On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 12:27:22 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


e27002 aurora;149932 Wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:18:14 -0500,
wrote:
-
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:
-
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:02:07 +0100 (GMT+01:00), tolly57
wrote:
-
-- No not the country, London fares for children. Article on BBC
London news 6.30 p/m yesterday highlighted the cost of fares for
children across the capital. Because TFL run more services north
of the river children up to age 11 can travel free whereas in the
south, national rail charge over fives. About time the mayor got
control of services within the M25.
-
Or, have HMG return "London South of the Thames" to Kent and Surrey.
There are enough issues North of the River to resolve.-

Oi! Watch it you! I was born and brought up in that part of LONDON. It's

been part of the capital since at least 1854.-


The present GLA is an overweening structure that, like its predecessor
will fail. Its costs will rise, its employees will become complacent.
It will be a proxy political battle ground for national issues, and
tend towards corruption. Would that this were not so, but it is.
Power begets power.


This is already the situation but what you are suggesting is not the
solution.

So it is worse than I thought. Pretty poor show for what is still one
of the world's most important centers for commerce, banking, et al.

First, it is unlikely that most people in Bromley and Bexley will want
to re-join Kent.

Then Kentish Men and Kentish Maids are not rising up to regain their
heritage? Unlike the folks in the north of the County of Lincoln and
their Yorkshire neighbors who certainly did not like being in
Humberside.

Second, removing Bromley and Bexley will not change the
attitudes within the GLA or within County Hall.

No, it would merely release them from its ambit. Merciful release one
would have thought.

The real solution is to scrap the office of Mayor Of London and to
return
London to how it was before the Blair government inflicted this extra
layer of government upon us.

Here we agree. The whole thing is an expensive, unneeded, nonsense.

If the situation returned to the status quo ante however, Bromley and
Bexley would effectively become unitary authorities. (We called them
County Boroughs in my day. But, Whitehall is perfectly capable of
re-inventing at great taxpayer expense.). Were Bromley and Bexley
such, the county line would become arbitrary for governance purposes.

As there has been a huge change in attitude towards public transport
since 1997, most of the funding London has secured towards it in the
past
decade or so would have been forthcoming anyway.

IIRC the original LPTB covered an area much larger than the GLC, LCC
or Middlesex. Remember the green London Transport buses? We had them
all the way out to Aylesbury. The needs of commuters, and other rail
and bus users are not confined to the core of the metropolis. We need
a transportation body covering the Southeast.

The question is how should such a body be financed and regulated? One
possibility would be nominees from the local authorities in the area
covered meeting as a body to plan, finance, and provide.

A better solution might be a committee of the MPs covering the area.
Meeting as needed. In either case the body responsible for the new
LPTB would need to be able to raise funds through taxation, which
could be a portion of the Council Tax, a slice of VAT, or a mixture.

Apart from public
transport, what real, incontrovertible benefits have come with a Mayor
for
London?

Those United States have a federal law against providing aid and
comfort to the enemy in time of war. If the UK has such a law the
first GLA "Mayor" is almost certainly guilty. He is very poor excuse
for a human being.

The only positive thing about the second one is that he is an
improvement on the first. Not exactly a high bar is it? Why would
the people of greater london elect someone who belongs in a poor music
hall skit?

Has either Mayor dealt effectively with the housing crisis?

Absolutely not. There is plenty of opportunity for developing TODs
arrange major transit nodes, Camden Town Station and West Hampstead to
name just two. Why aren't the boroughs pursuing this?

Has either
Mayor
pursued policies likely to reduce air pollution?

The Congestion Charge comes to mind. But, why was that not
accompanied by investment in surface electric transit. If the stick
is applied so should the carrot.

More trams, some trolley buses are need along with less cars. How
about a Plexiglass tube above the length of Oxford Street with
travellators, and frequent elevators. It could even have third floor
access directly into some of the department stores.

Has either Mayor
devised a
strategy for creating employment for the large number of people who
leave
school barely able to read, write and do basic arithmetic?

That is more a national problem than a Southeast one. Parents bear
the responsibility to see that their offspring go out into world
capable of supporting themselves and their families. Most, devolve it
to others and do not give a damn about the results.


After the old GLC was abolished by Thatcher's government - in my
opinion,
one of only two things that dreadful government got right: the other was

defeating Scargill - London was quite well run.

Here we differ. The years of tepid socialism were culminating in
piles of garbage in the street, a growing rat population, and the dead
were unburied. Can you imagine how this added to the emotional load
of the families and friends of the recently decease?

Margaret Hilda Baroness Thatcher was raised up to restore our United
Kingdom. She achieved so much before the cowards in the tory party
had their palace coup.

This included trades union legislation and the defeat of Scargill and
co. Decent people were making a living again and the UK's national
esteem was being restored.

I would love to go back
to that
arrangement.


You make a compelling case. You have all but sold it to me.

The refuse not being collected and the dead lying unburied were not normal,
consistent features of life in the 1970s.

Thatcher did not restore the U. K. and because of her, huge numbers of
decent people were unable to make a proper living.

I was lucky. I was already a home-owner before 1979. In the 1970s, before
Thatcher, normal people on normal incomes could aspire to owning their own
home. Thatcher destroyed that dream. She created a housing shortage and
then, at the behest of her financial backers who could not compete, she
killed off building societies who dominated the mortgage market. I feel sorry
for today's young people, most of whom have given up dreaming of their own
home.

On 05/09/2015 10:42, e27002 aurora wrote:

Unlike the folks in the north of the County of Lincoln and
their Yorkshire neighbors who certainly did not like being in
Humberside.

A lot of that could probably have been solved by a name change. "East
Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire County Council" would have been no more
unwieldy than "East Yorkshire Borough of Beverley Borough Council" was.
But the pro-Humberside people on the county council backed themselves in
to a bit of a corner over it, and then the pro-Yorkshire/Lincolnshire
people and some of the other councils saw an opportunity to obtain more
power through restructuring.

snip

A better solution might be a committee of the MPs covering the area.
Meeting as needed.

That would surely just become a room full of people saying "the Hard
Working Families of insert name of my constituency need nice things"
over and over again, creating a donkey starving between two bales of hay
situation, and/or marginal constituencies being offered atomic-powered
maglevs while safe seats gets a second-hand bike rack to share.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 12:27:22 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


e27002 aurora;149932 Wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:18:14 -0500,
wrote:
-
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:
-
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:02:07 +0100 (GMT+01:00), tolly57
wrote:
-
-- No not the country, London fares for children. Article on BBC
London news 6.30 p/m yesterday highlighted the cost of fares for
children across the capital. Because TFL run more services north
of the river children up to age 11 can travel free whereas in the
south, national rail charge over fives. About time the mayor got
control of services within the M25.
-
Or, have HMG return "London South of the Thames" to Kent and Surrey.
There are enough issues North of the River to resolve.-

Oi! Watch it you! I was born and brought up in that part of LONDON. It's

been part of the capital since at least 1854.-


The present GLA is an overweening structure that, like its predecessor
will fail. Its costs will rise, its employees will become complacent.
It will be a proxy political battle ground for national issues, and
tend towards corruption. Would that this were not so, but it is.
Power begets power.


This is already the situation but what you are suggesting is not the
solution.

So it is worse than I thought. Pretty poor show for what is still one
of the world's most important centers for commerce, banking, et al.

First, it is unlikely that most people in Bromley and Bexley will want
to re-join Kent.

Then Kentish Men and Kentish Maids are not rising up to regain their
heritage? Unlike the folks in the north of the County of Lincoln and
their Yorkshire neighbors who certainly did not like being in
Humberside.

Second, removing Bromley and Bexley will not change the
attitudes within the GLA or within County Hall.

No, it would merely release them from its ambit. Merciful release one
would have thought.

The real solution is to scrap the office of Mayor Of London and to
return
London to how it was before the Blair government inflicted this extra
layer of government upon us.

Here we agree. The whole thing is an expensive, unneeded, nonsense.

If the situation returned to the status quo ante however, Bromley and
Bexley would effectively become unitary authorities. (We called them
County Boroughs in my day. But, Whitehall is perfectly capable of
re-inventing at great taxpayer expense.). Were Bromley and Bexley
such, the county line would become arbitrary for governance purposes.

As there has been a huge change in attitude towards public transport
since 1997, most of the funding London has secured towards it in the
past
decade or so would have been forthcoming anyway.

IIRC the original LPTB covered an area much larger than the GLC, LCC
or Middlesex. Remember the green London Transport buses? We had them
all the way out to Aylesbury. The needs of commuters, and other rail
and bus users are not confined to the core of the metropolis. We need
a transportation body covering the Southeast.

The question is how should such a body be financed and regulated? One
possibility would be nominees from the local authorities in the area
covered meeting as a body to plan, finance, and provide.

A better solution might be a committee of the MPs covering the area.
Meeting as needed. In either case the body responsible for the new
LPTB would need to be able to raise funds through taxation, which
could be a portion of the Council Tax, a slice of VAT, or a mixture.

Apart from public
transport, what real, incontrovertible benefits have come with a Mayor
for
London?

Those United States have a federal law against providing aid and
comfort to the enemy in time of war. If the UK has such a law the
first GLA "Mayor" is almost certainly guilty. He is very poor excuse
for a human being.

He couldn't have been guilty: the UK hasn't declared war since the 1940s...
--
Jeremy Double

On 5 Sep 2015 18:30:57 GMT, Jeremy Double
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 12:27:22 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


e27002 aurora;149932 Wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:18:14 -0500,
wrote:
-
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:
-
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:02:07 +0100 (GMT+01:00), tolly57
wrote:
-
-- No not the country, London fares for children. Article on BBC
London news 6.30 p/m yesterday highlighted the cost of fares for
children across the capital. Because TFL run more services north
of the river children up to age 11 can travel free whereas in the
south, national rail charge over fives. About time the mayor got
control of services within the M25.
-
Or, have HMG return "London South of the Thames" to Kent and Surrey.
There are enough issues North of the River to resolve.-

Oi! Watch it you! I was born and brought up in that part of LONDON. It's

been part of the capital since at least 1854.-


The present GLA is an overweening structure that, like its predecessor
will fail. Its costs will rise, its employees will become complacent.
It will be a proxy political battle ground for national issues, and
tend towards corruption. Would that this were not so, but it is.
Power begets power.


This is already the situation but what you are suggesting is not the
solution.

So it is worse than I thought. Pretty poor show for what is still one
of the world's most important centers for commerce, banking, et al.

First, it is unlikely that most people in Bromley and Bexley will want
to re-join Kent.

Then Kentish Men and Kentish Maids are not rising up to regain their
heritage? Unlike the folks in the north of the County of Lincoln and
their Yorkshire neighbors who certainly did not like being in
Humberside.

Second, removing Bromley and Bexley will not change the
attitudes within the GLA or within County Hall.

No, it would merely release them from its ambit. Merciful release one
would have thought.

The real solution is to scrap the office of Mayor Of London and to
return
London to how it was before the Blair government inflicted this extra
layer of government upon us.

Here we agree. The whole thing is an expensive, unneeded, nonsense.

If the situation returned to the status quo ante however, Bromley and
Bexley would effectively become unitary authorities. (We called them
County Boroughs in my day. But, Whitehall is perfectly capable of
re-inventing at great taxpayer expense.). Were Bromley and Bexley
such, the county line would become arbitrary for governance purposes.

As there has been a huge change in attitude towards public transport
since 1997, most of the funding London has secured towards it in the
past
decade or so would have been forthcoming anyway.

IIRC the original LPTB covered an area much larger than the GLC, LCC
or Middlesex. Remember the green London Transport buses? We had them
all the way out to Aylesbury. The needs of commuters, and other rail
and bus users are not confined to the core of the metropolis. We need
a transportation body covering the Southeast.

The question is how should such a body be financed and regulated? One
possibility would be nominees from the local authorities in the area
covered meeting as a body to plan, finance, and provide.

A better solution might be a committee of the MPs covering the area.
Meeting as needed. In either case the body responsible for the new
LPTB would need to be able to raise funds through taxation, which
could be a portion of the Council Tax, a slice of VAT, or a mixture.

Apart from public
transport, what real, incontrovertible benefits have come with a Mayor
for
London?

Those United States have a federal law against providing aid and
comfort to the enemy in time of war. If the UK has such a law the
first GLA "Mayor" is almost certainly guilty. He is very poor excuse
for a human being.

He couldn't have been guilty: the UK hasn't declared war since the 1940s...

That depends what you regard as a declaration. A formal declaration of
war is a matter for the exercise of the royal prerogative (last used
in 1942 against Thailand according to Wonkypaedia) but when a little
local difficulty arose in the South Atlantic a few years ago the
relevant EEZ was declared to be an exclusion zone with consequences
threatened against the invading Argentinians. For practical purposes
that was an admission/declaration of a state of war with an implicit
"you started it".

On 05/09/2015 23:46, Charles Ellson wrote:
On 5 Sep 2015 18:30:57 GMT, Jeremy Double
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 12:27:22 +0200, Robin9
wrote:


e27002 aurora;149932 Wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:18:14 -0500,
wrote:
-
In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:
-
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:02:07 +0100 (GMT+01:00), tolly57
wrote:
-
-- No not the country, London fares for children. Article on BBC
London news 6.30 p/m yesterday highlighted the cost of fares for
children across the capital. Because TFL run more services north
of the river children up to age 11 can travel free whereas in the
south, national rail charge over fives. About time the mayor got
control of services within the M25.
-
Or, have HMG return "London South of the Thames" to Kent and Surrey.
There are enough issues North of the River to resolve.-

Oi! Watch it you! I was born and brought up in that part of LONDON. It's

been part of the capital since at least 1854.-


The present GLA is an overweening structure that, like its predecessor
will fail. Its costs will rise, its employees will become complacent.
It will be a proxy political battle ground for national issues, and
tend towards corruption. Would that this were not so, but it is.
Power begets power.


This is already the situation but what you are suggesting is not the
solution.

So it is worse than I thought. Pretty poor show for what is still one
of the world's most important centers for commerce, banking, et al.

First, it is unlikely that most people in Bromley and Bexley will want
to re-join Kent.

Then Kentish Men and Kentish Maids are not rising up to regain their
heritage? Unlike the folks in the north of the County of Lincoln and
their Yorkshire neighbors who certainly did not like being in
Humberside.

Second, removing Bromley and Bexley will not change the
attitudes within the GLA or within County Hall.

No, it would merely release them from its ambit. Merciful release one
would have thought.

The real solution is to scrap the office of Mayor Of London and to
return
London to how it was before the Blair government inflicted this extra
layer of government upon us.

Here we agree. The whole thing is an expensive, unneeded, nonsense.

If the situation returned to the status quo ante however, Bromley and
Bexley would effectively become unitary authorities. (We called them
County Boroughs in my day. But, Whitehall is perfectly capable of
re-inventing at great taxpayer expense.). Were Bromley and Bexley
such, the county line would become arbitrary for governance purposes.

As there has been a huge change in attitude towards public transport
since 1997, most of the funding London has secured towards it in the
past
decade or so would have been forthcoming anyway.

IIRC the original LPTB covered an area much larger than the GLC, LCC
or Middlesex. Remember the green London Transport buses? We had them
all the way out to Aylesbury. The needs of commuters, and other rail
and bus users are not confined to the core of the metropolis. We need
a transportation body covering the Southeast.

The question is how should such a body be financed and regulated? One
possibility would be nominees from the local authorities in the area
covered meeting as a body to plan, finance, and provide.

A better solution might be a committee of the MPs covering the area.
Meeting as needed. In either case the body responsible for the new
LPTB would need to be able to raise funds through taxation, which
could be a portion of the Council Tax, a slice of VAT, or a mixture.

Apart from public
transport, what real, incontrovertible benefits have come with a Mayor
for
London?

Those United States have a federal law against providing aid and
comfort to the enemy in time of war. If the UK has such a law the
first GLA "Mayor" is almost certainly guilty. He is very poor excuse
for a human being.

He couldn't have been guilty: the UK hasn't declared war since the 1940s...

That depends what you regard as a declaration. A formal declaration of
war is a matter for the exercise of the royal prerogative (last used
in 1942 against Thailand according to Wonkypaedia) but when a little
local difficulty arose in the South Atlantic a few years ago the
relevant EEZ was declared to be an exclusion zone with consequences
threatened against the invading Argentinians. For practical purposes
that was an admission/declaration of a state of war with an implicit
"you started it".


Though described at the time, initially at any rate, as a police action.
Basically accusing the Argentines of Breaking and Entering.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.