tim... wrote:


"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.

For some strange reason, the ES (editor-in-chief, George Osborne) forgot to
mention the £43m+ of taxpayer funding that George Osborne and Boris wasted
on the unbuilt Garden Bridge:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/garden-bridge/lbcs-long-read-the-garden-bridge-124786/

On 19/10/2020 10:38, tim... wrote:

not helped by biased headlines like this:

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


Serious question: would many Daily Mail readers be expected to vote for
Khan at the best of times? While Bailey is not exactly a stereotypical
Mail reader's dream candidate either, he does seem to say things which
might align with their views on everything apart from that.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 18/10/2020 16:10, Graeme Wall wrote:

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.

Looks like[1] it is Section 14 of the Metropolitan Board of Works
(Various Powers) Act 1885, but that is not available on line:[2].


[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...44/made#f00004
[2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1885/116

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 19/10/2020 10:38, tim... wrote:

not helped by biased headlines like this:

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



Serious question: would many Daily Mail readers be expected to vote for
Khan at the best of times? While Bailey is not exactly a stereotypical
Mail reader's dream candidate either, he does seem to say things which
might align with their views on everything apart from that.


To what extent are readers' votes influenced by newspaper headlines? For
example, the Sun scrupulously says whatever Rupert dictates, but do typical
Sun readers share his politics views? The Mail traditionally appealed to
younger women, who aren't likely to be nearly as right wing

On 19/10/2020 10:04, 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.


The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues. And
politicians have been known to have it put about that A is seeking X so
they can then tell the public that X is unacceptable and they will fight
to their last breath to oppose it.

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

Robin wrote:
On 19/10/2020 10:04, 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.


The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues.

Please show it. Every source I can find says the exact opposite.

And
politicians have been known to have it put about that A is seeking X so
they can then tell the public that X is unacceptable and they will fight
to their last breath to oppose it.

I've already posted clear news reports that this is a government plan that
they're trying to force on TfL. Khan is strongly against it. And it looks
like the public is on his side:
https://www.onlondon.co.uk/new-polling-most-londoners-blame-covid-or-government-for-tfl-financial-woes-back-ltns-and-are-satisfied-with-sadiq-khan/

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:11:17 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 19/10/2020 10:38, tim... wrote:

not helped by biased headlines like this:

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



Serious question: would many Daily Mail readers be expected to vote for
Khan at the best of times? While Bailey is not exactly a stereotypical
Mail reader's dream candidate either, he does seem to say things which
might align with their views on everything apart from that.


To what extent are readers' votes influenced by newspaper headlines? For
example, the Sun scrupulously says whatever Rupert dictates, but do typical
Sun readers share his politics views? The Mail traditionally appealed to
younger women, who aren't likely to be nearly as right wing

I remember having a heated alcohol-fuelled argument on just this with
a mature friend who was taking a media studies degree (in pre-Internet
days). I claimed that if you're only ever exposed to one side of an
argument then, of course, you'll tend to favour it. I was told that
people are exposed to many sources of information and I was accusing
newspaper readers of being too stupid to think for themselves.

The older I get the more I think I was right, as a generalisation. And
clearly the press barons are spending their money for a reason.

I don't claim to know the answer but it took me many years to realise
how strongly confirmation bias affects our opinions and just how
illogical human minds are.

It's therefore easy to come to the conclusion that getting your
opinion in early is the way to create a supporter for life (the Jesuit
approach?) but my political views were changed at University from
right to left, and this was at a place where many students' union
postholders were known to be Conservative but there was a ban on
standing for a post on a political or religious platform. What did it
for me were the well-attended union meetings (they were quorate which
meant, I think, 20% of the students present) which were the remains of
the debating society and conducted on that basis, with a structure
that allowed a wide range of views to be expressed with equal
emphasis, and an atmosphere that politely received the range of
opinions.

One union meeting included a talk on the free market by Keith Joseph.
He was applauded by all at the end, and the Q&A was polite but pointed
at times.

At another meeting we debated whether we would accept Enoch Powell
coming to speak to one of the academic departments. There was a no
platform policy adopted across the University of London but we voted
that an eminent speaker on classics was welcome, so long as he was
speaking about his specialisation, which he was.

It's only now, writing this, that I realise just how far we've fallen.

"Trolleybus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:11:17 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 19/10/2020 10:38, tim... wrote:

not helped by biased headlines like this:

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



Serious question: would many Daily Mail readers be expected to vote for
Khan at the best of times? While Bailey is not exactly a stereotypical
Mail reader's dream candidate either, he does seem to say things which
might align with their views on everything apart from that.


To what extent are readers' votes influenced by newspaper headlines? For
example, the Sun scrupulously says whatever Rupert dictates, but do
typical
Sun readers share his politics views? The Mail traditionally appealed to
younger women, who aren't likely to be nearly as right wing

I remember having a heated alcohol-fuelled argument on just this with
a mature friend who was taking a media studies degree (in pre-Internet
days). I claimed that if you're only ever exposed to one side of an
argument then, of course, you'll tend to favour it. I was told that
people are exposed to many sources of information and I was accusing
newspaper readers of being too stupid to think for themselves.

The older I get the more I think I was right, as a generalisation. And
clearly the press barons are spending their money for a reason.

I don't claim to know the answer but it took me many years to realise
how strongly confirmation bias affects our opinions and just how
illogical human minds are.

that might have worked 20 years ago when perhaps 50% of people took a daily
paper

but now that we are down at less than 15%, not sure it's gonna hold true

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Robin wrote:
On 19/10/2020 10:04, 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.


The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues.

Please show it. Every source I can find says the exact opposite.

really, I can't find that

all I can find is Khan claiming that the DfT have told him to do this



And
politicians have been known to have it put about that A is seeking X so
they can then tell the public that X is unacceptable and they will fight
to their last breath to oppose it.

I've already posted clear news reports that this is a government plan that
they're trying to force on TfL. Khan is strongly against it. And it looks
like the public is on his side:
https://www.onlondon.co.uk/new-polling-most-londoners-blame-covid-or-government-for-tfl-financial-woes-back-ltns-and-are-satisfied-with-sadiq-khan/

On 20/10/2020 13:13, tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Robin wrote:
On 19/10/2020 10:04, 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.


The only sources I saw cited were the Mayor and his colleagues.

Please show it. Every source I can find says the exact opposite.

really, I can't find that

all I can find is Khan claiming that the DfT have told him to do this



And
politicians have been known to have it put about that A is seeking X so
they can then tell the public that X is unacceptable and they will fight
to their last breath to oppose it.

I've already posted clear news reports that this is a government plan
that
they're trying to force on TfL.Â* Khan is strongly against it. And it
looks
like the public is on his side:
https://www.onlondon.co.uk/new-polling-most-londoners-blame-covid-or-government-for-tfl-financial-woes-back-ltns-and-are-satisfied-with-sadiq-khan/




FWIW it was AIUI Sky who broke the story. They included in what I read
reference to "a source close to" DfT but - as I only noticed on a 2nd,
slower reading - not attributing to /that/ source the idea of extending
the CC zone.

https://news.sky.com/story/governmen...ilout-12105037





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