On Sun, 25 May 2008, MIG wrote:

On May 25, 11:33*pm, 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."

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...

Please explain how Ken Livingstone had a left-wing political agenda that
included joining New Labour, advocating strike-breaking, privatising
part of LU etc etc.

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

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.

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.

tom

--
All bloggers must die.

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.

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. 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.

Tom

On Mon, 26 May 2008 08:39:19 +0100, Tom Barry
wrote:

doubling bus and tram fares for the poor is apparently perfectly OK

From the BBC article cited in the first post of the thread:

"The mayor of London said half-price bus and tram fares for 250,000
Londoners on income support, which were also funded by the deal, would
still be honoured."

On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:32:05 +0100, James Farrar wrote:

doubling bus and tram fares for the poor is apparently perfectly OK
From the BBC article cited in the first post of the thread:
"The mayor of London said half-price bus and tram fares for 250,000
Londoners on income support, which were also funded by the deal, would
still be honoured."

The BBC have got that wrong. (Or perhaps just not been thorough enough
in a their bank holiday reading of a deliberately unclear press
release.)

Boris is only honouring the half-price deal until the end of its
original duration, i.e. the first year, which ends this August (and
would undoubtedly have been renewed under the previous Mayor).

Until then you can still apply for the six-month half-price cards, but
as and when each card expires after August, its owner will be in for a
nasty shock.

Paul

On Tue, 27 May 2008 20:47:54 +0100, Paul wrote:

doubling bus and tram fares for the poor is apparently perfectly OK
From the BBC article cited in the first post of the thread:
"The mayor of London said half-price bus and tram fares for 250,000
Londoners on income support, which were also funded by the deal, would
still be honoured."

The BBC have got that wrong. (Or perhaps just not been thorough enough
in a their bank holiday reading of a deliberately unclear press
release.)

Boris is only honouring the half-price deal until the end of its
original duration, i.e. the first year, which ends this August (and
would undoubtedly have been renewed under the previous Mayor).

AIUI, even that's not quite right. The thing whose original duration
was until August was the oil deal, not the half-price fares.

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 Mon, 26 May 2008, MIG wrote:

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.

My understanding is that LO will be run on the same model as the DLR, as a
concession. My further understanding is that whilst the DLR is built,
maintained and operated by a private company, the assets belong to TfL,
who also set the fares and service level. That doesn't sound like
privatisation to me. It's not a million miles from what happened to the
tube, though, although on the DLR, it seems to work a lot better.

Is my understanding right, though? Do TfL own the DLR assets? The the
tracks and stations? The trains? The other chattels? If not, would they
revert to them if the concession was terminated? Would they have any kind
of right to buy them at set price?

Er, because Ken admitted that it was privatisation?

Hmm. I'm surprised to hear that.

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.

Why?

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"

Hopefully, any and all bits where this would improve value for money for
the travelling public.

("hard" is a strange word to use about such soft people)?

"Such soft people"? As my old technology teacher once pointed out, we're
all equal on the Mohs scale.

tom

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

On 26 May, 23:17, Tom Anderson wrote:
Is my understanding right, though? Do TfL own the DLR assets? The the
tracks and stations? The trains? The other chattels? If not, would they
revert to them if the concession was terminated? Would they have any kind
of right to buy them at set price?

TfL own most of the track/stations. The recent extensions are owned
by CGL, CARE and WARE, the PFI holding companies that built them, and
will be handed over to TfL in thirty year's time essentially once the
mortgage is paid. Not sure who owns the trains.

Serco, the operations/maintenance concessionaire, appear to own bugger
all.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London