Tom Anderson wrote:

Axe Greater London, i say. Let's have a mayor of London elected by
people
who live in London, not some transcluded home counties buffoons who
mostly
still insist that they live in 'Metropolitan Kent' or some such
nonsense.

As one who grew up in north east Surrey can I say that Croydon, Sutton
and Kingston are London far more than they are Surrey!

I've usually got the impression that people who live there feel the
opposite, so it's interesting to hear a contrasting opinion.

There may be a belief in the London boroughs but Surrey itself has moved on.
Look where the North East Surrey College Of Technology is - Ewell (literally
next to Ewell East station).

And how would you decide who does and doesn't "live in London" - do I,
living in Forest Gate in Newham, "live in London"? It sure feels that
way, bendy bus & all.

Easy - anywhere that voted for Boris isn't, anywhere that voted for Ken
is!

Do we go by borough or ward level? (The latter results don't have the
postals included.)

John B wrote:

It's now
become an entrenched myth that Thatcher abolished the GLC purely because
of
Livingstone, but it would have been abolished anyway because of the
opposition of borough councils and the limited services it provided.

Hmm. Central government has the power to restructure local government.
Had the 1980s Tory government been primarily concerned with
administrative efficiency, it would have removed some powers from the
boroughs and some from itself and given them to the GLC (and also
GMCC). Instead, it wiped out that level of government completely.

There's always been major tensions in London local government arrangements
because few people have ever been brave enough to decide for definite
whether London is one entity or several. Hence the awkward models for
London-wide government that produce London wide bodies with a rather vague
"strategic" function and limited powers combined with difficult
relationships with borough councils, but taking powers away from those
borough councils is politically risky - indeed the GLC would never have been
created without agreement that the outer boroughs would retain control over
education (probably the one area where, if the GLC had had control, it could
have made itself more viable). There's the further mess that very often the
source of funding and the results of spending frequently don't directly
overlap and this goes beyond the general problem in local government finance
because geography is a further factor (e.g. "Fare's Fair" not being so great
in Bromley as in Brent).

What powers would you have added to the GLC to make it efficient and viable?

"Ian F." wrote in message
...
"Ian" wrote in message
...

A different Ian, who is (or was until MI) a bus driver; is reasonably
well educated; and whose parents were married. To each other. I presume
for "arrogant", you might wish to substitute "well-founded confidence".

LOL. Fair enough. I should have said 'present company excepted'.

theotherIan
:0)

On Jul 30, 1:48*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:

What powers would you have added to the GLC to make it efficient and viable?

Full control over London's transport, including roads, traffic and
British Rail in London (from central government and the boroughs)
Outer London education (from the boroughs)
Planning, including all council housing strategy (from the boroughs)
Personal and hospital NHS services (from central government and the
boroughs
Rates collection (from the boroughs)

That way, everything strategic is being done by the GLC, whereas local
authorities just become implementation bodies for areas where an
organisation covering eight million people is going to be too
unwieldy.

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

In article
,
(John B) wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:48*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:

What powers would you have added to the GLC to make it efficient
and viable?

Full control over London's transport, including roads, traffic and
British Rail in London (from central government and the boroughs)
Outer London education (from the boroughs)
Planning, including all council housing strategy (from the boroughs)
Personal and hospital NHS services (from central government and the
boroughs
Rates collection (from the boroughs)

Rates collection is about as far from strategic as you can get!

That way, everything strategic is being done by the GLC, whereas local
authorities just become implementation bodies for areas where an
organisation covering eight million people is going to be too unwieldy.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Mr Thant wrote:

On 29 July, 20:03, Tom Anderson wrote:
How is this double-decker-specific?

"In September 2008, a tram and a bus collided at a complex road junction
(see Figure 1). The tram was derailed by its front bogie and the bus
suffered extensive structural damage to its front offside corner and
driver?s compartment. A member of the public travelling at the front of
the upper deck of the bus was thrown out of a side window and received
fatal injuries."

http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources...v2_01-2009.pdf

I don't think it's unreasonable to think the height of the fall may have
been a factor in the person's death.

Quite true - i'd been focused on the the fact that the accident happened,
which i think would have ben neither more nor less likely if it had been a
bendy, and had missed the details of how the chap died.

Must have been a hell of an impact to throw someone *through* a bus
window. Ouch.

tom

--
now you're under control and now you do what we told you

On 29 July, 15:09, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 28 July, 17:16, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, James Farrar wrote:
Offramp wrote in news:603ac8ce-e923-4513-acbe-
:

On 24 July, 23:41, Richard

I feel unusually annoyed about this... They are some of the best buses
ever to be used in London or anywhere else, in my controversial
opinion.

I agree entirely. I think it is odd and very wrong that one man's
fatwa could get rid of them.

He's the Mayor; we elected him.

I bloody well didn't.

Axe Greater London, i say. Let's have a mayor of London elected by people
who live in London, not some transcluded home counties buffoons who mostly
still insist that they live in 'Metropolitan Kent' or some such nonsense.

The concept of a Mayor is undemocratic and intended to allow unelected
political party officials to override the views of elected council
members (and those they represent) while hiding behind the figurehead
of the Mayor.

When you say 'the concept of a mayor', do you mean 'the implementation of
a mayor as it is in London?'. If so, would you agree that the
implementation could be improved, and if not, could you explain why you
think a mayor is different to a president?

tom

Well, I'm not particularly bothered about what it's called, which is
why I used a capital M to refer to the specific implementation.

I just generally object to representative democracy (which ain't
perfect) being cynically overruled by setting up a system where a
single elected person who can also claim a mandate and hand total
control to his/her own party.

It would be better if there were a council a bit like the GLA but with
real decision-making powers ... you could call it the GLC.

"MIG" wrote in message

On 29 July, 15:09, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 28 July, 17:16, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, James Farrar wrote:


The concept of a Mayor is undemocratic and intended to allow
unelected political party officials to override the views of
elected council members (and those they represent) while hiding
behind the figurehead of the Mayor.

When you say 'the concept of a mayor', do you mean 'the
implementation of a mayor as it is in London?'. If so, would you
agree that the implementation could be improved, and if not, could
you explain why you think a mayor is different to a president?

tom

Well, I'm not particularly bothered about what it's called, which is
why I used a capital M to refer to the specific implementation.

I just generally object to representative democracy (which ain't
perfect) being cynically overruled by setting up a system where a
single elected person who can also claim a mandate and hand total
control to his/her own party.

It would be better if there were a council a bit like the GLA but with
real decision-making powers ... you could call it the GLC.

Would that prevent the sort of palace coup that allowed an ambitious
young politician to mount a successful coup against an elected GLC
leader like Andrew Macintosh?

On 31 July, 19:51, "Recliner" wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message







On 29 July, 15:09, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
On 28 July, 17:16, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, James Farrar wrote:

The concept of a Mayor is undemocratic and intended to allow
unelected political party officials to override the views of
elected council members (and those they represent) while hiding
behind the figurehead of the Mayor.

When you say 'the concept of a mayor', do you mean 'the
implementation of a mayor as it is in London?'. If so, would you
agree that the implementation could be improved, and if not, could
you explain why you think a mayor is different to a president?

tom

Well, I'm not particularly bothered about what it's called, which is
why I used a capital M to refer to the specific implementation.

I just generally object to representative democracy (which ain't
perfect) being cynically overruled by setting up a system where a
single elected person who can also claim a mandate and hand total
control to his/her own party.

It would be better if there were a council a bit like the GLA but with
real decision-making powers ... you could call it the GLC.

Would that prevent the sort of palace coup that allowed an ambitious
young politician to mount a successful coup against an elected GLC
leader like Andrew Macintosh?-

Wot, by getting elected and winning votes?

Of course no system is perfect if it involves politicians, but the
current Mayor system is specifically designed to undermine democracy.
The GLC gaves democracy half a chance.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Mr Thant wrote:

On 29 July, 20:03, Tom Anderson wrote:
How is this double-decker-specific?

"In September 2008, a tram and a bus collided at a complex road
junction (see Figure 1). The tram was derailed by its front bogie and
the bus suffered extensive structural damage to its front offside
corner and driver?s compartment. A member of the public travelling at
the front of the upper deck of the bus was thrown out of a side window
and received fatal injuries."

http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources...v2_01-2009.pdf

I don't think it's unreasonable to think the height of the fall may
have been a factor in the person's death.

Quite true - i'd been focused on the the fact that the accident
happened, which i think would have ben neither more nor less likely if
it had been a bendy, and had missed the details of how the chap died.

Must have been a hell of an impact to throw someone *through* a bus
window. Ouch.

tom


Yes - obviously DDs can also get rammed under low bridges, although
obviously not in normal operation. Like I said, there are
design-specific accident modes for bendies and rigids (and Routemasters,
lest we forget), but the propaganda around bendies has deliberately
failed to make this clear, with obvious consequences for common sense.

I did some analysis of death rates over time based on TfL figures going
back to the 1980s, and it rapidly became clear that something happening
in the early 1980s cut the number of deaths in bus accidents quite
sharply. This was either falling bus use or phasing out Routemasters, I
hypothesise.

On the other hand, the dramatic fall in pedestrian road casualties over
recent years started before Livingstone became Mayor, and I'd love to
know what caused it - I think the Major government introduced changes
that led to traffic calming in residential areas, which might have done
it, or possible falling traffic speeds and better brakes might have
helped, or perhaps it's kids not playing in the street as much, although
they certainly do round here. Needs some rigorous research really.

Tom