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