John B gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Aye, fair; while it's true that Inner London voted for Ken this time
round, and that Outer London reliably swings Tory, I do accept it makes
more sense for the outer boroughs to be included in the administrative
unit. It's kind-of annoying that their vote dictates what happens on
issues like bendies and pedestrianisation in the centre, which is of
peripheral interest to them at best

That presupposes, of course, that those who live in outer London always
stay there and never head inside the Circulars, or the Ring Road, or
whatever your arbitrary boundary may be...

They don't. The vast majority are just as heavily affected - perhaps even
more so, when it comes to transport decisions - than those who live more
centrally. Many of those who live centrally could easily walk or cycle to
work (or for leisure/shopping/etc) should buses & tubes not be available
or viable. Those who live further out can't.

There's also those of us who live outside the boroughs whilst still being
heavily affected by TfL and the GLA, yet get no representation.

On 22 Oct, 12:45, John B wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:27*pm, David Cantrell wrote:

I'm deeply sceptical, although it's possible that the people you spoke
to were idiots. In real life, bendies provide a much better service
than other buses on a given route.

That is, I'm afraid, not true.

Route 38 had a better service before it went all bendy. *By which I mean
there were more seats (which were more comfortable) and a more frequent
service, with journey times being about the same. *There was also less
fare-dodging.

But more standing capacity with bendies, right? Which is the important
thing when the issue is bus-you-can-get-on vs bus-you-can't.

The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of
various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater
London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of
London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted
for Ken.

If what you say was true, then Livingstone wouldn't have got in in the
first place. *Nor would Labour have won the GLC elections in 1964, 1973,
and 1981.

Aye, fair; while it's true that Inner London voted for Ken this time
round, and that Outer London reliably swings Tory, I do accept it
makes more sense for the outer boroughs to be included in the
administrative unit. It's kind-of annoying that their vote dictates
what happens on issues like bendies and pedestrianisation in the
centre, which is of peripheral interest to them at best - but that's
democracy, and while democracy is crap we know pretty much every other
way of doing things is worse.

He lost because he stood as a Labour party candidate at a time when
Labour are deeply unpopular. *If he'd stayed as an independent right
from the start, he would, I am sure, have done better, maybe even well
enough to win.

I suspect you're right (although having rejoined for the second
election, I don't think he could realistically have left again for the
third). By this year, the small-c-conservative-suburban-middle-class
had finally returned to their natural Tory habitat...

Not just conservatives; don't forget that a lot of the Left would no
sooner vote New Labour than Tory, lest their hands wither and fall
off. But one can't be sure if he had the resources to run and win as
an independent in 2004 without the New Labour machinery. And he
wouldn't just have to leave the party again, he would also have to
have yet another dramatic change of politics (as he did when he
rejoined) to convince people.

In message
of
Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:08:16 in uk.transport.london, John B
writes

[snip]

The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of
various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater
London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of
London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted
for Ken.

Your memory of history differs from mine.
ISTR Mrs Thatcher's government eliminated the GLC and ILEA. At the time,
I thought that adding another ring of buroughs to London could have
served her purpose, permanently gerrymandered London and be justified
from a transport perspective.

ISTR the mayoralty was created by a Labour government and the 3
elections have resulted in Independent Labour, Labour and Conservative.

Hubris is an occupational hazard for politicians. I changed my vote in
response to the westward extension of congestion charging and the
Chelsea tractor proposals. Personally, I abominate them but saw no
reason to charge them more than heavy goods vehicles. The congestion
charge was extended in directions which had little to do with
congestion.

As a motorist and cyclist, I hate bendy-buses; as a pedestrian, I love
them because fares are voluntary.
--
Walter Briscoe

On Oct 22, 12:52*pm, Adrian wrote:
Aye, fair; while it's true that Inner London voted for Ken this time
round, and that Outer London reliably swings Tory, I do accept it makes
more sense for the outer boroughs to be included in the administrative
unit. It's kind-of annoying that their vote dictates what happens on
issues like bendies and pedestrianisation in the centre, which is of
peripheral interest to them at best

That presupposes, of course, that those who live in outer London always
stay there and never head inside the Circulars, or the Ring Road, or
whatever your arbitrary boundary may be...

There's a legal definition of Inner London; I was going with that...

They don't. The vast majority are just as heavily affected - perhaps even
more so, when it comes to transport decisions - than those who live more
centrally. Many of those who live centrally could easily walk or cycle to
work (or for leisure/shopping/etc) should buses & tubes not be available
or viable. Those who live further out can't.

For rail and tube transport, you're right. For bus transport, I
disagree - there are very few people who live in outer London boroughs
and commute into the centre via bus; buses are a way of getting people
between parts of outer London, of getting people between parts of
inner London, and of getting poor people from inner London into the
centre (and walking from Thamesmead, Stamford Hill or Hampstead Heath
to the centre isn't really commutable).

There's definitely some logic in having local control of bus services,
with the people of Hillingdon voting to keep genteel single deckers,
whilst the people of Tower Hamlets vote for bendies to funnel them
into the centre - but realistically I think it's be too
administratively complex and having it all done by TfL is more
sensible.

There's also those of us who live outside the boroughs whilst still being
heavily affected by TfL and the GLA, yet get no representation.

....or taxation. I reckon George Washington would be happy with that.

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

John B wrote:

Ah the myth that bendies are only hated by car drivers. When campaigning
for
Boris in areas served by bendies I found this policy to be very popular
amongst people who have to use them.

I'm deeply sceptical, although it's possible that the people you spoke
to were idiots. In real life, bendies provide a much better service
than other buses on a given route.

So why do I so frequently see people opting for the 86 over the 25 for
journeys to Stratford or Ilford? (And it's for going there, not onwards.)

It's called democracy. If the people of London didn't want Boris as
their
Mayor he wouldn't have been voted into office.

The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of
various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater
London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of
London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted
for Ken.

The most common definition of "London", including in the title "Mayor of
London" etc..., is the full extent of Greater London. Other than the City,
which really lost the claim centuries ago, there has never been a formal
"London proper".

The Conservatives did not "gerrymander" the boundaries, they were responding
to the long recognised problem that the boundaries of the County of London
were too small for effective democratic governance of the London
conurbation. This was recognised well beyond the Conservatives, as can be
seen in the various different boundaries for London such as the London
Transport area, the Metropolitan Police area (now realigned) and so forth.
The Star newspaper was calling for wider boundaries for London local
government in the 1930s.

And I see once again the dismissive attitude to the outer suburbs of London
by Boris critics and/or Ken fans. And people wonder why the outer suburbs
were not enamoured with Ken and those around him.

(It predates Ken - the real reason the GLC was abolished was because the
outer London boroughs had realised they got very little out of it and didn't
need it. Calls for abolition to be considered were being made well before
Ken took power, including by Ken himself.)

And if all Boris had ever
done was "be funny on a game show" he would never have got anywhere, let
alone into Parliament then the nomination and finally the office.

You have a bizarrely misplaced faith in the processes governing the
acquisition of political office by the sons of extremely wealthy and
successful people.

You have a low opinion of the democratic centralist tendency in the
Conservative Party that has a strong filtration barrier to who can seek
nomination to elected office.

Boltar wrote:

London is where its currently defined municiple borders end , not at a
convenient point for left wingers. If you want just the historical
london then you should go back to roman times which would give you
the City itself, ironically a truer blue tory area you'll not be
likely to find anywhere in the country.

I may be mistaken but I think the actual residential voters in the City have
gone Labour several times. (Although didn't Boris carry the City this time?)
There are only about 7000 voters, from recollection mainly key workers and
nursing students. Very little of the City's "truer blue" tendency is
residential. I'm reminded of the 1940 US Presidential election which was
billed as "Roosevelt vs. Wall Street." Roosevelt carried the Wall Street
precinct by 3:1. (Literally, the voters were a businessman, an engineer, a
caretaker and his wife.)

MIG wrote:

Not just conservatives; don't forget that a lot of the Left would no
sooner vote New Labour than Tory, lest their hands wither and fall
off. But one can't be sure if he had the resources to run and win as
an independent in 2004 without the New Labour machinery. And he
wouldn't just have to leave the party again, he would also have to
have yet another dramatic change of politics (as he did when he
rejoined) to convince people.

I think Labour would have certainly lost in 2004. They did actually select a
candidate before Ken returned. But hardly anyone had heard of Nicky Gavron
and she was routinely polling in fourth place and would have found it hard
to present herself as the credible anti-Livingstone alternative, even
amongst voters who didn't want the Conservatives as Simon Hughes had a
bigger profile. Labour were also still suffering a backlash over the war. So
I doubt Labour would have won without Ken.

One thing often forgotten is that the 2004 election was the *only* time the
London-wide local government (on whichever boundaries) was won by the same
party in power at Westminster since 1949. (And IIRC even in 2004 the
Assembly wasn't won by Labour.) And whilst the London County Council didn't
have such an exact match it's notable that it began with an 18 year Liberal
rule (I think in local government they used the "Progressive" label) from
1889-1907, which broadly corresponded to 20 odd years Conservative/Unionist
domination at Westminster (1886-1906), then 26 years under the Conservatives
(I think the local label was "Municipal Reform Society") from 1907 to 1933,
which was a period in which the Conservatives nationally were generally
weak, then Labour (under that label) from 1933 to 1965, again at a time when
they were nationally weak. The trend for London voters to want the
County/City Hall to be run by a different party from Whitehall is one of the
main constant features of London government, along with argument over
whether London is one community or several and conflict between boroughs,
whether east/west or inner/outer that is often reflected in different party
support levels.

Walter Briscoe wrote:

Your memory of history differs from mine.
ISTR Mrs Thatcher's government eliminated the GLC and ILEA. At the time, I
thought that adding another ring of buroughs to London could have served
her purpose, permanently gerrymandered London and be justified from a
transport perspective.

Some of the boroughs such as Watford and Epsom & Ewell had fought hard
campaigns against being added to the Greater London area in the 1960s and
would probably have done so again. But more generally the problem was that
the GLC did not deliver that high a proportion of services, especially to
the outer boroughs, with the result that politicians in the latter were
demanding its abolition regardless of which party was in County Hall. Adding
another ring of boroughs would have been very awkward, and also have had
knock-one effects on the surrounding county councils (and the division of
services in the counties was substantially different from London so this
would also have meant the boroughs taking on additional duties that weren't
always suitable for borough/district level.) It is ahistorical to see the
abolition of the GLC as being all about Thatcher trying to shut Livingstone
up.

John B gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

That presupposes, of course, that those who live in outer London always
stay there and never head inside the Circulars, or the Ring Road, or
whatever your arbitrary boundary may be...

There's a legal definition of Inner London; I was going with that...

Three, actually...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_London

For rail and tube transport, you're right. For bus transport, I disagree
- there are very few people who live in outer London boroughs and
commute into the centre via bus; buses are a way of getting people
between parts of outer London, of getting people between parts of inner
London, and of getting poor people from inner London into the centre
(and walking from Thamesmead, Stamford Hill or Hampstead Heath to the
centre isn't really commutable).

True. But since Thamesmead isn't part of one definition, whilst the third
stretches to areas not even under GLA control at one point...

There's definitely some logic in having local control of bus services,
with the people of Hillingdon voting to keep genteel single deckers,
whilst the people of Tower Hamlets vote for bendies to funnel them into
the centre - but realistically I think it's be too administratively
complex and having it all done by TfL is more sensible.

Indeed. TfAL, not TfIL.

There's also those of us who live outside the boroughs whilst still
being heavily affected by TfL and the GLA, yet get no representation.

...or taxation.

looks at price rises in fares

John B wrote:

There's a legal definition of Inner London; I was going with that...

So are Newham and Haringey in Inner London (per the ONS and Census) or Outer
(per the old County and ILEA)? And the reverse for Greenwich?