|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:00:56 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote: You bloody what? When you say 'Continental', is the continent in question North America, or have you just lost your marbles? Or, perhaps, never been to a European city? No, you're right, I've never been to a European city. Apart from Brussels. And Amsterdam. And Antwerp, Duffel, Mechelen, den Bosch, Charleroi, Leuven, K?ln, Dusseldorf, Paris, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Madrid, Milan and a few others I can't remember off the top of my head. Okay, you've definitely been to European cities, and from your answer, i assume you weren't talking about North America. So you've flat-out lost your marbles, then. I'm sure there are mediaeval towns in Europe with narrow, winding streets. I don't know how many of these use bendy buses. I do know that the squabble over property rights after the fire more or less put the kibosh on widening the road in London more than a modest amount, and this is acknowledged by Buchanan as a problem in London particularly. London has some wide, straight streets, and some little wiggly streets. Exactly the same is true of most European cities. Saying bendies are appropriate for European cities but not London on account of differences in their streets is simply incorrect. tom -- Once, at a fair on the Heath, [Geoffrey Fletcher] overheard a man saying that Hampstead wasn't thrilling enough. Fletcher reached over in the darkness and stuck an ice lolly down the back of his shirt. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
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. 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! More seriously, the question is not really about whether X is in London or not, but whether the same policies are appropriate for P and Q. I don't mean to suggest that Forest Gate isn't really in London, just that it's possible that policies that are right for Forest Gate might not be right for Finsbury Park. Although from what little i know of Newham, perhaps they are - perhaps a better example for my case would be Friern Barnet and Finsbury Park. Where this idea falls apart is in the bank account. I would imagine that the outer boroughs provide more per-capita funding than the inner ones (BICBW), so trying to run Ken-style large public transport projects using inner-London revenues might not be possible. You then get into arguments like "well, inner London transport projects benefit outer Londoners who work in inner London, so they should contribute towards them", but then it all gets very complicated - my boss commutes down from rural Scotland every week by plane, so should a share of his council tax be diverted to every transport authority whose network he passes through? There's also a question of scale - is Crossrail something that you just couldn't build if only inner London was behind it, even if it had as much money per capita as outer London? tom -- uk.local groups TO BE RENAMED uk.lunatic.fringe groups |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
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 -- uk.local groups TO BE RENAMED uk.lunatic.fringe groups |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:21:13 +0100, Bruce wrote: If it looks different to you, you must have a problem with perception. Which I seem to share with many other cyclists. Not this one. I have no problem at all with bendies. From what i remember, none of the other cyclists on this group (that's right, Guy, there were a few here already) had a beef with them either. But maybe that's because i actually live in London, and so get to spend more time with them. tom -- uk.local groups TO BE RENAMED uk.lunatic.fringe groups |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On Jul 29, 12:44*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
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. ....and it's planning to do the same again with the English regions. And probably the feckin' GLA too. Grr. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
In article ,
Bruce wrote: Agree 100%. They aren't perfect by any means, and such aspects as driving standards and fare dodging could definitely be improved. But the alternative of more conventional buses with their greater dwell times, costing more and clogging up the traffic far worse than the bendys is just too silly to contemplate, unless your name is Boris. We live on the 76 route - the Volvo buses are truly ghastly, with horrendous noise levels. How they were approved for running in narrow residential streets I can't fathom (except of course I can - it's about the general lack of care we have for public transport and the environment). E. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
In article ,
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote: On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:21:13 +0100, Bruce wrote: If it looks different to you, you must have a problem with perception. Which I seem to share with many other cyclists. So, given that I am a very experienced cyclist and also a driver with significant experience of driving goods vehicles, perhaps it's not just me. But that would involve being open to the possibility that bendy buses may not be appropriate for some routes in central London, and I do understand that such heresy is not to be tolerated. The London Cycling Campaign is on record as being much more worried about lorries than bendies, noting only that they can be awkward in narrow streets. I'll grant that Stoke Newington Church Street is not great for bendies, but it's not great for any large vehicle. In my street in N1 two double deckers cannot pass each other for most the road. There is a sensible debate to be had for calming/limiting traffic in all narrow residential roads. E. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message rth.li... On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:00:56 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote: You bloody what? When you say 'Continental', is the continent in question North America, or have you just lost your marbles? Or, perhaps, never been to a European city? No, you're right, I've never been to a European city. Apart from Brussels. And Amsterdam. And Antwerp, Duffel, Mechelen, den Bosch, Charleroi, Leuven, K?ln, Dusseldorf, Paris, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Madrid, Milan and a few others I can't remember off the top of my head. Okay, you've definitely been to European cities, and from your answer, i assume you weren't talking about North America. So you've flat-out lost your marbles, then. I'm sure there are mediaeval towns in Europe with narrow, winding streets. I don't know how many of these use bendy buses. I do know that the squabble over property rights after the fire more or less put the kibosh on widening the road in London more than a modest amount, and this is acknowledged by Buchanan as a problem in London particularly. London has some wide, straight streets, and some little wiggly streets. Exactly the same is true of most European cities. Saying bendies are appropriate for European cities but not London on account of differences in their streets is simply incorrect. Bendys are quite good at wiggly streets - better than a 40' rigid. See http://www.henden.co.uk/bendyhosp.gif For those who know Southampton, this is the road that goes around the rear of the South Hants Hospital. A 40' rigid - come to think of it, anything bigger than 30' - would get stuck. Except a bendy..... |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:52:00 +0100, Marc wrote: No it's not difficult at all! Van drivers Lorry drivers Bus drivers Taxi drivers Private hire drivers Postmen driving vans Police drivers I have witnessed all of the above show "scant regard for the highway code, and complete contempt for other road users, especially pedestrians." Frankly you can include all road users in there, even the pedestrians themselves. I don't know of any group of road users which is characterised by obedience to all the rules. And if you think London cyclists are a rabble you should see Copenhagen some time! Guy I was getting there bit by bit. Todays score was 2 cars going through a red light with 1 min of the start of the journey. 1 van parked on a grass verge 1 range rover parked on a grass verge, ( in seperate places) both had done so often enough to turn it into mud which they dragged onto pavemtn and road when the towed their burger vans away 1 lorry forcing a car out of it's lane on a roundabout 3 cars stoped in a box junctions 1 van going through a light that had been so red you could measure it with a sanddial 2 lorries mounting kerb |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:48:39 +0100, eastender
wrote: The London Cycling Campaign is on record as being much more worried about lorries than bendies Rightly so. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
"Ian" wrote in message
... Probably much more thoroughly than most cyclists are trained. Well, that's not saying much! Cyclists are, presumably, trained to ride on the pavement, run headlong into pedestrians, jump traffic lights and scream abuse at all and sundry. Or am I confusing them with uk.rec.cycling people-on-bikes /uk.rec.cycling ? Bleagh to them - and to bus drivers, the rude, ignorant, arrogant *******s! Ian |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Tom Barry wrote:
A few facts: It'll never catch on! http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/...l/article.html How is this double-decker-specific? tom -- In case you don't know what CROWDSOURCING is, it's a stomach-churning new media term obviously invented by a ******* made of ****. -- Charlie Brooker |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
John B wrote in
: 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. ...and it's planning to do the same again with the English regions. And probably the feckin' GLA too. Grr. Apart from the obvious point that the 1980s Tory government has don alll it's ever going to do, "the Engligh regions" scarcely exist. The regional assemblies are expensive undemocratic talking shops, and the voters in the North-East euro region (thought the one most likely to approve the concept) resoundingly defeated the concept of an elected regional assembly by more than 3:1. Oh, and in any case the regional assemblies as they stand are already in the process of being abolished. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
"Ian F." wrote in message ... "Ian" wrote in message ... Probably much more thoroughly than most cyclists are trained. Well, that's not saying much! Cyclists are, presumably, trained to ride on the pavement, run headlong into pedestrians, jump traffic lights and scream abuse at all and sundry. Or am I confusing them with uk.rec.cycling people-on-bikes /uk.rec.cycling ? Bleagh to them - and to bus drivers, the rude, ignorant, arrogant *******s! Ian Thankyou for your kind comments. -- 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". |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
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. U |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
"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 |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 01:21:53PM +0100, Tom Barry wrote:
David Cantrell wrote: On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 02:34:11PM +0000, wrote: Ie perfectly servicable vehicles are about to be mothballed for no good reason other than a bunch of whining idiot cyclists and a grandstanding politician. Don't forget the people who voted for him. Don't forget the lies about 'many cyclists killed every year'. People voted for him based on that kind of crap. I didn't. I don't particularly care whether more cyclists get killed by bendy buses. Cyclist deaths caused by the fine points of bus design are lost in the noise when you look at all deaths on the road. Boris esssentially had two choices ... we know what kind of man he is now. He's that rare politician, one who doesn't break all his promises when he gets elected! -- David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic If you have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk, and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:18:19 +0100
David Cantrell wrote: Boris esssentially had two choices ... we know what kind of man he is now. He's that rare politician, one who doesn't break all his promises when he gets elected! OTOH carrying on with a policy regardless of all the evidence for it being a bad idea and with cost cutting going on already in public transport which really didn't need the cost of a new fleet of buses imposed on top smacks of bloody mindedness at best. It seems Boris isn't a big enough man to admit when he's wrong, so I suppose in that sense he's not at all rare in political circles. B2003 |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:18:19 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote: Boris esssentially had two choices ... we know what kind of man he is now. He's that rare politician, one who doesn't break all his promises when he gets elected! No, he only breaks the important ones, like allowing the contruction of skyscrapers that he promised he would prevent. I have nothing against skyscrapers, by the way. ;-) |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
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.) ;) |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
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? |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
"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) |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
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 |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear
|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
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 |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
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. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
"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? |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
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. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
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 |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On 30 July, 12:29, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:18:19 +0100 David Cantrell wrote: Boris esssentially had two choices ... we know what kind of man he is now. He's that rare politician, one who doesn't break all his promises when he gets elected! OTOH carrying on with a policy regardless of all the evidence for it being a bad idea and with cost cutting going on already in public transport which really didn't need the cost of a new fleet of buses imposed on top smacks of bloody mindedness at best. It seems Boris isn't a big enough man to admit when he's wrong, so I suppose in that sense he's not at all rare in political circles. It seems Boris is a big enough man to carry out one of the major headline grabbing manifesto commitments that got him elected by the majority of the voting electorate. If you don't like that, remember you're in the minority. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, MIG wrote:
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? 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? What, like how Gordon Brown became Prime Minister? Both the Westminster and Washington systems of choosing a leader have their strengths and weaknesses, but it's simply nonsense to say that an elected mayoralty is an antidemocratic. tom -- In my view, this is no different than a parent introducing his child to Shakespeare (except that the iambic pentameter is replaced by a framework of profanity, misogyny, substance abuse, violence, retaliation, crime and infidelity). -- Dad Gone Mad, on rap |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On 1 Aug, 20:20, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, MIG wrote: 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? 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? What, like how Gordon Brown became Prime Minister? Both the Westminster and Washington systems of choosing a leader have their strengths and weaknesses, but it's simply nonsense to say that an elected mayoralty is an antidemocratic. The imposition of such systems on local authorities has the intention of imposing central rule via a single figurehead, disregarding the wide range of views represented by many tens of councillors (or GLA members). The chances of effective democracy are slim regardless. A directly-elected president who did not have to refer to Parliament would not be a Good Thing. Within their respective scopes, I don't think that the the US President has as much power as the London Mayor. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rearends round our corners for the final time.
On Aug 1, 4:39*pm, nospam_lonelytraveller_nospam
wrote: OTOH carrying on with a policy regardless of all the evidence for it being a bad idea and with cost cutting going on already in public transport which really didn't need the cost of a new fleet of buses imposed on top smacks of bloody mindedness at best. It seems Boris isn't a big enough man to admit when he's wrong, so I suppose in that sense he's not at all rare in political circles. It seems Boris is a big enough man to carry out one of the major headline grabbing manifesto commitments that got him elected by the majority of the voting electorate. If you don't like that, remember you're in the minority. Presumably you were also well in favour of the[*] US state legislature that passed a law deeming the value of pi to be 4? After all, the people who believed it to be 3.14159... were in the minority. (repeat for any other situation where popular belief and fact fail to match up) [*] http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...ng-pi-equals-3 -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote: The imposition of such systems on local authorities has the intention of imposing central rule via a single figurehead, disregarding the wide range of views represented by many tens of councillors (or GLA members). The chances of effective democracy are slim regardless. But effective democracy is just as efficiently destroyed by a majority of representatives, such as MPs or councillors. As we saw in 2005, it is possible to have a government elected with a strong parliamentary majority by only a quarter of the electorate, or 36% of those who voted. So, despite 64% of the voters casting their votes for other parties, this government has managed to impose all its grossly incompetent policies on an unwilling nation, with the notable exception of 42 days' detention without trial for suspected terrorists, thanks to a Labour backbench rebellion. Therefore, you don't need an elected President to grant near-absolute power to one individual. Tony Blair had it from May 1997 to June 2007, and Gordon Brown has exercised it since then, with the exception of his failure to convince his own party on the 42 days. In London, Ken Livingstone also demonstrated near-absolute power as leader of the Greater London Council from 1981-1986. He didn't need to be elected Mayor; his party's majority on the GLC gave him all the executive power that he needed. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:28:11 +0100, Bruce
wrote: As we saw in 2005, it is possible to have a government elected with a strong parliamentary majority by only a quarter of the electorate, or 36% of those who voted. Not the first time. I believe the last Tory government polled fewer votes than Labour. The system is wrong, it nearly always delivers absolute power to a minority and sometimes not even to the largest minority, and then we act surprised when they prove incapable of co-operating with anybody else or acknowledging any policy but their own as having any merit. I find it sad and ironic that people seem to think that the way to "fix" a government which has become arrogant and corrupt is to vote instead for the party they kicked out a dozen years earlier for being arrogant and corrupt. Have the Tories ever apologised for trying to send innocent men to prison in order to cover up for a minister lying to parliament? I don't recall hearing such an apology. In theory our MPs represent us. A transferrable vote system would deliver the MP who most closely represented the opinions of their constituency. That would be a good start, it would hopefully do away with safe seats and the allegiance to party before constituency. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear
|
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:11:10 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:28:11 +0100, Bruce wrote: As we saw in 2005, it is possible to have a government elected with a strong parliamentary majority by only a quarter of the electorate, or 36% of those who voted. Not the first time. I believe the last Tory government polled fewer votes than Labour. The system is wrong, it nearly always delivers absolute power to a minority and sometimes not even to the largest minority, and then we act surprised when they prove incapable of co-operating with anybody else or acknowledging any policy but their own as having any merit. I find it sad and ironic that people seem to think that the way to "fix" a government which has become arrogant and corrupt is to vote instead for the party they kicked out a dozen years earlier for being arrogant and corrupt. Agreed. But it is the only option available under the current system. |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Not the first time. I believe the last Tory government polled fewer votes than Labour. No, the Conservatives in 1992 polled 14,093,007 votes (the largest number ever cast for a single party) and Labour polled 11,560,484. The last time the largest party didn't have the most votes was in February 1974 when the Conservatives got 11,872,810 votes and 297 seats whilst Labour got 11,645,616 votes and 301 seats. There was a hung parliament and another election in October. Before that you have to go to 1951 when the Conservatives (including joint "National Liberal and Conservative" candidates) won a majority with 13,724,418 votes whilst Labour got 13,948,385 votes. This one is complicated because there were several uncontested seats, mainly ones in Northern Ireland with huge electorates that would have voted heavily for the Conservatives and wouldn't have had any Labour candidate at all so the final figure could have been much closer. In theory our MPs represent us. A transferrable vote system would deliver the MP who most closely represented the opinions of their constituency. That would be a good start, it would hopefully do away with safe seats and the allegiance to party before constituency. Do you mean the single or multi member version? Both are in use around the world in countries which have safe seats and very strong party systems (Malta's two party system is easily by far the strongest in the democratic world). |
These writhing whales of the road have swung their hefty rear ends round our corners for the final time.
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:40:48 +0100, Bruce
wrote: I find it sad and ironic that people seem to think that the way to "fix" a government which has become arrogant and corrupt is to vote instead for the party they kicked out a dozen years earlier for being arrogant and corrupt. Agreed. But it is the only option available under the current system. Only the two parties standing in your constituency, then? Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk