it can happen. Tuffrey is pleding express buses at peak hours and more
orbital routes, as well as raising extra funding through a municipal bond
scheme and switching to green energy.

I won't vote for any Liberal Democrat candidate and I wouldn't vote for Brian Paddick even if he weren't a Liberal Democrat.

Mr. Tuffey's advocacy of express buses is interesting - at least to me - because I have long thought that the massive expansion of bus services in the outer suburbs in recent years has been misconceived. Far more relevant to the transport requirements of most Londoners would be express buses.

Travelling by bus in London is slow and frustrating, partly because our road system has been sabotaged, partly because buses are large and clumsy and partly because buses have to stop so frequently. On judiciously selected routes, express buses could for many people be a huge improvement over normal buses.

Mr. Tuffey's idea about municipal bonds frightens me. This is a recipe for bankruptcy. Issuing bonds is a just another way of going into debt.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Robin9 wrote:

I won't vote for any Liberal Democrat candidate and I wouldn't vote for
Brian Paddick even if he weren't a Liberal Democrat.

Might i ask, at the risk of going firmly OT, what your objection to
Paddick is?

Tuffey's advocacy of express buses is interesting - at least to me -
because I have long thought that the massive expansion of bus services
in the outer suburbs in recent years has been misconceived. Far more
relevant to the transport requirements of most Londoners would be
express buses.

Travelling by bus in London is slow and frustrating, partly because the
roads have been sabotaged, partly because buses are large and clumsy and
partly because buses have to stop so frequently. On judicially selected
routes, express buses could be a huge improvement over normal buses.

I hope the selection won't be judicial. Judicious, perhaps, but i'd rather
it was made by transport planners than judges!

It would definitely be interesting, though. The outer suburbs are the
areas where car use is highest, but also perhaps where it is least
problematic - there are more roads and fewer people.

Anyway, in inner or outer suburbs, where are these buses going to go? Into
town, like the existing railway lines? Or to local centres? His site:

http://miketuffrey.com/mike-tuffrey-...lan/transport/

merely says "Run express bus routes at peak commuter times, to speed
people to work, and more orbital routes round London to relieve pressure".

Mr. Tuffey's idea about municipal bonds frightens me. This is a recipe
for bankruptcy. Issuing bonds is a just another way of going into debt.

Presumably, the GLA already has ways of getting into debt - can it borrow
from banks? Might bonds be preferable to that? Or would they be used in
addition to, rather than instead of, loans?

tom

--
Don't believe his lies.

I appreciate we are a year or so away from the vote but I hope we are
not going to have a transport campaign predicated on whether we like
Boris Buses and Boris Bikes (as I rather fear we might!). I would like
to see some real and genuine debate about what is needed.

Seconded. But I am not hopeful; and I predict there will be no
discussion of one of the options to improve transport in London: fewer
people in London. (The current Mayor's transport strategy actually has a
goal to "Support economic development and population growth". I have
never understood the justification for making the latter part of that a
goal, as opposed to a possibly unavoidable consequence. Of course it may
just be sloppy drafting: the strategy documents seemed just to take
population growth forecasts as externalities.)
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

Paul Corfield wrote:

Note the suggestion that the all-night tube would in part be funded by not
being included in the Travelcard package (including seasons it seems) but
instead would be paid for separately.

Good grief - and people complain about the complexity of PAYG
charging!

Yes and I wonder how this would work for people whose journeys straddle the
start and end of "night time running".

On top of everything else 24 hour running isn't going to be the greatest
help for those of use whose journey combines tube and National Rail - if
it's a choice between waiting in the cold in the West End/City for a night
bus that I can get onto or waiting in the cold at Stratford for a packed one
and the latter option costs more then I would not pay the night tube.

That's a vote loser before he even starts his campaign.

Finding ways to lose votes seems to be a speciality of Opik. He managed to
lose not just any safe Lib Dem seat, he lost Montgomeryshire. *The* seat
that always returned a Liberal of one description or another, except for
that one time they forgot to campaign *, since the days of Disraeli. That
takes some doing.

(* The story is commonly told of how the local Liberal Association in 1979
were so busy planning to celebrate a centenary of the seat being Liberal
1880-1980 held that they neglected to actually campaign, then lost the seat.
To add to the embarassment the sitting MP was the Deputy Leader.)

Opik has also been something of a Jonah for Lib Dem leadership elections
with the likes of Don Foster, Charles Kennedy and Mark Oaten all having
crashed and burned with Opik amongst their most prominent (sometimes only)
public supporters.

I've never liked the man. I first heard about him when was a senior police officer in Lambeth. He was in the news quite a lot and I got the impression that this was by design. He got a lot of publicity by adopting a tolerant policy towards the drugs trade and he was not averse to being interviewed about this on the radio.

Later he resigned from the police force and again secured masses of publicity. He was soon announced as the Liberal Democrat candidate for the Mayoral election. His campaign seemed to consist mainly of making some rather obvious snide remarks about the other two parties. He had nothing new or constructive to say about the two big issues the Mayor Of London has the means to tackle: housing and transport. I sensed that the main reason he wanted to be Mayor was to be able to settle an old score with Ian Blair.

All in all I formed the opinion that Brian Paddick was a publicity-seeking, self-serving weasel.

Re judicial instead of judicious: Touche! A sloppy mistake, the result of posting hurriedly.

On 21/06/2011 21:59, Robin9 wrote:

I've never liked the man. I first heard about him when was a senior
police officer in Lambeth. He was in the news quite a lot and I got the
impression that this was by design. He got a lot of publicity by
adopting a tolerant policy towards the drugs trade and he was not averse
to being interviewed about this on the radio.

Later he resigned from the police force and again secured masses of
publicity. He was soon announced as the Liberal Democrat candidate for
the Mayoral election. His campaign seemed to consist mainly of making
some rather obvious snide remarks about the other two parties. He had
nothing new or constructive to say about the two big issues the Mayor Of
London has the means to tackle: housing and transport. I sensed that the
main reason he wanted to be Mayor was to be able to settle an old score
with Ian Blair.

All in all I formed the opinion that Brian Paddick was a
publicity-seeking, self-serving weasel.

So what we need is a politician who doesn't want publicity, campaigns on
something other than "well at least I'm not him --", has real answers
to complex and long-standing problems, has no grudges, and is not a
self-serving weasel.

Could such a person actually exist on a non-trivial stage in a modern
popular democracy?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:58:21 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
Could such a person actually exist on a non-trivial stage in a modern
popular democracy?

Probably not. Most of the public are dumb - they don't listen to the arguments
on both sides and weigh up the options, they just go with who they like or
whoever "feels" right. Whatever the hell that means. You could have the worlds
greatest economic genius , guaranteed to sort out the economy , but if he
had a dull personality he'd almost certainly lose against a cheap showman like
Blair or a talking head on a stick like Cameron.

B2003

What we need is a public-minded individual who recognises that publicity is useful but is not an end it itself, and who has analysed both the issues facing London and what powers the Mayor really has and who has consequently worked out what issues the Mayor should concentrate on.

Does such a paragon exist? Of course. We have innumerable good, conscientious people in this country. Unfortunately, because they are good and conscientious, they will never be adopted by the established political parties whose members want candidates who share their own mean-spirited prejudices and priorities.

What we do not want is a self-serving professional politician who went into politics with no intention of working to make life better for the people but instead merely to further his career, to line his pockets and to indulge his prejudices.

Robin9 wrote:

What we do not want is a self-serving professional politician who went
into politics with no intention of working to make life better for the
people but instead merely to further his career, to line his pockets and
to indulge his prejudices.


So what you are saying is that Brian Paddick is no different from any
other self-serving professional politician who went into politics with
no intention of working to make life better for the people but instead
merely to further their career, to line their pockets and to indulge
their prejudices.

I think there is another reason why you don't like him. Perhaps it is
time for you to come out of the closet and tell us what it is?