Graeme Wall wrote:
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.


Well, he's a former lawyer, so he might get it right. He certainly has more
attachment to the law than Boris ever did.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri, 16
Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked:
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.

and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous

If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election

It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically

but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.

It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.

After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?

Some of the media is speculating already.

If Khan had a working pair of ******** he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.

On 19/10/2020 08:37, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri, 16
Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked:
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.

and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous

If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election

It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically

but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.

It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.

After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?

Some of the media is speculating already.

If Khan had a working pair of ******** he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.



If you had a working brain cell you'd realise why.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19/10/2020 08:37, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri, 16
Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked:
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.

and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous

If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election

It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically

but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.

It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.

After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?

Some of the media is speculating already.

If Khan had a working pair of ******** he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.



One problem with that may be that the idea came from the Mayor's side:
there's a long tradition of parading the "bleeding stumps" consequences
if central government doesn't cough up.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin wrote:
On 19/10/2020 08:37, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri, 16
Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked:
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.

and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous

If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election

It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically

but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.

It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.

After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?

Some of the media is speculating already.

If Khan had a working pair of ******** he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.



One problem with that may be that the idea came from the Mayor's side:
there's a long tradition of parading the "bleeding stumps" consequences
if central government doesn't cough up.


The first round of central government demands weren't unreasonable, and it
was sensible for Khan to accept them. Now, emboldened, the government is
back with a humiliating set of demands that are designed to destroy Khan's
chances of re-election in six months. I suspect that he won't back down so
eaily this time, given that Bailey also agrees with him.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:07:53 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 19/10/2020 08:37, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri, 16
Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked:
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.

and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous

If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election

It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically

but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.

It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.

After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?

Some of the media is speculating already.

If Khan had a working pair of ******** he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.



If you had a working brain cell you'd realise why.

Go on then, fill me in with your laser insight.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 19/10/2020 08:37, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri, 16
Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked:
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.

and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous

If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election

It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically

but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.

It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.

After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?

Some of the media is speculating already.

If Khan had a working pair of ******** he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.



One problem with that may be that the idea came from the Mayor's side:

Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The Times the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ outwards as
a condition for the extra money.

wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:22:21 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 19/10/2020 08:37, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri, 16
Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked:
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.

and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous

If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election

It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically

but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.

It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.

After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?

Some of the media is speculating already.

If Khan had a working pair of ******** he'd have called Boris' bluff over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.



One problem with that may be that the idea came from the Mayor's side:

Why was he pushing back against it then? From what I read in The Times the
other day it was Number 10 and the DtT pushing on moving the LEZ outwards as
a condition for the extra money.



Yes, this is a government proposal, being strongly resisted by the mayor:

Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, was embroiled in a fresh row with the
Government on Friday as he fought against an extension of the congestion
charge zone in exchange for a Transport for London (TfL) bailout.

Ministers agreed a two-week rollover of current emergency support but
proposed a dramatic extension of the congestion zone to the North and South
Circular roads as a condition of further funding.

If no long-term bailout is secured, TfL could issue a Section 114 notice
which would declare it insolvent and lead to significant cuts to services.

A source close to Mr Khan said redrawing the £15-a-day congestion zone from
central London to the suburbs was "unacceptable".

"Negotiations are ongoing to do a deal to keep TfL services running," the
source said. "Conditions such as extending a £15 congestion charge to the
North and South Circular and taking free travel away from children and
older people would be totally unacceptable to the Mayor, and he would not
ask Londoners to accept them in these exceptionally difficult times."

…

The London Mayor had initially been seeking a £5.7 billion bailout for
London's transport network to protect the system for the next 18 months.

A Department for Transport spokesman said: "We have agreed an extension to
the support period for the Transport for London Extraordinary Funding
Agreement, allowing further time for negotiations. These discussions will
ensure London has a safe, reliable network. It would be inappropriate to
disclose further details at this stage."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/16/sadiq-khan-fights-against-extension-london-congestion-zone-bids/

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Robin wrote:
On 19/10/2020 08:37, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 10:23:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:01:02 on Fri,
16
Oct 2020, Ian Jackson remarked:
People who live in the "Circular" area, are people in normal
employment with lives that mean that they have to have a car.

and an annual tax of 5,475 pounds to own one, is bloody ridiculous

If the local councillors suggested this they would be out on their
ears at the next election

It's only because Boris is a Tory, and most of the affected LAs are
Labour/LibDem run that he has a hope of getting away with this
politically

but it's still a bag of nonsense socially.

It's nothing to do with congestion, but simply a potential way to
raise a poll-tax the pay for TfL's huge deficit.

After the N/S Circular, how long before the M25?

Some of the media is speculating already.

If Khan had a working pair of ******** he'd have called Boris' bluff
over
this and said "Fine, the tube and bus will stop on [date] and londons
economy will come to a halt along with the substantial part of GDP it
generates. Enjoy.". But of course he hasn't and didn't.



One problem with that may be that the idea came from the Mayor's side:
there's a long tradition of parading the "bleeding stumps" consequences
if central government doesn't cough up.


The first round of central government demands weren't unreasonable, and it
was sensible for Khan to accept them. Now, emboldened, the government is
back with a humiliating set of demands that are designed to destroy Khan's
chances of re-election in six months. I suspect that he won't back down so
eaily this time, given that Bailey also agrees with him.


not helped by biased headlines like this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...sted-cash.html

Now, it may be true that some of Khan's policies have wasted money

but in the context of several billion pound shortfall, the examples in the
narrative are trivial

one is the equivalent of money lost down the sofa

and the other is a complaint about a legacy policy that exited during
Boris's time, is a policy that is common within many public transport
operators and for which the justification of "it doesn't cost anything
because the services are running anyway" has actually been tested in law and
the courts agreed with that assessment.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:23:13 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
A source close to Mr Khan said redrawing the £15-a-day congestion zone from
central London to the suburbs was "unacceptable".

I don't often agree with Khan but in this case he's spot on. You cannot have
a LEZ covering relatively poor areas where people live who can just about to
afford to run an old banger and certainly can't cough up this charge every
time they drive it to the shops or similar.