Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:37:55 on
Mon, 26 May 2008, Paul Corfield remarked:
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?

Whose fares are going to double? Not these ones obviously:

"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."

Bad BBC reporting, I'm afraid. They missed out 'until the deal
expires'. If you read the rest of the article you find this bit from
the horse's mouth:

"He [MBJ] added: "We will continue to offer the half-priced travel
concession to Londoners on income support for the duration for which the
deal was originally planned".

Because of the way the BBC wrote the story it's unclear that fares are
going to double for those on income support, but that does appear to be
the case from what Johnson is reported as saying. Not immediately, but
at some point after August 20th. We'll have to wait for the official
TfL announcement, I suspect. It's noticeable that I haven't seen any
Tories jumping on Livingstone's instant press release which starts:

‘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.'

If Livingstone, in his haste, had got the first line 180 degrees wrong
we'd have heard about it, surely? They wouldn't miss an opportunity to
make him look a mug, such as by saying 'because of identified cost
savings against the previous wasteful regime we can keep the low fares
adn tell Chavez to stuff it' or similar.

It is, of course, entirely possible that the deal wouldn't have been
renewed by the Venezuelans, and this is a spoiler, but there are good
reasons to suspect otherwise, such as the likelihood that blaming Chavez
for increasing bus fares for the poor would be too good a line to miss.

Tom

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, 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.

asdf wrote:
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.

The New Deal version has presumably been going for a few years and, not
being backed by Venezuelan oil money, presumably continues.

The TfL website for the scheme contains no suggestion of it being
temporary and no inkling of the change, incidentally (something like a
last application date or last validity date would be useful).

There's a requirement to re-apply every six months to prove you're still
eligible, so presumably they just stop renewing them at some point, in a
few months time when everyone's forgotten this weekend's news.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/faresandtickets/5568.aspx

Tom

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.

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

On 26 May 2008 15:10:44 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
wrote:

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?

Doubt it. Over many years in the UK it's seemed to be the case that
people who can't afford to feed and clothe their children properly
somehow *can* afford to have satellite television, to run cars and to
smoke cigarettes, none of which are essential activities to life but
are nonetheless rather expensive activities.

Neil

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

On May 26, 3:26*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On 26 May 2008 15:10:44 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos

wrote:
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?

Doubt it. *Over many years in the UK it's seemed to be the case that
people who can't afford to feed and clothe their children properly
somehow *can* afford to have satellite television, to run cars and to
smoke cigarettes, none of which are essential activities to life but
are nonetheless rather expensive activities.

But imagine having lots of strong, healthy poor people with no
alternative to roaming the streets. Keep em hooked on the TV drug, I
say.