In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

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

Are there any? Maybe on the arm towards Broad Sanctuary but I can't think
of any others.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

John B wrote in
:

On Jun 16, 7:42*am, James Farrar wrote:
Tony Polson wrote
innews:amva35hma5aj7s67hm1
:

"Richard J." wrote:
Very few people seem to pay cash these days (outside the central
area where you can't do so anyway), so I think that's a non-issue.
*I don'
t
really see how dwell times at stops would be significantly reduced
by having a rear platform. * The whole thing seems to be an
ill-justifie
d
populist gesture.

... one that was suggested by an ill-justified populist!

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

ITYM 139,772 votes.

Eh?

Tony Polson wrote in
:

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?

Achieving nothing is infinitely preferable to being actively harmful.

On 17 June, 03:29, James Farrar wrote:
Tony Polson wrote :

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?

Achieving nothing is infinitely preferable to being actively harmful.

In Boris's case, being ineffectual just means doing for the Tories
what Dobbo was meant to do for New Labour, ie be a figurehead while
they run London.

wrote:

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.


Depends on your definition of 'disabled', really - obviously someone in
an actual wheelchair won't be able to use any of the 49 seats easily,
which is why there are wheelchair spaces, but someone frail or elderly
or with difficulties walking is quite possibly going to be able to use
all of them with the proviso that the ones at the back are up a slight
slope and harder to climb into. That's why there are priority seats
near the doors, however, presuming someone lets them sit down. From
memory there are rather more of these than on a conventional double
decker, but I haven't been on a bendy in a while.

Tom

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:02:45 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:


I am in favour of being able to get off when I want to, although open
platforms aren't necessarily the best way of achieving it.

What do you suggest IS the best way then?
--
Cheers

Peter

James Farrar wrote:

Tony Polson wrote in
:

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?

Achieving nothing is infinitely preferable to being actively harmful.


I disagree. Negligence by omission (a failure to act) can be just as
serious as a negligent action.

As Harold Macmillan (Prime Minister 1957-63) once said, politicians are
judged by their response to "Events, my dear boy, events!" Not to
respond to an event that demands a response would be a negligent
omission.

It is the nature of the Mayor's job that he/she has to respond to a
stream of events, some more significant than others. You seem to be
suggesting that it is OK for Boris to do nothing, allowing these events
to pass him by. Would you support other politicians who did the same?

For example, the Labour government is doing all it can to cling on to
power until it has to call an election, probably in June 2010. It is
not addressing the colossal hole in the public finances, preferring to
leave a substantially worse problem for the next government, which
Labour in all probability won't lead.

Presumably you support this stance?

MIG wrote:


In Boris's case, being ineffectual just means doing for the Tories
what Dobbo was meant to do for New Labour, ie be a figurehead while
they run London.

Or use public money (or, at least, a GLA corporate credit card as a kind
of unofficial loan facility) to put a sound system into their Jaguar.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ree/article.do

What's odd to me is that the Tories have apparently not addressed the
back-end Major era sleaze and are just waiting for Labour to collapse to
assume their God-given place at the head of everything. I've not heard
of many regimes that come into power with the corruption built in.
Boris and his undoubted PR abilities aren't entirely hiding what's
actually going on, if even the Standard have picked up on it.

Tom

wrote:
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

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

Are there any? Maybe on the arm towards Broad Sanctuary but I can't think
of any others.


Do roundabouts often have bus stops on? Not sure they do, really.
That's all Parliament Square is, really.

Tom

James Farrar wrote:

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

ITYM 139,772 votes.

Eh?

That's the second round majority.