On Sep 2, 7:44*am, Walter Briscoe wrote:
I am surprised not to see a reference to
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/roadusers/...ternextension/
default.aspx

I find it interesting that the census questions do not distinguish
drivers and non-drivers. They also redundantly ask for a respondent's
post code and whether the respondent lives in the western extension
zone.

It looks as if the result will be to modify the implementation.
I go for that. Although I think the western extension was a bad idea, I
think scrapping the hardware would be unconscionable.
--
Walter Briscoe


This is interesting:

Despite the endless problems that have plagued Boris’s administration
so far, today he found time to deliver one of his rare concrete
manifesto promises: a consultation on the Congestion Charge Western
Extension.

Now, it may be good that he’s delivering a pledge, but whether it’s a
worthwhile pledge is another matter entirely.

The previous Mayor also consulted before introducing the Extension,
and while a majority of respondents in the proposed zone were opposed
to the change, the Mayor’s opinion polling apparently showed that a
majority of Londoners as a whole were not. Those in the zone
complained that their voices were ignored, but in truth of course a
strategic, London-wide Mayor determines strategy in one area based on
the needs of London as a whole, so it wasn’t as simple as that. The
point of a London-wide strategic authority is to address ‘nimbyism’
and push through things which may be unpopular in a particular area
but popular overall, so it could be argued – and certainly was by Mr.
Livingstone during May’s election – that that was what was happening
here.

Anyway, what we’re most likely in for now is a repeat of that
consultation, which doesn’t sound to me like a particularly good use
of money, but then what with shovelling money into the Venezuelan
state oil company, pouring cash down the drain into an unnecessary
(and seemingly poorly responded-to) bus competition, lavishing dosh on
Porsche, and so forth, it’s not exactly out of line with the rest of
Boris’s ‘value for money’ administration.

Interestingly, in typical Boris “I don’t want to fall out with anyone”
fashion, a third option – beyond the obvious “Keep the extension as it
is” and “Get rid of the extension” – has appeared in the consultation:
“Change the extension”. The full description of this reads:

Change the way the scheme operates by introducing account based
payment, by introducing a charge free period in the middle of the day
in the Western Extension, or by increasing the residents’ discount to
100%.

Account-based payment was a key, but separate, pledge of Boris’s
during the election, for the Congestion Charge as a whole, so it seems
disingenuous to bundle it in with this consultation, particularly when
the paragraph immediately below the options reads:

With all these options, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise, the
original central London Congestion Charging zone will continue to
operate as it does at present.

This suggests that particular election pledge has been kicked into the
long grass, even while he fulfils this other, arguably less important
pledge.

It’s pretty clear, though, that some sort of ‘third way’ option is the
one favoured by Boris, after he’s heard from people on both sides of
the argument and been unable to reconcile their equally passionate
opinions in favour of and against the Extension.

Tonight’s BBC London also showed Boris unable to maintain his
impartial front as he launched the consultation with a walkabout in
the zone, giving a triumphant miniature fist-pump in response to one
woman plumping for the third option, which he’d presented in a pretty
leading way anyway – something like


“D’you want to keep it, get rid of it, or change it and make it work
better and be easier to pay and cheaper and brilliant and fantastic
and marvellous?” (I may have exaggerated somewhat but I’m not sure at
what point I strayed from what he actually said to his underlying
implication…)




Anyway, what are you waiting for? There are five weeks to respond to
the consultation (it closes on 5 October), so I would strongly
encourage all Londoners to do so, whatever your views. Every reply
counts in this consultation and there will be a lot of focus on what
the results are and what Boris does in response: the mere launching of
the thing was the second-from-top story on BBC London this evening.

http://www.boriswatch.co.uk/

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 05:12:55 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

shovelling money into the Venezuelan state oil company

Um, that was a Livingstone policy.

On Sep 2, 5:24*pm, James Farrar wrote:
shovelling money into the Venezuelan state oil company

Um, that was a Livingstone policy.

No, that was taking money *from* the Venezuelan state oil company.

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

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 09:50:55 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote:

On Sep 2, 5:24*pm, James Farrar wrote:
shovelling money into the Venezuelan state oil company

Um, that was a Livingstone policy.

No, that was taking money *from* the Venezuelan state oil company.

Didn't it involve buying fuel from them at a reduced price? That's
still giving our money to them.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, James Farrar wrote:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 09:50:55 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote:

On Sep 2, 5:24*pm, James Farrar wrote:
shovelling money into the Venezuelan state oil company

Um, that was a Livingstone policy.

No, that was taking money *from* the Venezuelan state oil company.

Didn't it involve buying fuel from them at a reduced price? That's still
giving our money to them.

What it actually involved was them paying us 20% of what we spent on
diesel. From any source. No actual oil came from Venezuela - at least, not
specifically; i imagine some of the diesel we bought was once Venezuelan
dinosaurs or whatever.

See:

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/bu...s/appendix.pdf

Which is muddled, but functions as a kind of truth ore, from which useful
knowledge can be extracted.

tom

--
Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood.