In message , at 11:02:30 on Mon, 26
May 2008, Tom Barry remarked:
‘Boris Johnson’s announcement today that he is doubling bus and
tram fares for people on Income Support is a direct attack on the
poorest Londoners.'

Calling it a doubling of fares, when in fact it's returning the fare to
the normal level, is about as bad as claiming you've abolished the 10p
tax band, when in fact you raised the 10% tax band to 20% !
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:37:55 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Sun, 25 May 2008 23:33:28 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

On Sun, 25 May 2008 14:49:12 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"Boris Johnson will not renew anwith which provides cheap fuel for London's
buses once the agreement ends later this year. The mayor of London said
half-price bus and tram fares for 250,000 Londoners on income support, which
was also funded by the deal, would still be honoured. Mr Johnson said he
thought many Londoners were uncomfortable with how the scheme was funded."

Always seemed a bit odd to me...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7419227.stm

Applause.

What - for sneaking out a controversial announcement, that will double
fares for the poorest people, in the middle of a bank holiday weekend
hoping people wouldn't notice?

The timing of the announcement was poor, yes.

But breaking the link with a reprehensible South American dictator is
to be applauded.

I'm interested to know where this policy change was in the Tory
manifesto for the Mayoralty.

I didn't read the manifesto in any detail - but whenever anyone asked
me about the choice, I made sure to point out the Chavez deal, as it
wasn't well known and deserved to be mentioned. (Yes, I also gave an
assesment of Ken's pros and other cons and the pros and cons of
Boris.)

Livingstone has said "It shows that he [Johnson] is more interested in
pursuing his right-wing ideological agenda..."

True, if pursuing his right-wing ideological agenda is dismantling the
policies you implemented to pursue your left-wing ideological
agenda...

So the right thing for London's public transport users is for
politicians to play "I smash your ideology while I build mine" is it?

No. It's appalling that Livingstone should call this pursuing a
right-wing ideological agenda.

On May 26, 9:24*pm, James Farrar wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:37:55 +0100, Paul Corfield





wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2008 23:33:28 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

On Sun, 25 May 2008 14:49:12 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"Boris Johnson will not renew anwith *which provides cheap fuel for London's
buses once the agreement ends later this year. The mayor of London said
half-price bus and tram fares for 250,000 Londoners on income support, which
was also funded by the deal, would still be honoured. Mr Johnson said he
thought many Londoners were uncomfortable with how the scheme was funded."

Always seemed a bit odd to me...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7419227.stm

Applause.

What - for sneaking out a controversial announcement, that will double
fares for the poorest people, in the middle of a bank holiday weekend
hoping people wouldn't notice?

The timing of the announcement was poor, yes.

But breaking the link with a reprehensible South American dictator is
to be applauded.

What the hell are you talking about? A reprehensible dictator
(actually elected president) who not only didn't execute the people
who organised a military coup against him, but let them continue to
broadcast criticism of his government till their licence ran out.

(And yet this is still reported over here as censorship. Jeez, what
planet are people on?)

Our previous Prime Minister was mates with Pinochet. Now there's a
reprehensible dictator ...

On Mon, 26 May 2008, MIG wrote:

On May 26, 9:24*pm, James Farrar wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:37:55 +0100, Paul Corfield

wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2008 23:33:28 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

On Sun, 25 May 2008 14:49:12 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"Boris Johnson will not renew anwith *which provides cheap fuel for London's
buses once the agreement ends later this year. The mayor of London said
half-price bus and tram fares for 250,000 Londoners on income support, which
was also funded by the deal, would still be honoured. Mr Johnson said he
thought many Londoners were uncomfortable with how the scheme was funded."

Always seemed a bit odd to me...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7419227.stm

Applause.

What - for sneaking out a controversial announcement, that will double
fares for the poorest people, in the middle of a bank holiday weekend
hoping people wouldn't notice?

The timing of the announcement was poor, yes.

But breaking the link with a reprehensible South American dictator is
to be applauded.

What the hell are you talking about? A reprehensible dictator (actually
elected president) who not only didn't execute the people who organised
a military coup against him, but let them continue to broadcast
criticism of his government till their licence ran out.

I have no comment on Chavez's reprehensibility or otherwise, but
'dictator' is factually incorrect.

(And yet this is still reported over here as censorship. Jeez, what
planet are people on?)

Here's a clue: which version of this makes a better story in the papers?

Our previous Prime Minister was mates with Pinochet. Now there's a
reprehensible dictator ...

And Pinochet wasn't much better.

Cheers for the set-up!

tom

--
If this is your first night, you have to fight.

On May 26, 9:24 pm, James Farrar wrote:
The timing of the announcement was poor, yes.

But breaking the link with a reprehensible South American dictator is
to be applauded.

If Chavez were a dictator, rather than the repeated winner of
elections certified as free and fair by international observers, you
might have a point.

Democracy and pro-Americanism in the developing world are not the same
thing, much as right-wing ideologues might like them to be...

[no, I don't particularly support his populist economic or social
policies, but the people of Venezuela do and they're the ones whose
choice it is...]

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

On Tue, 27 May 2008, John B wrote:

On May 26, 9:24 pm, James Farrar wrote:
The timing of the announcement was poor, yes.

But breaking the link with a reprehensible South American dictator is
to be applauded.

If Chavez were a dictator, rather than the repeated winner of elections
certified as free and fair by international observers, you might have a
point.

"Certified as free and fair by international observers" might be a bit
strong. Just going on what's in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez

It seems he's better than SLORC, but probably not a lot better, if any,
than Mugabe.

tom

--
The few survivors on ousfg's side ended up in a monastery of immortal
monks who yearned for a life better than street-fighting social groups,
learning to grow extra hands and feet on the way to immortality. --
Lyndsey Pickup

"Boris Johnson will not renew anwith which provides cheap fuel for
London's buses once the agreement ends later this year. The mayor of
London said half-price bus and tram fares for 250,000 Londoners on income
support, which was also funded by the deal, would still be honoured. Mr
Johnson said he thought many Londoners were uncomfortable with how the
scheme was funded."

Always seemed a bit odd to me...

Indeed, though I've always also been uncomfortable with the use of the
funding as I don't think it is TfL's place to be involved in the benefits
system.

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Graham J wrote:

Indeed, though I've always also been uncomfortable with the use of the
funding as I don't think it is TfL's place to be involved in the benefits
system.

Yeah, free tickets for old people is a really bad idea.

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

While researching this email, I was forced to carry out some
investigative work which unfortunately involved a bucket of
puppies and a belt sander
-- after JoeB, in the Monastery

David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Graham J wrote:

Indeed, though I've always also been uncomfortable with the use of the
funding as I don't think it is TfL's place to be involved in the benefits
system.

Yeah, free tickets for old people is a really bad idea.


Not to mention the continuing New Deal discount. I think it's perfectly
in TfL's remit to be involved like this.

tom

On 27 May, 15:26, Tom Barry wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Graham J wrote:

Indeed, though I've always also been uncomfortable with the use of the
funding as I don't think it is TfL's place to be involved in the benefits
system.

Yeah, free tickets for old people is a really bad idea.

Not to mention the continuing New Deal discount. *I think it's perfectly
in TfL's remit to be involved like this.


Yeah. The comment might as well have been that cinemas shouldn't be
involved in the benefits system when they give concessions to
pensioners or unemployed.