Local Elections

spinoza · 2nd May 2008, 17:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

You could say that about anything, but it's not going to happen.

Throwing more money is not the answer, it's about proper management. These private companies running the system are complete idiots. It takes at least three separate companies to get the trains on the track, no wonder there's always problems.

Huh? If you want new stuff you need to pump money in no doubt about that. I agree that proper management is key.

The rolling stock is slightly different across each line, as are the signalling apparatus, the tracks and the electrics. No single private company wants to handle the maintenance on the whole thing, because they have a cap on the profits they can make, so they don't want to spend loads of capital on a single project that could go tits up in so many ways. TfL doesn't help by writing duff contracts either.

Plechazunga · 2nd May 2008, 17:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick 0208 Ldn

Ken is a money grabbing liar

What evidence do you have for the money-grubbing bit?

Ken's enemies have been trying desperately to stick a financial scandal on him since the mid-eighties, and haven't come close.

Nick 0208 Ldn · 2nd May 2008, 17:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

In what way is it not successful. It has halted the acceleration of congestion that had continued for 50-odd years.

Except that now, we have more congestion than before thanks to buses queuing to get into just another traffic jam.

spinoza · 2nd May 2008, 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

In what way is it not successful. It has halted the acceleration of congestion that had continued for 50-odd years.

Exactly right.

It's very hard to make the transport system better without shedloads of money being put in, years-long disruption for loads of people, and pissing off NIMBYs like the ones that live near Heathrow. You'd be in lala land if you think Ken, Boris, Brian Paddick or whathisname running for the BNP could do it.

Having said that, Ken's done a good job with the congestion charge.

Plechazunga · 2nd May 2008, 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick 0208 Ldn

Except that now, we have more congestion than before

Within the CCZ we have about the same, which is much better than what it would have been by this time without the charge.

Redlambs · 2nd May 2008, 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

In what way is it not successful. It has halted the acceleration of congestion that had continued for 50-odd years.

No, he's added to it by changing the traffic lighting. Just look at the way he messed with Trafalgar square for a direct example. It's a sneaky and shit ploy. His stats are generally wrong anyway, I've spent most of my working life driving through London (12+ years) and I'll state for a fact, the congestion is much worse now than ever.

It's a load of bullshit spin to try and spread the zone, charge more and then grab more money.

Redlambs · 2nd May 2008, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

Exactly right.

It's very hard to make the transport system better without shedloads of money being put in, years-long disruption for loads of people, and pissing off NIMBYs like the ones that live near Heathrow. You'd be in lala land if you think Ken, Boris, Brian Paddick or whathisname running for the BNP could do it.

Having said that, Ken's done a good job with the congestion charge.

That last statement puts you in "lala land" with them. It's a fucking con that should have been handled in a much better way.

Nick 0208 Ldn · 2nd May 2008, 17:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

What evidence do you have for the money-grubbing bit?

Ken's enemies have been trying desperately to stick a financial scandal on him since the mid-eighties, and haven't come close.

I am not implying corruption but rather public transport and and the CC, not to mention the expansion of it.

I don't even drive and i think poorly of the latter.

He's seemingly forever outstretched ahnd for a greater share of the council tax take.

Plechazunga · 2nd May 2008, 17:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

No, he's added to it by changing the traffic lighting. Just look at the way he messed with Trafalgar square for a direct example. It's a sneaky and shit ploy. His stats are generally wrong anyway, I've spent most of my working life driving through London (12+ years) and I'll state for a fact, the congestion is much worse now than ever.

It's a load of bullshit spin to try and spread the zone, charge more and then grab more money.

Anecdotal, worthless evidence. I've been driving through London for even longer than that, I've not noticed it's got any worse since the charge came in.

And what's he meant to have done with the traffic lights? They do seem to take ages to change these days...

Nick 0208 Ldn · 2nd May 2008, 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

Within the CCZ we have about the same, which is much better than what it would have been by this time without the charge.

If he truly cared about the environment and the health of people, and wasn't simply init for the money, he would create a large pedestrianised zone or put in place a curfew would he not?

Just anothe earner.

Redlambs · 2nd May 2008, 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

Anecdotal, worthless evidence.

Hardly.

Quote:

I've been driving through London for even longer than that, I've not noticed it's got any worse since the charge came in.

Then you should have gone to specsavers.

Quote:

And what's he meant to have done with the traffic lights? They do seem to take ages to change these days...

He has altered many of the timings on the lights. It's most evident around Trafalgar and the Barbican. It was a ploy to build up congestion to get the charge in the first place, but he never altered them back. Thus areas that were once freeflowing are now hotspots, forcing people to go through other routes so he can once again raise the congestion charge.

Plus, what about the downright unfair penalty system he uses too? I'd like to know how that one can be defended.

spinoza · 2nd May 2008, 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

That last statement puts you in "lala land" with them. It's a fucking con that should have been handled in a much better way.

I said he's had to raise money somehow, and he's trying. Clearly if you don't want to pay for improvements, then you shouldn't complain about bad transport.

I rarely drive in London, but I do get driven a fair bit. Personally I reckon congestion is a lot better (except at rush hour, when it's worse along certain routes) measured by time spent waiting in jams.

spinoza · 2nd May 2008, 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick 0208 Ldn

If he truly cared about the environment and the health of people, and wasn't simply init for the money, he would create a large pedestrianised zone or put in place a curfew would he not?

Just anothe earner.

Improvements cost money. It has to come from somewhere. It will be the same under any mayor of any political party.

Redlambs · 2nd May 2008, 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

I said he's had to raise money somehow, and he's trying. Clearly if you don't want to pay for improvements, then you shouldn't complain about bad transport.

I rarely drive in London, but I do get driven a fair bit. Personally I reckon congestion is a lot better (except at rush hour, when it's worse along certain routes) measured by time spent waiting in jams.

That's plain stupid. So he raises money for the public transport by trying to force cars off the road? And what would happen if he succeeded, where's the money coming from next?

You do realise that you can't just refurbish once, it's a forever ongoing situation? You can't keep dragging money from the working class with bollocks charges and raising council tax, then pretend it's benefiting them. You have to look at better, more self-sufficient ways. One of those ways is to change the structure.

Besides, the fact he is being voted out proves what the majority thinks, and right or wrong, Ken should have listened and stopped bullshitting. The man clearly has his own interests at heart more than anyone else's.

Redlambs · 2nd May 2008, 17:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

Improvements cost money. It has to come from somewhere. It will be the same under any mayor of any political party.

A large number of town centers have done it, many more are in the process. Therefore, you need to come up with a better arguement than that drivel.

spinoza · 2nd May 2008, 17:39

I really don't understand why people have such a problem with paying for stuff. Nothing's free, ever. It's ridiculous to expect better anything without having money pumped in, especially for large scale things.

Redlambs · 2nd May 2008, 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by spinoza

I really don't understand why people have such a problem with paying for stuff. Nothing's free, ever. It's ridiculous to expect better anything without having money pumped in, especially for large scale things.

You seriously should be a politician.

The argument isn't paying for "stuff", it's what the "stuff" we are paying for is. You can't expect to understand anything if you don't at least try.

spinoza · 2nd May 2008, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

That's plain stupid. So he raises money for the public transport by trying to force cars off the road? And what would happen if he succeeded, where's the money coming from next?

You do realise that you can't just refurbish once, it's a forever ongoing situation? You can't keep dragging money from the working class with bollocks charges and raising council tax, then pretend it's benefiting them. You have to look at better, more self-sufficient ways. One of those ways is to change the structure.

For the Tube at least you can bring down maintenance bills by replacing the entire signalling system for starters. The thing's decrepit, and is basically something cobbled together over decades. So you have one big capital investment and your maintenance bills fall for a fairly long period. That frees up money for other things. Same sort of principle applies to Heathrow, Crossrail, the DLR what have you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

Besides, the fact he is being voted out proves what the majority thinks, and right or wrong, Ken should have listened and stopped bullshitting. The man clearly has his own interests at heart more than anyone else's.

Hey, I voted for Brian Paddick, and gave my second vote to Boris. I'm not going to fool myself into thinking he's going to be any different from Ken though.

Plechazunga · 2nd May 2008, 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick 0208 Ldn

If he truly cared about the environment and the health of people, and wasn't simply init for the money, he would create a large pedestrianised zone or put in place a curfew would he not?

Just another earner.

You keep nonchalently repeating the corruption charge, but I still see no evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

Hardly.

Then you should have gone to specsavers.

Right, so anecdotal evidenced is fine... except when it contradicts your anecdotal evidence. Brilliant.

Quote:

Plus, what about the downright unfair penalty system he uses too? I'd like to know how that one can be defended.

What's so unfair about it? If you fuck up, you still have a whole day to pay only a tenner. If you forget that, you still have 14 days to pay 40 quid. I've fucked up a few times, but I blamed myself for my own mistake, rather than a system that gives me time to correct it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

That's plain stupid. So he raises money for the public transport by trying to force cars off the road? And what would happen if he succeeded, where's the money coming from next?

You do realise that you can't just refurbish once, it's a forever ongoing situation? You can't keep dragging money from the working class with bollocks charges and raising council tax, then pretend it's benefiting them. You have to look at better, more self-sufficient ways. One of those ways is to change the structure.

Besides, the fact he is being voted out proves what the majority thinks, and right or wrong, Ken should have listened and stopped bullshitting. The man clearly has his own interests at heart more than anyone else's.

All the voting out proves is that he's been in office two terms, no-one likes a politician around for long.

spinoza · 2nd May 2008, 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

A large number of town centers have done it, many more are in the process. Therefore, you need to come up with a better arguement than that drivel.

Not a lot of towns need to pay for a massive transport system. I like the idea of a pedestrianised zone, but I see why he's gone for the money generating option.

spinoza · 2nd May 2008, 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlambs

You seriously should be a politician.

The argument isn't paying for "stuff", it's what the "stuff" we are paying for is. You can't expect to understand anything if you don't at least try.

I seriously doubt that people know exactly what they are paying for, and how much of what annoys them comes from poorly spent money, as opposed to insufficient money.

Nick 0208 Ldn · 2nd May 2008, 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plechazunga

You keep nonchalently repeating the corruption charge, but I still see no evidence.

Sorry but i don't believe that i was suggesting that there, simply that its motives are more blood sucker financial than idealistic. Not what he would like being suggested fo course.

Whenever i have mentioned corruption it has been referred to in the context of City Hall in fact. However Ken's attack of the media and defence of Lee Jasper at a press conference doens't leave him in a good light politically mind.

Plechazunga · 2nd May 2008, 18:17

So you mean his motivation was to collect more revenue for the London Assembly? What do you think he wants to do with it? If you're not saying he's corrupt, then surely you think he wants it to reinvest it?

noodlehair · 2nd May 2008, 18:21

I like Ken.

I agree with Plech and VanNistelrater. He's been around for a long time, people generally just don't like that. That said, the press have gone utterly mental at him, which has hardly helped.

Look at the mongs you're potentially voting in to replace him though. What do you think is going to happen there?

ILBB15 · 2nd May 2008, 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosty

Boris Johnson in his own words

On homosexuality

"Gay marriage can only ever be a ludicrous parody of the real thing."

· Daily Telegraph, 2005

"If gay marriage was OK - and I was uncertain on the issue - then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog."

· From his book, Friends, Voters, Countrymen, 2001

"We don't want our children being taught some rubbish about homosexual marriage being the same as normal marriage, and that is why I am more than happy to support Section 28."

· Daily Telegraph, 2000

"The clerics gave us [journalists] a wigging for being so mean to the Church of England ... Why did we draw attention to tricky subjects like homosexuality, aka the Pulpit Poofs issue?"

· The Spectator, 2000

"I'm not bisexual so far ... not that I would condemn myself if I later discovered I were."

· Daily Telegraph, 2008

On Africa

"No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird."

· In 2002, on Tony Blair's visit to the Democratic of Republic of Congo, Daily Telegraph

"Right, let's go and look at some more piccaninnies."

· Reported remark, while visiting Uganda, to Swedish Unicef workers and their black driver, the Observer, 2003

On the Commonwealth

"It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies."

· Daily Telegraph, 2002

On failing to recognise his Filipina housekeeper

"When our housekeeper appeared on stage in her hot pink strapless number [as a finalist of the Mrs Philippines 2005 contest in London], I failed at first to recognise her, surrounded as she was by 10 other Filipina mums, each shimmering in every shade from fuchsia to Germolene ... Was that Luz, the No 6, the one with the cleavage? Or was she No 5, with the smile? Surely she wasn't No 11, the one with the legs. No: wait - that was her, with her hair up. No 8! 'We want eight,' we screamed, and waved at good old Luz, a woman who has been exposed to the full horror of the Johnson family washing and yet contrived to look little short of $1m.

· The Spectator, 2005

On his prospects

"My chances of being PM are about as good as the chances of finding Elvis on Mars, or my being reincarnated as an olive."

· The Independent, 2004

George Bush and Iraq

"He liberated Iraq. It is good enough for me."

· Daily Telegraph, 2004

"The Americans were perfectly happy to go ahead and whack Saddam merely on the grounds that he was a bad guy, and that Iraq and the world would be better off without him; and so indeed was I."

· Daily Telegraph, 2003

On Islam

"The most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers."

· The Spectator, 2005

On race

"I'm down with the ethnics. You can't out-ethnic me, Nihal ... My children are a quarter Indian, so put that in your pipe and smoke it."

· To Nihal Arthanayake, BBC Asian Network, 2008

On cannabis

"It was jolly nice. But apparently it is very different these days. Much stronger. I've become very illiberal about it. I don't want my kids to take drugs."

· GQ, 2007

On sex

"I've slept with far fewer than 1,000."

· On whether he has slept with fewer than 30 women, like Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, Daily Telegraph, 2008

"An inverted pyramid of piffle."

· The Mail on Sunday, 2004, on allegations that he had an affair with Petronella Wyatt, later confirmed.

On obesity

"Nothing but their own fat fault."

On transport

"I don't believe [using a mobile phone at the wheel] is necessarily any more dangerous than the many other risky things that people do with their free hands while driving - nose-picking, reading the paper, studying the A-Z, beating the children, and so on."

· Daily Telegraph, 2002

"The whole county of Hampshire was lying back and opening her well-bred legs to be ravished by the Italian stallion."

· GQ, while in a Ferrari

On Liverpool

"A society that has become hooked on grief and likes to wallow in a sense of
vicarious victimhood."

· A Spectator editorial, 2004 (Johnson didn't write the editorial, but he approved it)

On his arts role

"Look, the point is ... er, what is the point? It is a tough job but somebody has got to do it."

· On being appointed Tory Arts spokesman, 2004

On stag hunting

"I remember the guts streaming, and the stag turds spilling out on to the grass from within the ventral cavity ... This hunting is best for the deer."

· From his book Lend Me Your Ears

I searched for Boris Johnson on youtube and found this:

2nd May 2008, 17:39	#56 (permalink)
spinoza Paz's ion Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Please donate to the World Food Programme. They need $700m to provide the same food aid as last year. Posts: 21,250	I really don't understand why people have such a problem with paying for stuff. Nothing's free, ever. It's ridiculous to expect better anything without having money pumped in, especially for large scale things.

2nd May 2008, 18:17	#63 (permalink)
Plechazunga Phones, soup, paint and chairs are troubling. Join Date: May 2003 Location: My enthusiasm is the same. I love this club. It is not about brochures. Posts: 49,325	So you mean his motivation was to collect more revenue for the London Assembly? What do you think he wants to do with it? If you're not saying he's corrupt, then surely you think he wants it to reinvest it?

2nd May 2008, 18:21	#64 (permalink)
noodlehair Can't drive! Can't text! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. Posts: 29,202	I like Ken. I agree with Plech and VanNistelrater. He's been around for a long time, people generally just don't like that. That said, the press have gone utterly mental at him, which has hardly helped. Look at the mongs you're potentially voting in to replace him though. What do you think is going to happen there?