Tony Polson wrote:

1,168,738 votes strikes me as quite a large justification.

What percentage of the electorate did that represent?

That's the second round vote which is just the top two candidates and Boris
got 53.2% to Livingstone's 46.8%. In the first round Boris got 42.48%.

If you mean the total registered electorate rather than those voting, I
can't actually find the turnout figures. However I have never felt one can
conscript non-voters and declare they are against one candidate or another
as we don't know for sure - for all we know they don't mind who gets
elected. Also the London electoral register is one of the worst for getting
out of date because a lot of properties have a high turnover and the
register assumes that a voter is still living there until told otherwise,
but the new residents often don't get the update forms or know how to use
them.

I just think it is a shame that the Conservative Party could not find a
serious candidate to go up against Ken, so they put up a buffoon who
could not and should not ever be taken seriously.

The party had a wide and open selection with the option for non-members to
vote. There were other candidates who stood - in the nomination selection I
endorsed Andrew Boff, now a list Assembly Member - but Boris won the
primary. I guess "aren't you tired of the same old names?" doesn't have much
impact when there's a new big name about.

I think Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems have all found the London
Mayoralty to be a difficult post to find candidates for. It's difficult to
get someone from outside conventional party politics with a track record -
and when the Lib Dems did with Brian Paddick he proved gaffe prone and did
not inspire the party activists - but conventional party politics doesn't
produce many candidates either because whilst it holds opportunities it's a
dead end for career advancement as a Mayor would finish their term then
drift into the wilderness and find it hard to get back into the Commons let
alone into the Cabinet/Shadow. The Assembly has next to no profile so isn't
the place to launch a bid from whilst borough council leaders and even the
three elected borough Mayors have a limited profile outside their patch and
would be difficult to convert into a candidate with London wide appeal.

In message , at
21:26:13 on Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Richard J.
remarked:
You don't know how much more ridership would have increased without
all the obstacles put in the way.

What are all these "obstacles"?

To getting on and off easily.

You mean like having clearly labelled bus stops so that you know where
to wait for a suitable bus?

They may be labelled once you've found them, but a busy area (eg near KX
station) has dozens of stops to choose from. Many of them not very close
by, or down side-streets etc.

Like dedicated bus stops where the bus pulls in close to the kerb, thus
giving a safe means of entry to and exit from the bus?

It's entirely possible for most people to get on and off buses wherever
they are stopped. That doesn't mean that bus stops should be scrapped -
but they should not be the exclusive place.

Like more routes? Like more frequent buses? Like bus lanes that
prevent buses getting stuck in other vehicles' traffic jams?

None of those are obstacles.

What is useful, however, is to start walking in the direction you want
to go, then catch a bus *if* (and only if) one comes along.

By the way, if you very rarely use London buses because of the
inability to get on and off between stops, what mode of transport do
you use instead?

If it's only one or two tube stations I'll normally walk, otherwise I'll
combine walking and taking the tube.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Tim Roll-Pickering
writes

If you mean the total registered electorate rather than those voting, I
can't actually find the turnout figures.

The Guardian reported "The turn-out in London was around 45%, higher
than in any of the two previous mayoral contests".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ondon08.london
--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Tim Roll-Pickering
writes

If you mean the total registered electorate rather than those voting, I
can't actually find the turnout figures.

The Guardian reported "The turn-out in London was around 45%, higher
than in any of the two previous mayoral contests".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ondon08.london


That's useful, thanks.

I wonder if so many people would have voted for Boris if they had
realised that once in office, he would be completely ineffectual - apart
from getting rid of Ian Blair, of course. His finest hour.

It seems to me that Boris's objective was to say whatever was needed in
the election campaign to beat Ken. Having achieved that, he doesn't
appear to have the faintest idea what to do next.

I predict the Bendy Buses will stay, the new Routemaster will be so
constrained by legislation and cost as to be nothing new, and most of
the skyscrapers Boris promised to veto will get planning permission
without any problems. Of course they may not get built because of the
credit crunch, so the idiot will claim all the "credit" for that.

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:31:40 +0100
Tony Polson wrote:
I wonder if so many people would have voted for Boris if they had
realised that once in office, he would be completely ineffectual - apart
from getting rid of Ian Blair, of course. His finest hour.

I voted for him, can't say I've been too impressed so far. OTOH he seems
fairly harmless unlike Ken.

constrained by legislation and cost as to be nothing new, and most of
the skyscrapers Boris promised to veto will get planning permission

Good. I get fed up with people who want london artchitecture to be frozen in
time as some sort of historic theme park. Skyscrapers are the cathedrals of
the modern era.

B2003

wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:31:40 +0100
Tony Polson wrote:
I wonder if so many people would have voted for Boris if they had
realised that once in office, he would be completely ineffectual - apart
from getting rid of Ian Blair, of course. His finest hour.

I voted for him, can't say I've been too impressed so far. OTOH he seems
fairly harmless unlike Ken.


I'm not sure that your "fairly harmless" is a compliment - I don't think
it is very far removed from my "completely ineffectual". Surely there
is no point in a Mayor who achieves almost nothing?


constrained by legislation and cost as to be nothing new, and most of
the skyscrapers Boris promised to veto will get planning permission

Good. I get fed up with people who want london artchitecture to be frozen in
time as some sort of historic theme park. Skyscrapers are the cathedrals of
the modern era.


I'm not sure about the "cathedrals" and I certainly wouldn't want
skyscrapers to dominate St Paul's Cathedral, but otherwise I agree.

The intervention of Prince Charles in the Chelsea Barracks development
is very sad. Second rate pastiche of the sort seen at Poundbury, or
Paternoster Square, is vastly inferior to good modern architecture, of
which London has so many fine examples.

On 13 June, 11:44, "Recliner" wrote:
"Darth Sunil" wrote in message





On 11 June, 21:26, Tom Barry wrote:
Recliner wrote:
What with all the Tube strike discussions, I didn't see any
discussion of this press release from a week ago:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/11940.aspx

I read it at the time, but haven't bothered to cover it yet for some
reason, sheer laziness mainly. Did anyone else notice that the 507
and 521 haven't lost the bendy buses yet? Contract was up at the end
of
May, but there's been a delay for some reason.

Anyway, Borisbuses. They're rather coy in not saying that probably
three of the applicants are *foreign*, assuming the three main UK
suppliers are involved, although there could be some wildcards in
there.

Also that there's now consideration given to covering up the rear
platform at night. Where I come from that's called a 'door', Boris
(the real reason is probably to save staff costs at times when the
bus is lightly loaded - someone's probably drawn up a cost estimate
for running the bus with two crew on 24 hour routes, and it has
rather too many noughts at the end). So, a collapsible door - if
memory serves doors
are amongst the usual troublesome components on new transport
vehicles these days, and I'm not sure making them collapsible will
necessarily help.

Finally, there's no suggestion of the bus having to be a hybrid or
electrically powered vehicle, opening the way to a pure diesel or gas
vehicle, provided it's less polluting than some notional
'conventional bus', of what Euro emissions standard isn't stated.

Tom

How will they make the upper deck DDA-compliant?

Why would they need to?

On a bendy, all seats would be accessible to the disabled.

Roland Perry wrote on 16 June 2009 11:59:30 ...
In message , at
21:26:13 on Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Richard J.
remarked:
[... in reference to Roland Perry's post of 15 Jun 2009 13:59:]

My experience of using London buses was that I'd start walking
in the general direction I wanted to go until I saw a bus on a
suitable route then hop aboard - when it stopped in traffic. As a
result of not being able to do that any more, I very rarely use
London buses.

By the way, if you very rarely use London buses because of the
inability to get on and off between stops, what mode of transport do
you use instead?

If it's only one or two tube stations I'll normally walk, otherwise I'll
combine walking and taking the tube.

So in the latter case, because you can't hop on a bus between stops, you
avoid buses altogether and take a longer walk (on average) to a tube
station to choose a mode of transport with exactly the same "obstacles"
as the ones that you find insurmountable on the buses. It's your
choice of course, but it doesn't seem like a very logical argument for
the return of open-platformed buses.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In message , at 20:13:22
on Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Richard J. remarked:
By the way, if you very rarely use London buses because of the
inability to get on and off between stops, what mode of transport do
you use instead?
If it's only one or two tube stations I'll normally walk, otherwise
I'll combine walking and taking the tube.

So in the latter case, because you can't hop on a bus between stops,
you avoid buses altogether and take a longer walk (on average) to a
tube station

That's an incorrect assumption. My destinations are often very close to
tube stations (for example the Palace of Westminster and Kings Cross
station), and when they aren't I know exactly which direction to walk to
get to the nearest suitable one.

Bus stops are another matter altogether. I wouldn't know where to find
one on Parliament Square, for example.

to choose a mode of transport with exactly the same "obstacles" as the
ones that you find insurmountable on the buses. It's your choice of
course, but it doesn't seem like a very logical argument for the return
of open-platformed buses.

Your mind seems to be very closed to the benefits of hopping on and off
busses. Is it something you've never had experience of?
--
Roland Perry

In article
,
(Dr. Sunil) wrote:

On 13 June, 11:44, "Recliner" wrote:
"Darth Sunil" wrote in message


On 11 June, 21:26, Tom Barry wrote:
Recliner wrote:
What with all the Tube strike discussions, I didn't see any
discussion of this press release from a week ago:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/11940.aspx

I read it at the time, but haven't bothered to cover it yet for
some reason, sheer laziness mainly. Did anyone else notice that
the 507 and 521 haven't lost the bendy buses yet? Contract was
up at the end of May, but there's been a delay for some reason.

Anyway, Borisbuses. They're rather coy in not saying that probably
three of the applicants are *foreign*, assuming the three main UK
suppliers are involved, although there could be some wildcards in
there.

Also that there's now consideration given to covering up the rear
platform at night. Where I come from that's called a 'door', Boris
(the real reason is probably to save staff costs at times when the
bus is lightly loaded - someone's probably drawn up a cost estimate
for running the bus with two crew on 24 hour routes, and it has
rather too many noughts at the end). So, a collapsible door - if
memory serves doors are amongst the usual troublesome components on
new transport vehicles these days, and I'm not sure making them
collapsible will necessarily help.

Finally, there's no suggestion of the bus having to be a hybrid or
electrically powered vehicle, opening the way to a pure diesel or
gas vehicle, provided it's less polluting than some notional
'conventional bus', of what Euro emissions standard isn't stated.

How will they make the upper deck DDA-compliant?

Why would they need to?

On a bendy, all seats would be accessible to the disabled.

Really? I didn't think those at the back were.

--
Colin Rosenstiel