The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

[A long post - so skip to the last paragraph to get to the gist...]

Southern's franchise expires in September 2009, and there has been a
degree of speculation with regards to what might happen after that -
and this is justified speculation, for it is known that TfL and Mayor
Ken have been lobbying the DfT and indeed the Prime Minister for
control of the inner suburban (or 'South London Metro') routes, so
they can run them as part of the London Overground network.

Mr Thant's excellent London Connections blog has been following this
issue, and the relevant posts can be read on this page:
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/search?q=southern+takeover

In addition, he links to two relevant newspaper stories, one from
November last year in The Times...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2903879.ece

....and a more recent story from March in the Guardian...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...on08.transport


There would appear to be some debate over exactly what form TfL's
involvement would take, ranging from a full takeover of the South
London Metro routes to some other kind of settlement whereby TfL would
somehow be involved or have significant influence over the new
franchisee.

I and many others would warmly welcome TfL's involvement, in whatever
form it comes, in running the rail network south of the Thames. Since
TfL took over the former Silverlink Metro routes as London Overground
back in November things have improved substantially already - stations
are now staffed when they are open, many have had new ticket gates
installed, stations are being cleaned-up and renovated, trains are far
cleaner, tickets checks now actually happen and fare box revenue has
gone up significantly. There's much more to come as well, including
higher frequency services and new trains. In short, the rail service
is now run by an organisation that actually cares about it, under
arrangements that mean they can care about it.

Granted, Southern might not be in anything quite as decrepit as the
state that Silverlink Metro was, but it still sports a plethora of
grotty unwelcoming stations, doesn't commit to staffing its stations
for the whole time they're open, does very little in terms of checking
tickets for those not heading to a central London terminus etc etc. In
other words it could be, and indeed should be, so much better. Indeed
many recent Southern station improvements have been funded or part-
funded by TfL's rail improvement programme, as has some on-train CCTV,
so it's not as though Southern would have delivered these goods
without TfL's assistance. If TfL were actually in charge, they could
do so much more by running it along the lines of the London Overground
network north of the river.


The Guardian story suggests that the Mayor has in essence won over
central government. My question is thus a simple one - if Boris
Johnson is elected next week instead of Ken Livingstone, would
government ministers be at all keen to go ahead with a plan that
allows TfL to takeover - or at least have a substantial role to play
in the running of - the South London Metro routes, which would
effectively hand him an early victory, one which was basically the
result of Ken Livingstone's long-term game plan, or would they just
pull the plug on it all?

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:45:06 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

The Guardian story suggests that the Mayor has in essence won over
central government. My question is thus a simple one - if Boris
Johnson is elected next week instead of Ken Livingstone, would
government ministers be at all keen to go ahead with a plan that
allows TfL to takeover - or at least have a substantial role to play
in the running of - the South London Metro routes, which would
effectively hand him an early victory, one which was basically the
result of Ken Livingstone's long-term game plan, or would they just
pull the plug on it all?

If they did, Johnson (and Cameron, in all probability) would
absolutely slaughter them in the press for blatant party political
point-scoring.

I hope they wouldn't, but they are politicians.

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Mizter T wrote:

The Guardian story suggests that the Mayor has in essence won over
central government. My question is thus a simple one - if Boris Johnson
is elected next week instead of Ken Livingstone, would government
ministers be at all keen to go ahead with a plan that allows TfL to
takeover - or at least have a substantial role to play in the running of
- the South London Metro routes, which would effectively hand him an
early victory, one which was basically the result of Ken Livingstone's
long-term game plan, or would they just pull the plug on it all?

I think it would be utterly unthinkable for them to derail the project out
of political spite. As Mr Farrar points out, they'd be shooting themselves
in the feet in PR terms, and it would probably be illegal, not to mention
very difficult to put over on the various rail industry quangos [1] who
are already lined up behind it.

But ...

All that depends on there already being enough momentum established to
carry the project through. If there is, ministers can't stop it without
the foot-shooting. But if this is all still in the early stage, which i
think it is, there's any amount of foot-dragging that the government can
do to stall it. Stuff that isn't obviously negative, like demanding that
TfL produce a more detailed safety/environmental/business/operational case
than they have so far, or take on more of the cost or risk (more than
they'd be willing to), or suddenly reconsidering Southern's bid, etc.
Standard political wiles that ministers could do in their sleep.

And anyway, a much better strategy is to let it go through, then scheme to
make sure it goes horribly wrong, leaving Boris looking incompetent.

tom

[1] There's a word you haven't heard in a while!

--
How did i get here?

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On 25 Apr, 18:54, James Farrar wrote:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:45:06 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T

wrote:
The Guardian story suggests that the Mayor has in essence won over
central government. My question is thus a simple one - if Boris
Johnson is elected next week instead of Ken Livingstone, would
government ministers be at all keen to go ahead with a plan that
allows TfL to takeover - or at least have a substantial role to play
in the running of - the South London Metro routes, which would
effectively hand him an early victory, one which was basically the
result of Ken Livingstone's long-term game plan, or would they just
pull the plug on it all?

If they did, Johnson (and Cameron, in all probability) would
absolutely slaughter them in the press for blatant party political
point-scoring.

I hope they wouldn't, but they are politicians.


First off, I have no inside information. But if I painted this whole
scheme as a done deal, then I'm sorry, because that's certainly not
the message I intended to convey - I don't think it is a done deal at
all yet (unlike the DfT funding ELLX phase 2) , and I get the
impression that progressing this scheme from theory into reality is
dependent upon the DfT and ministers continuing to give it a
sympathetic hearing, bearing in mind there are substantial forces of
opposition to it within both the railway industry and indeed with the
DfT itself.

It appears more to be a work-in-progress, and one that I am somewhat
sceptical about Boris Johnson - should he become Mayor - (a) properly
recognising the importance thereof and being willing to whole-
heartedly take up, argue for and progress, and (b) whether he would
actually get a sympathetic hearing from central government were he to
do so. This is one of Ken Livingstone's pet projects, and is part of
his long-term game plan to exert greater London influence over the
rail network in the capital for the benefit of Londoners. I'm far from
convinced that Boris would be able to continue this shift, not least
because I'm far from convinced that he recognises how important it is.

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Mizter T wrote:

The Guardian story suggests that the Mayor has in essence won over
central government. My question is thus a simple one - if Boris Johnson
is elected next week instead of Ken Livingstone, would government
ministers be at all keen to go ahead with a plan that allows TfL to
takeover - or at least have a substantial role to play in the running of
- the South London Metro routes, which would effectively hand him an
early victory, one which was basically the result of Ken Livingstone's
long-term game plan, or would they just pull the plug on it all?

I think it would be utterly unthinkable for them to derail the project out
of political spite. As Mr Farrar points out, they'd be shooting themselves
in the feet in PR terms, and it would probably be illegal, not to mention
very difficult to put over on the various rail industry quangos [1] who
are already lined up behind it.

But ...

All that depends on there already being enough momentum established to
carry the project through. If there is, ministers can't stop it without
the foot-shooting. But if this is all still in the early stage, which i
think it is, there's any amount of foot-dragging that the government can
do to stall it. Stuff that isn't obviously negative, like demanding that
TfL produce a more detailed safety/environmental/business/operational case
than they have so far, or take on more of the cost or risk (more than
they'd be willing to), or suddenly reconsidering Southern's bid, etc.
Standard political wiles that ministers could do in their sleep.


First off, see my response upthread to James Farrar where I address
some of these points.

But the critical phrase you use is momentum - one gets the distinct
impression that this isn't a done deal, and - and I'm really not just
saying this for partisan reasons - Ken Livingstone *is* the momentum
on this project. You speak earlier of rail industry quangos possibly
being lined up behind it - well, first off, there aren't really any
rail industry quangos that have a say in these matters, it is DfT
Rail's decision, and DfT is a government department led by a
ministerial team. TfL's London Rail division is meanwhile part of the
Greater London local governance apparatus, and ATOC is an industry
body, one which represents the interests of its private sector
members.

Both the Times and Guardian articles [1] I linked to in my original
post (thanks Mr Thant) are an interesting read, The Times one for a
broad brush overview of Mayor Ken's grand plan, the Guardian one for
some specifics about the possibly TfL takeover of South London Metro
routes.

The Guardian article clearly notes opposition both from the other
train operators, and also from within DfT Rail. The idea that this
plan has an inevitable momentum that will just carry it on through
just isn't justified in my view. The winds can change quickly, so it
could all just fall apart, or it could be watered down significantly -
it needs the case to be made unremittingly right up until the deal is
agreed and signed upon.

Bear in mind that this is in effect central government devolving more
power away from themselves, something that never comes naturally, and
something they have no obligation to do. Some in DfT Rail are also
apparently concerned at the idea of splitting the franchise up - I
understand that there are some potential issues here, but I don't
think it's anything that's unresolvable. I dare say that one part of
the thinking is that Southern's profitable Sussex coast services in
effect subsidise their other operations in South London. Transferring
them to TfL would mean the DfT would have to take a more active role
in cross-subsidising services, something that is an anathema to those
who have been trying to engineer a more hands-off approach in the
government's financial attitude to the railways. In addition handing
control of these routes to TfL would mean they'd spend more on them -
bear in mind that just under half of TfL's budget comes from a grant
from central government, you can see that some in government might be
worry that handing TfL control would entail something of a financial
commitment.

There are a number of counter argument to that - not least that fact
that fare box revenue has substantially increased on the London
Overground network since TfL took control due principally to them
actually conducting some revenue protection (on South London Metro
routes buying a ticket seems to be entirely optional - see this recent
uk.r post for example [2]); the fact that such revenue would continue
to go up as more people were attracted to travel by rail; the argument
that TfL would be far more efficient and effective in spending any
subsidy than a private TOC would be, and the basic acceptance that
providing decent public transport does cost money.

But I'm getting sidetracked. Ken has been driving this whole idea
forward right from when he first got into office (indeed one could
even point to his attempts in the early 80's, as leader of the GLC, to
include British Rail in the fares fair scheme - an attempt that was
blocked by central government before the whole Fares Fair scheme
collapsed as a result of a fairly political legal challenge from LB
Bromley - but it does perhaps demonstrate the provenance of his
thinking when it comes to such matters).

I just think that perhaps he's the only protagonist who can get the
planets to line up on this one, and to actually make it happen.


And anyway, a much better strategy is to let it go through, then scheme to
make sure it goes horribly wrong, leaving Boris looking incompetent.


I realise you say that half in jest, but I do genuinely doubt that
anyone in government would actually want to sabotage anything in this
manner. More likely, perhaps, is that the scheme gets watered down
beyond all recognition, and TfL ends up with a much diminished role.


-----
[1] The Times and Guardian articles:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2903879.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...on08.transport

[2] uk.r post about lack of ticket inspections on South London Metro:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....f3137ba6bba441

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

Mizter T wrote:

[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of Londoners.

LOL.

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On 26 Apr, 13:26, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of Londoners.

LOL.

?

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Apr 26, 1:26 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

TimB wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:26 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Apr 29, 10:17 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:
[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking Point-
bot.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On 29 Apr, 11:07, John B wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:17 am, "John Rowland"

wrote:
[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking Point-
bot.


I wonder why he calls it Labour's ballot rigging?

Postal voting is inappropriate in a number of ways, including
fraudulent registration, dodgy canvassers "helping" vulnerable voters
etc, but also because people vote long before they've heard the case
for each candidate, which benefits any large party with established
machinery and support.

But I don't recall the publicised fraud cases relating only to one
party.

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

"John B" wrote in message
...
On Apr 29, 10:17 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:
[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking Point-
bot.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

So Mr.Band it appears that you are in favour of vote rigging? Perhaps you
would like this country to descend to the level of Zimbabwe?

MJW

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Michael Whitson wrote:

So Mr.Band it appears that you are in favour of vote rigging? Perhaps you
would like this country to descend to the level of Zimbabwe?

Don't worry, Labour are trying their best to get us there .. making good
progress too.
--
Chris Johns

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On 29 Apr, 12:39, "Michael Whitson" wrote:

"John B" wrote:

On Apr 29, 10:17 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:

(snip)

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking Point-
bot.

So Mr.Band it appears that you are in favour of vote rigging? Perhaps you
would like this country to descend to the level of Zimbabwe?


Wow, your logical reasoning is immaculate. If only there was a
candidate of the same intellectual rigour I could vote for, someone
who if elected would ensure that 2+2 really did equal 5...

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On 29 Apr, 12:39, "Michael Whitson" wrote:
Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking Point-
bot.

So Mr.Band it appears that you are in favour of vote rigging? Perhaps you
would like this country to descend to the level of Zimbabwe?

So Mr Whitson, when did you stop beating your wife?

I'm not sure about postal votes: they encourage voting based on
exisiting prejudices (since you vote early in the campaign); and there
are valid concerns about intimidation by heads-of-household among
certain minority groups.

However, there's no evidence at all that they're associated with
widespread fraud (nor does the Rowntree report as highlighted in the
Times piece suggest that there is any such evidence). To the extent
that there is any electoral fraud in the UK - pretty much entirely on
a 'crooked local councillor' basis - this is split between the parties
rather than being ZaNu Liebour Corruption.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On 29 Apr, 12:58, Chris Johns wrote:
So Mr.Band it appears that you are in favour of vote rigging? Perhaps you
would like this country to descend to the level of Zimbabwe?

Don't worry, Labour are trying their best to get us there .. making good
progress too.

Yes, 10 years of sustained economic growth, low inflation and falling
crime sounds *almost exactly* like Zimbabwe.

Idiot.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Michael Whitson wrote:

"John B" wrote in message
...
On Apr 29, 10:17 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:
[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking Point-
bot.

So Mr.Band it appears that you are in favour of vote rigging? Perhaps
you would like this country to descend to the level of Zimbabwe?

TWO automatic Daily Mail Talking Point Bots!

tom

--
catch my hand and come with me - close your eyes and dream

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, John B wrote:

On 29 Apr, 12:58, Chris Johns wrote:
So Mr.Band it appears that you are in favour of vote rigging? Perhaps you
would like this country to descend to the level of Zimbabwe?

Don't worry, Labour are trying their best to get us there .. making good
progress too.

Yes, 10 years of sustained economic growth, low inflation and falling
crime sounds *almost exactly* like Zimbabwe.

Yeah, but there were things like in High Wycombe where pro-Blair militias
burned down the Conservative party offices and drove their supporters out
of the town at machete-point. Just visit the refugee camps on the Welsh
border, and you'll hear plenty of similar stories.

tom

--
catch my hand and come with me - close your eyes and dream

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:

Postal voting is inappropriate in a number of ways, including fraudulent
registration, dodgy canvassers "helping" vulnerable voters etc,

These are valid criticisms, as is John B's point about giving too much
influence to some heads of households.

but also because people vote long before they've heard the case for each
candidate, which benefits any large party with established machinery and
support.

This is absurd. Are you (and John B) seriously saying that paying
attention to political campaigns is an important or useful step in
deciding who to vote for? A political campaign isn't information, it's
advertising. It's where politicians lie to you in order to make you vote
for them (as opposed to everything else politicians say, which is, er,
where they lie to you in order to make you vote for them). We'd have a
better democracy if they were banned altogether!

My decision about who to vote for is based on the track record of each
candidate and party - not what they say they'll do, but what they've done
in the past. Actions speak louder than words.

tom

--
catch my hand and come with me - close your eyes and dream

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote

Yeah, but there were things like in High Wycombe where pro-Blair militias
burned down the Conservative party offices

Well, someone burnt the station down, but I'm not aware of any proof that it
was pro-Blair militias.

Peter

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On 29 Apr, 15:09, "Peter Masson" wrote:
Yeah, but there were things like in High Wycombe where pro-Blair militias
burned down the Conservative party offices

Well, someone burnt the station down, but I'm not aware of any proof that it
was pro-Blair militias.

See, that's only because ZaNu Liebour's political censorship of the
media has blinded you to the truth.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On 29 Apr, 14:58, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Michael Whitson wrote:

"John B" wrote:

On Apr 29, 10:17 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:

(snip)

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking Point-
bot.

So Mr.Band it appears that you are in favour of vote rigging? Perhaps
you would like this country to descend to the level of Zimbabwe?

TWO automatic Daily Mail Talking Point Bots!


Bonus!

Can we get a hat-trick? Not sure that Mr Johns qualifies, what says
the panel?

And how are we going to descend to the level of Zimbabwe, I mean, how
- in practice - is it actually going to work - are we going to do a
swap with Madagascar and get towed down there? I don't think Britain's
even twinned with Madagascar at the moment. And - to bring it back on
topic - how's things with the Channel Tunnel going to work out? Do we
get to keep it and thus get a tunnel linking sub-Saharan Britain to
Mozambique, or does Madagascar arrive in the North Sea with a link to
France in situ already? Maybe the French will insist that we divvy it
up in half between us - still, half a tunnel's better than nothing I
suppose. And who's going to have to pay for all the new maps of the
world to be produced - or is everyone going to be expected to just cut
and paste the two islands into their new respective positions?

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On 29 Apr, 15:08, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:
Postal voting is inappropriate in a number of ways, including fraudulent
registration, dodgy canvassers "helping" vulnerable voters etc,

These are valid criticisms, as is John B's point about giving too much
influence to some heads of households.

but also because people vote long before they've heard the case for each
candidate, which benefits any large party with established machinery and
support.

This is absurd. Are you (and John B) seriously saying that paying
attention to political campaigns is an important or useful step in
deciding who to vote for?

For the big parties it isn't, but for smaller parties (good or bad),
often subjected to news blackouts, going round the streets in the
runup to voting is often the only way that they can let people know
that they exist.

If everyone has already given their postal vote to a major party
they'd already heard of, small parties are disproportionately
disadvantaged.

A political campaign isn't information, it's
advertising. It's where politicians lie to you in order to make you vote
for them (as opposed to everything else politicians say, which is, er,
where they lie to you in order to make you vote for them). We'd have a
better democracy if they were banned altogether!

I don't disagree.


My decision about who to vote for is based on the track record of each
candidate and party - not what they say they'll do, but what they've done
in the past. Actions speak louder than words.

But only the ones that get reported.

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:33:41 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 29 Apr, 11:07, John B wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:17 am, "John Rowland"

wrote:
[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking Point-
bot.


I wonder why he calls it Labour's ballot rigging?

Because it is enabled by a measure brought in by Labour and has
predominantly been done by Labour.

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:33:41 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 29 Apr, 11:07, John B wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:17 am, "John Rowland"

wrote:
[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking Point-
bot.


I wonder why he calls it Labour's ballot rigging?

Because it is enabled by a measure brought in by Labour and has
predominantly been done by Labour.

Neither of which statements are true.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:52:27 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:33:41 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 29 Apr, 11:07, John B wrote:
On Apr 29, 10:17 am, "John Rowland"

wrote:
[...] Ken Livingstone's pet projects [...] for the benefit of
Londoners.

LOL.

You think he doesn't want their votes?

Thanks to Labour's ballot-rigging, he hardly needs anyone's votes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3828322.ece

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking Point-
bot.


I wonder why he calls it Labour's ballot rigging?

Because it is enabled by a measure brought in by Labour and has
predominantly been done by Labour.

Neither of which statements are true.

"2000 Postal voting on demand introduced with pilots in 32 areas"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3578882.ece

Remind me which party formed the Government at the time?


A House of Commons briefing note lists a significant number of postal
vote fraud and suspected fraud cases, the majority of which involve
fraud or alleged fraud by Labour:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...snpc-03667.pdf

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

In article ,
Mizter T wrote:

On 29 Apr, 14:58, Tom Anderson wrote:
TWO automatic Daily Mail Talking Point Bots!


Bonus!

Can we get a hat-trick?

Absolutely not: it would really affect house prices.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Mike Bristow wrote:

In article ,
Mizter T wrote:

On 29 Apr, 14:58, Tom Anderson wrote:
TWO automatic Daily Mail Talking Point Bots!

Bonus!

Can we get a hat-trick?

Absolutely not: it would really affect house prices.

Yeah, nice try, Bristow.

Surely Mr Boltar can step in here and help us out?

tom

--
Just add a little flange and phase in

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Graeme Wall wrote:

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking Point-
bot.

[snip]

Neither of which statements are true.

I don't think the Daily Mail ever let something minor like the truth get
in the way.
--
Chris Johns

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

In message l
Chris Johns wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Graeme Wall wrote:

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking Point-
bot.

[snip]

Neither of which statements are true.

I don't think the Daily Mail ever let something minor like the truth get
in the way.

Given you snipped the lie (oops I meant line, typo honest!) I was referring
to...

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:06:37 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message l
Chris Johns wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Graeme Wall wrote:

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking Point-
bot.

[snip]

Neither of which statements are true.

I don't think the Daily Mail ever let something minor like the truth get
in the way.

Given you snipped the lie (oops I meant line, typo honest!) I was referring
to...

Though your lack of response to my response speaks volumes.

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:06:37 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message l
Chris Johns wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Graeme Wall wrote:

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking
Point- bot.

[snip]

Neither of which statements are true.

I don't think the Daily Mail ever let something minor like the truth get
in the way.

Given you snipped the lie (oops I meant line, typo honest!) I was
referring to...

Though your lack of response to my response speaks volumes.

Actually says I haven't a clue what you are talking about now, which response
to what response?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On 30 Apr, 18:48, Graeme Wall wrote:
Though your lack of response to my response speaks volumes.

Actually says I haven't a clue what you are talking about now, which response
to what response?

I think he means hsi point about "Labour introduced on-demand postal
voting, so it's all their fault, plus they do most of the cheating".

Now, given that the main focus of the Rowntree report is the lack of
ID verification for voting, which has been the case since we
introduced voting, the first criticism would seem a little misplaced.

And given that, should you actually read the linked report, it's clear
that councillors from all parties (including Labour, Conservatives,
Lib Dems, Respect, BNP and DUP) have been caught cheating, the second
criticism would seem to be utter nonsense.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:48:01 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:06:37 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message l
Chris Johns wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Graeme Wall wrote:

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking
Point- bot.

[snip]

Neither of which statements are true.

I don't think the Daily Mail ever let something minor like the truth get
in the way.

Given you snipped the lie (oops I meant line, typo honest!) I was
referring to...

Though your lack of response to my response speaks volumes.

Actually says I haven't a clue what you are talking about now, which response
to what response?

I stated that the reference to "Labour's ballot rigging" by John
Rowland upthread was "because it is enabled by a measure brought in by
Labour and has predominantly been done by Labour".

You claimed: "Neither of which statements are true".

I then demonstrated in Message-ID:
that, in fact, both
statements are true.

And you had no comment. I wonder why.

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

In message
John B wrote:

On 30 Apr, 18:48, Graeme Wall wrote:
Though your lack of response to my response speaks volumes.

Actually says I haven't a clue what you are talking about now, which response
to what response?

I think he means hsi point about "Labour introduced on-demand postal
voting, so it's all their fault, plus they do most of the cheating".

Can't be, I did respond to that, or perhaps he didn't realise...


Now, given that the main focus of the Rowntree report is the lack of
ID verification for voting, which has been the case since we
introduced voting, the first criticism would seem a little misplaced.

And given that, should you actually read the linked report, it's clear
that councillors from all parties (including Labour, Conservatives,
Lib Dems, Respect, BNP and DUP) have been caught cheating, the second
criticism would seem to be utter nonsense.


Precisely my point.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:48:01 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:06:37 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message l
Chris Johns wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Graeme Wall wrote:

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking
Point- bot.

[snip]

Neither of which statements are true.

I don't think the Daily Mail ever let something minor like the truth get
in the way.

Given you snipped the lie (oops I meant line, typo honest!) I was
referring to...

Though your lack of response to my response speaks volumes.

Actually says I haven't a clue what you are talking about now, which response
to what response?

I stated that the reference to "Labour's ballot rigging" by John
Rowland upthread was "because it is enabled by a measure brought in by
Labour and has predominantly been done by Labour".

You claimed: "Neither of which statements are true".

I then demonstrated in Message-ID:
that, in fact, both
statements are true.

And you had no comment. I wonder why.

Well you didn't actually demonstrate it and I didn't want to embarras you
further.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:30:26 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:48:01 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:06:37 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message l
Chris Johns wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Graeme Wall wrote:

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking
Point- bot.

[snip]

Neither of which statements are true.

I don't think the Daily Mail ever let something minor like the truth get
in the way.

Given you snipped the lie (oops I meant line, typo honest!) I was
referring to...

Though your lack of response to my response speaks volumes.

Actually says I haven't a clue what you are talking about now, which response
to what response?

I stated that the reference to "Labour's ballot rigging" by John
Rowland upthread was "because it is enabled by a measure brought in by
Labour and has predominantly been done by Labour".

You claimed: "Neither of which statements are true".

I then demonstrated in Message-ID:
that, in fact, both
statements are true.

And you had no comment. I wonder why.

Well you didn't actually demonstrate it and I didn't want to embarras you
further.

I think it's rather more embarrassing to claim that a measure
introduced in 2000 was not introduced by Labour.

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, John B wrote:

On 30 Apr, 18:48, Graeme Wall wrote:
Though your lack of response to my response speaks volumes.

Actually says I haven't a clue what you are talking about now, which response
to what response?

I think he means hsi point about "Labour introduced on-demand postal
voting, so it's all their fault, plus they do most of the cheating".

Now, given that the main focus of the Rowntree report is the lack of ID
verification for voting, which has been the case since we introduced
voting, the first criticism would seem a little misplaced.

Perhaps, but it is nonetheless true that labour introduced on-demand
postal voting. Inferring from that that it's a giant labour plot to stuff
ballot boxes across the nation seems a little tinfoil-hat, though.

And given that, should you actually read the linked report, it's clear
that councillors from all parties (including Labour, Conservatives,
Lib Dems, Respect, BNP and DUP) have been caught cheating, the second
criticism would seem to be utter nonsense.

Well, not quite. He said "most of the cheating" - the fact that all
parties do some cheating doesn't tell is whether one particular party does
most of it or not. Just like saying "all countries have dropped bombs on
another country at some point since 1945" doesn't tell you that there's
one in particular that's contributed most of them.

I don't recall any evidence for any labour dominance of the vote-rigging
market being presented, though. If there is any, i'd certainly be
interested to see it (again, if necessary!).

tom

--
What were the skies like when you were young?

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

Tom Anderson wrote:

I don't recall any evidence for any labour dominance of the vote-rigging
market being presented, though. If there is any, i'd certainly be
interested to see it (again, if necessary!).

It would also be of interest to know whether what's being alleged is the
number of votes rigged, or the number of wards/constituencies whose
result was altered by rigged votes.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10907015.html
(45 135 at Wolverhampton, 1985)

The 'South London Overground' and the Mayoral election
 

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:30:26 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:48:01 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:06:37 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message l
Chris Johns wrote:

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Graeme Wall wrote:

Wow, it's like having our very own automatic Daily Mail Talking
Point- bot.

[snip]

Neither of which statements are true.

I don't think the Daily Mail ever let something minor like the truth get
in the way.

Given you snipped the lie (oops I meant line, typo honest!) I was
referring to...

Though your lack of response to my response speaks volumes.

Actually says I haven't a clue what you are talking about now, which response
to what response?

I stated that the reference to "Labour's ballot rigging" by John
Rowland upthread was "because it is enabled by a measure brought in by
Labour and has predominantly been done by Labour".

You claimed: "Neither of which statements are true".

I then demonstrated in Message-ID:
that, in fact, both
statements are true.

And you had no comment. I wonder why.

Well you didn't actually demonstrate it and I didn't want to embarras you
further.

I think it's rather more embarrassing to claim that a measure
introduced in 2000 was not introduced by Labour.

So why claim it?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html