Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:58:12 on Sun, 18 Oct
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:02:59 on Sat, 17 Oct
2020, Recliner remarked:
tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:03:09 on Sat, 17 Oct 2020,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:51:54 on Sat, 17 Oct
2020, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:06:04 on Sat, 17 Oct
2020, Recliner remarked:

I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or
working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the
option of
a resident's discount.

What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone
itself

you have to live inside the zone

the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day

Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?

that's what they do inside now

but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical

which is what Recliner said earlier

So you'll only have to pay of you venture out.

we don't know the rules, as it's not been agreed

and hopefully never will be

Yes, that's the key point: this is a threat from the government, not a TfL
plan.

But without agreeing to something like this, TfL will be bankrupt and
have to "cease trading". The public will perceive agreement to such a
plan as something the mayor was complicit in.

No, I'm pretty sure Boris and his floundering government will get the blame
if TfL is forced to issue a Section 114 order, the equivalent of bankruptcy
for a public body. Even local Tories will blame Boris.

I disagree, the electorate will blame the Labour mayor for the
mismanagement which got TfL into that situation.

Which includes him failing to arrange a similar deal that national TOCs
have for funding during the pandemic.

The DfT was given immediate, effectively unlimited, Treasury funding, which
was denied to TfL because it's under a Labour mayor. It wasn't TfL
mismanagement that caused TfL's revenues to collapse after the government
ordered a lockdown.

Boris probably won't be an MP by 2024, but this episode would probably put
paid to his chances of re-election if he were.

On 18/10/2020 10:26, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:58:12 on Sun, 18 Oct
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:02:59 on Sat, 17 Oct
2020, Recliner remarked:
tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:03:09 on Sat, 17 Oct 2020,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:51:54 on Sat, 17 Oct
2020, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:06:04 on Sat, 17 Oct
2020, Recliner remarked:

I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or
working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the
option of
a resident's discount.

What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone
itself

you have to live inside the zone

the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day

Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?

that's what they do inside now

but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical

which is what Recliner said earlier

So you'll only have to pay of you venture out.

we don't know the rules, as it's not been agreed

and hopefully never will be

Yes, that's the key point: this is a threat from the government, not a TfL
plan.

But without agreeing to something like this, TfL will be bankrupt and
have to "cease trading". The public will perceive agreement to such a
plan as something the mayor was complicit in.

No, I'm pretty sure Boris and his floundering government will get the blame
if TfL is forced to issue a Section 114 order, the equivalent of bankruptcy
for a public body. Even local Tories will blame Boris.

I disagree, the electorate will blame the Labour mayor for the
mismanagement which got TfL into that situation.

Which includes him failing to arrange a similar deal that national TOCs
have for funding during the pandemic.

The DfT was given immediate, effectively unlimited, Treasury funding, which
was denied to TfL because it's under a Labour mayor. It wasn't TfL
mismanagement that caused TfL's revenues to collapse after the government
ordered a lockdown.

Boris probably won't be an MP by 2024, but this episode would probably put
paid to his chances of re-election if he were.


He will be an MP in 2024 but probably not PM after January.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 09:26:08 on Sun, 18 Oct
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:58:12 on Sun, 18 Oct
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:02:59 on Sat, 17 Oct
2020, Recliner remarked:
tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:03:09 on Sat, 17
Oct 2020,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:51:54 on Sat, 17 Oct
2020, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:06:04 on Sat, 17 Oct
2020, Recliner remarked:

I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or
working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the
option of
a resident's discount.

What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London
residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone
itself

you have to live inside the zone

the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on
street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day

Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is
extended?

that's what they do inside now

but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical

which is what Recliner said earlier

So you'll only have to pay of you venture out.

we don't know the rules, as it's not been agreed

and hopefully never will be

Yes, that's the key point: this is a threat from the government, not a TfL
plan.

But without agreeing to something like this, TfL will be bankrupt and
have to "cease trading". The public will perceive agreement to such a
plan as something the mayor was complicit in.

No, I'm pretty sure Boris and his floundering government will get the blame
if TfL is forced to issue a Section 114 order, the equivalent of bankruptcy
for a public body. Even local Tories will blame Boris.

I disagree, the electorate will blame the Labour mayor for the
mismanagement which got TfL into that situation.

Which includes him failing to arrange a similar deal that national TOCs
have for funding during the pandemic.

The DfT was given immediate, effectively unlimited, Treasury funding, which
was denied to TfL because it's under a Labour mayor. It wasn't TfL
mismanagement that caused TfL's revenues to collapse after the government
ordered a lockdown.

That won't stop the electorate blaming the labour mayor for failing to
overcome your alleged treasury bias. Or indeed for failing to find some
other source of funding to keep TfL afloat.

Boris probably won't be an MP by 2024, but this episode would probably put
paid to his chances of re-election if he were.

Even though he's in a fairly safe seat with a 7,000 majority?
--
Roland Perry

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/10/2020 10:26, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:58:12 on Sun, 18 Oct
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:02:59 on Sat, 17 Oct
2020, Recliner remarked:
tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:03:09 on Sat, 17 Oct 2020,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:51:54 on Sat, 17 Oct
2020, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:06:04 on Sat, 17 Oct
2020, Recliner remarked:

I'd imagine that it would also severely impact people living or
working
just outside the Circular Roads, and they wouldn't even have the
option of
a resident's discount.

What's the situation with the existing CC? Do all London residents get
the discount, or only those living inside the rather small zone
itself

you have to live inside the zone

the reason is that the charge is raised on all cars parked on street in
the zone, even if you don't drive anywhere that day

Will they be doing patrols for such static cars if the zone is extended?

that's what they do inside now

but the huge increase in scale makes that enforcement impractical

which is what Recliner said earlier

So you'll only have to pay of you venture out.

we don't know the rules, as it's not been agreed

and hopefully never will be

Yes, that's the key point: this is a threat from the government, not a TfL
plan.

But without agreeing to something like this, TfL will be bankrupt and
have to "cease trading". The public will perceive agreement to such a
plan as something the mayor was complicit in.

No, I'm pretty sure Boris and his floundering government will get the blame
if TfL is forced to issue a Section 114 order, the equivalent of bankruptcy
for a public body. Even local Tories will blame Boris.

I disagree, the electorate will blame the Labour mayor for the
mismanagement which got TfL into that situation.

Which includes him failing to arrange a similar deal that national TOCs
have for funding during the pandemic.

The DfT was given immediate, effectively unlimited, Treasury funding, which
was denied to TfL because it's under a Labour mayor. It wasn't TfL
mismanagement that caused TfL's revenues to collapse after the government
ordered a lockdown.

Boris probably won't be an MP by 2024, but this episode would probably put
paid to his chances of re-election if he were.


He will be an MP in 2024 but probably not PM after January.


He will soon stand down as an MP once he ceases to be PM. He doesn't like
parliament, wouldn't enjoy being a backbench MP, and certainly wouldn't
want to have to declare his future earnings in the Register of Members'
Financial Interests. Like Blair and Cameron, he will depart swiftly to make
lots of money. He similarly won't want a peerage.

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2020 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
21:08:06 on Sat, 17 Oct 2020, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.

TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.

It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.

There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.

It's the only commuter service TfL is legally obliged to operate.

but it didn't during the hand over phase to the new ships

https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/new...nths-1-5708840

tim... wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2020 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
21:08:06 on Sat, 17 Oct 2020, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.

TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.

It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.

There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.

It's the only commuter service TfL is legally obliged to operate.

but it didn't during the hand over phase to the new ships

https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/new...nths-1-5708840

Yes, I wonder how that was handled? Did it need something from parliament?

On 18/10/2020 15:01, Recliner wrote:
tim... wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2020 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
21:08:06 on Sat, 17 Oct 2020, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.

TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.

It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.

There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.

It's the only commuter service TfL is legally obliged to operate.

but it didn't during the hand over phase to the new ships

https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/new...nths-1-5708840

Yes, I wonder how that was handled? Did it need something from parliament?



Technically it now comes under TfL[1] so they could gives themselves
permission to suspend services temporarily.

[1] Free service originally agreed by the Metropolitan Board of Works,
control passed to the newly formed LCC, then to the GLC. When Thatcher
abolished the latter it became the responsibility of the Secretary of
State for transport. It then passed to TfL on the formation of the GLA.

It is not clear where the legal obligation to operate the service
derives from.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 14:01:42 on Sun, 18 Oct
2020, Recliner remarked:
tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2020 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
21:08:06 on Sat, 17 Oct 2020, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.

TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.

It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.

There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.

It's the only commuter service TfL is legally obliged to operate.

but it didn't during the hand over phase to the new ships


https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/new...lose-for-three
-months-1-5708840

Yes, I wonder how that was handled? Did it need something from parliament?

It's unrealistic to demand any specific infrastructure operates 365 days
a year. Perhaps there's an allowance for maintenance periods in the
legislation.
--
Roland Perry

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/10/2020 15:01, Recliner wrote:
tim... wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2020 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
21:08:06 on Sat, 17 Oct 2020, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.

TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.

It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.

There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.

It's the only commuter service TfL is legally obliged to operate.

but it didn't during the hand over phase to the new ships

https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/new...nths-1-5708840

Yes, I wonder how that was handled? Did it need something from parliament?



Technically it now comes under TfL[1] so they could gives themselves
permission to suspend services temporarily.

[1] Free service originally agreed by the Metropolitan Board of Works,
control passed to the newly formed LCC, then to the GLC. When Thatcher
abolished the latter it became the responsibility of the Secretary of
State for transport. It then passed to TfL on the formation of the GLA.

It is not clear where the legal obligation to operate the service
derives from.


So if TfL does run of money within the next fortnight, presumably it could
stop the ferry, along with all its trains, trams and buses?

On 18/10/2020 15:35, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/10/2020 15:01, Recliner wrote:
tim... wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2020 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
21:08:06 on Sat, 17 Oct 2020, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

certainly hasn't agreed to it. It's possible that all the TfL services
(apart from the Woolwich ferry) will close within days.

TfL said last night they have agreed the money to keep going to the end
of the month.

It's fun seeing the ferry disclaimer on all the commentary about the
situation.

There's probably some Act of Parliament which says it has to continue,
come what may.

It's the only commuter service TfL is legally obliged to operate.

but it didn't during the hand over phase to the new ships

https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/new...nths-1-5708840

Yes, I wonder how that was handled? Did it need something from parliament?



Technically it now comes under TfL[1] so they could gives themselves
permission to suspend services temporarily.

[1] Free service originally agreed by the Metropolitan Board of Works,
control passed to the newly formed LCC, then to the GLC. When Thatcher
abolished the latter it became the responsibility of the Secretary of
State for transport. It then passed to TfL on the formation of the GLA.

It is not clear where the legal obligation to operate the service
derives from.


So if TfL does run of money within the next fortnight, presumably it could
stop the ferry, along with all its trains, trams and buses?


The legal obligation is from a Transport Act of 1884. That may have a
derogation for essential maintenance but I suspect Khan would argue that
doesn't apply in this case.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.