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 May 26, 8:39*am, Tom Barry wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

Which part of LU did he privatise? I take it you're not referring to the
PPP, which he fought tooth and nail.

A number of people on the left (the very hard left, this is) see the
closure of the ELL and its incorporate into a privately operated London
Overground as a privatisation. *I don't, particularly, because it's a
good idea and you have to set it against the fact that greater public
control applies on the rest of LO, the creation of which is hardly a
right-wing act.

Er, because Ken admitted that it was privatisation? LO is a step in
the right direction. ELL is a step in the opposite direction. The
best outcome would have been for LU operations to be extended, running
all the services on the extension.

And what do you suppose Boris's clique will make of the example?
Which next bit of LU will be handed over to a private franchise, as
warned by the "hard left" ("hard" is a strange word to use about such
soft people)?


Boris Johnson has an unashamedly right-wing agenda. *Ken Livingstone
had a conveniently-acquired right-wing agenda, occasionally regressing
when his conscience got the better of him.

I'm not sure Boris' agenda matters here. *

Agreed. It's just that it's in his name, so it's a kind of
shorthand. Ken's was personal in a way that's probably unique in
politics.

For instance, his Routemaster
spiel is mostly lifted from a 2005 report edited by the genuine right
wing ideologue Dean Godson, who has the distinction of being sacked from
the Telegraph for being too pro-Israel (and doesn't seem to be a
particular expert on transport issues). *Boris evidently came along
substantially after this crowd were already thinking of how to win in
2008 and he's now surrounded himself with an unpleasant clique of them.
* It's therefore unsurprising that extending a deal with Chavez and co.
isn't to their taste, but doubling bus and tram fares for the poor is
apparently perfectly OK (as, presumably, is fuelling buses from Saudi
oil or even paying Venezuela market rate for it). *It's a shame they had
to lie about the reasons, however.

In comparison Livingstone (whose ideology, such as it is, is personal)
is at heart a pragmatist who'll take any kind of public/private control
as long as it works (cf. nationalising East Thames Buses, leasing class
378s privately, outsourcing DLR and congestion charge operation,
bringing Silverlink Metro under Tfl...). *Given this record, the fact
that he opposed PPP seems likely to be based on practical grounds (he
considered it wouldn't work) rather than ideological ones. *Ironically
there are more than a few Tories who actually quite like the idea of PPP.

Establishing a tax on car use to pay for buses, not kowtowing to the
Americans when they refused to pay it, setting up the first civil
partnership scheme in the UK, and (re)starting an anti-racism music
festival don't seem particularly right-wing to me.

Quite.

I'm sure that Boris has done some things that aren't particularly
right wing, which doesn't alter the general drift.

On May 26, 11:48*am, Roland Perry wrote:
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

Or, closer to home, claiming an Oyster discount on a £4 fare that only
exists as part of the implementation of Oyster. (Actually, it's
nowhere near as bad as that; at least the bus fares went down.)

Roland Perry wrote:
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% !

It's a doubling if 90/45 = 2, which it does. I don't see the tax rate
analogy, personally. Boris had the opportunity to preserve the scheme as
he found it or double fares for people on income support and chose the
latter. There's only so much spin this can take, really.

Tom

On Mon, 26 May 2008 12:27:32 +0100, Tom Barry wrote:

‘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% !

It's a doubling if 90/45 = 2, which it does. I don't see the tax rate
analogy, personally. Boris had the opportunity to preserve the scheme as
he found it or double fares for people on income support and chose the
latter. There's only so much spin this can take, really.

I suppose it depends on whether the original halving of fares was only
supposed to be a sort of temporary "special offer" (as Boris seems to
be claiming), or whether it was intended to be permanent.

Tom Barry wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
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% !

It's a doubling if 90/45 = 2, which it does. I don't see the tax rate
analogy, personally. Boris had the opportunity to preserve the scheme
as he found it or double fares for people on income support and chose
the latter. There's only so much spin this can take, really.

No-one in London is truly poor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1KwN_JOLYg
"Dedicated to the long suffering residents of the Heygate Estate"
Look closely at the external shots and you see that nearly every flat has a
satellite dish. These people aren't poor, they just have inexplicable
priorities.

Changing the subject slightly... See the comment below the video...
"The estate is a cash hole. Since Nov 1999 £millions have been spent, it
works like this; Southwark allocate funds- "friendly" contractor is
employed- No work is done but contractor gets paid- Contractor and
politicans all get a nice "drink".
Look for any allocation of funds for the Heygate in the last five years,
then try and find the work it relates to.
It's a dirty little game so watch your back"

Good old Southwark (Labour) Council.

In message , at 12:27:32 on Mon, 26
May 2008, Tom Barry remarked:

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% !

It's a doubling if 90/45 = 2, which it does. I don't see the tax rate
analogy, personally.

Gordon said he was abolishing 10% tax. Most people would (and did)
immediately assume he was reducing the 10% tax to 0% whereas in fact he
put it up to 20%

Boris had the opportunity to preserve the scheme as he found it or
double fares for people on income support and chose the latter.

If the scheme is unethical (as a piece of dressed-up foreign aid) it's
best to nip it in the bud.

There's only so much spin this can take, really.

Exactly. The fares aren't being doubled, a temporary 50% discount is
being abolished.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 26 May 2008 12:50:49 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

Gordon said he was abolishing 10% tax. Most people would (and did)
immediately assume he was reducing the 10% tax to 0% whereas in fact he
put it up to 20%

I think in practice what he should have done was somewhere in the
middle (remove 10p band, leave upper band at 22p, move allowance up
(and 40% band down if applicable) so that as few people in the 10p
band are disadvantaged as possible). I'm all for tax simplification,
but the way this was done smelt strongly of "attempted vote winner"
rather than common sense.

If the scheme is unethical (as a piece of dressed-up foreign aid) it's
best to nip it in the bud.

Agreed.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On May 26, 2:46*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 12:50:49 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

Gordon said he was abolishing 10% tax. Most people would (and did)
immediately assume he was reducing the 10% tax to 0% whereas in fact he
put it up to 20%

I think in practice what he should have done was somewhere in the
middle (remove 10p band, leave upper band at 22p, move allowance up
(and 40% band down if applicable) so that as few people in the 10p
band are disadvantaged as possible). *I'm all for tax simplification,
but the way this was done smelt strongly of "attempted vote winner"
rather than common sense.

If the scheme is unethical (as a piece of dressed-up foreign aid) it's
best to nip it in the bud.

Agreed.

Which proportion of our oil comes from schemes that are more ethical
(or less unethical)?

John Rowland wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1KwN_JOLYg
"Dedicated to the long suffering residents of the Heygate Estate"
Look closely at the external shots and you see that nearly every flat has a
satellite dish. These people aren't poor, they just have inexplicable
priorities.

Umm... Digital switchover in London is in 2012. In flats it might be
difficult to upgrade the aerial system (because that might mean one on the
roof and a shared distribution system, which everyone would have to agree to
and pay for), so going for a satellite option isn't that silly. As we're
continually being told that we must switch over sooner or later and the
zillions of exciting new channels that await us, maybe they're just
prepared?

Theo