Johnson ahead

Discussion in 'London and the South East' started by paolo, Mar 18, 2008.

  1. nino_savatte

    nino_savatte No pasaran!

    It's the ONLY issue as far as Johnson is concerned. The rest of his 'policies' consist of populist bleatings. He is reactive rather than proactive.
     
  2. ChrisFilter

    ChrisFilter Like a boss.

    You're still a fucking idiot then :rolleyes:
     
  3. nino_savatte

    nino_savatte No pasaran!

    Subtext: so that we can replace them with Johnson's picked men and women. :rolleyes:
     
  4. Badgers

    Badgers Mr Big Shrimp!

    Jeremy Kyle is the thinking mans option
     
  5. KeyboardJockey

    KeyboardJockey Clowns to the Left of me

    First time I've seen the words 'Jeremy Kyle' and 'think' in the same sentence.
     
  6. Badgers

    Badgers Mr Big Shrimp!

    I once saw the words 'think' 'Jeremy' 'Kyle' and 'Cunt' in the same sentence.

    And something 'Goody' but I can't recall that.
     
  7. RubyToogood

    RubyToogood can't remember what goes here

    Someone whose opinion I had previously respected (well sort of) told me yesterday that he was going to vote for Boris :eek:. After I'd established that he was not joking, he told me it was because of Boris's policies on crime. This is someone who has suffered a lot of petty crime and antisocial behaviour recently. How can I show him the error of his ways?

    (And I've got to say, I don't think I can feel the same way about him as a friend if he does vote for Boris :eek: :eek:.)
     
  8. Citizen66

    Citizen66 splash the cistern

    So you're not in favour of free bus travel then? :D
     
  9. citydreams

    citydreams on the road again

    Another ill thought out idea from Captain Jockeystrap. No wonder you're thinking of voting BoJo.

    :D
     
  10. citydreams

    citydreams on the road again

    If Tories get control of the GLA I think they will continue with their policy on removing free travel for the young. This is going to make local concerns, such as limited youth clubs, more noticeable imo, and give further reason for the young to voice their sense of alienation from politics.
     
  11. untethered

    untethered For industry & decency

    I'd say that's a reason for voting for Boris in itself, though his website is far from clear that that's actually his policy.

    If you want youth clubs, build them. Don't force everyone else to travel in one.
     
  12. citydreams

    citydreams on the road again

    And what percentage of under18 trips on PT are going to be removed by taking away their pass? Any idea? No, didn't think so. All it will do is make it more expensive for everyone concerned.

    Free transport should be possible in this day and age. Not across the board, but to a large extent. Especially to those that can't afford it.
     
  13. citydreams

    citydreams on the road again

    Right, so kids should not only pay for their transport, but for their youth centres too. Priceless.
     
  14. untethered

    untethered For industry & decency

    The explicit aim of the policy is to encourage more bus use by this group. I imagine it's for those proposing to continue it at everyone's expense to demonstrate that it is so.

    So why bring in a scheme for everyone, whether they can afford it or not?

    Young people should be encouraged to walk and cycle as much as possible, not given free bus travel so they rarely have to bother.
     
  15. untethered

    untethered For industry & decency

    I imagine they'd be paid for by taxpayers, which generally isn't children.
     
  16. citydreams

    citydreams on the road again

    So why should transport be any different? How do you decide that kids need to be given 'a room to play in' but not 'access to London's cultural heritage'?
     
  17. untethered

    untethered For industry & decency

    You really are breathtakingly naive.

    Children in the main are not economically independent. They are dependent on their household's income and therefore having spending power proportionate to that in line with the normal distribution across the population.

    Most households in London have the ability to pay fares should their children desperately want to take in London's cultural heritage.

    What's happening here is that the taxpayer is being compelled to subsidise children to take journeys that they wouldn't otherwise have taken, not for some enlightened cultural purpose but just as a new way of "hanging out".

    Given that this happens to the great detriment of most other bus passengers, I feel that this is something that should be stopped.
     
  18. citydreams

    citydreams on the road again

    sorry, don't understand what you're saying.. ??

    lol... yeah right, what parent would trust their kid on a bike around London during rush hour?
     
  19. untethered

    untethered For industry & decency

    Why give free bus travel to children from households that can afford to pay for it anyway?

    If you want to spend money on improving cycling facilities, be my guest. It is safe to cycle in London as long as you keep your wits about you. It was ever thus, and is the same for children as it is for adults.
     
  20. citydreams

    citydreams on the road again

    no, you are breathtakingly ill informed.

    source?


    You grumpy old curmudgeon :D

    I suppose children should be seen and not heard too.

    Maybe try talking to the bus driver when you see a problem rather than call for a change in policy?
     
  21. citydreams

    citydreams on the road again

    Sorry, but you're talking out of your arse. The majority of kids on buses come from families that can't afford it. You'll find the other half still travel by car.

    But that's besides the point, why should kids have to pay for travel, food, school, clubs &c...?
     
  22. untethered

    untethered For industry & decency

    Are you suggesting that there was a huge pent-up demand for London's culture that has now been released due to free bus travel for children? Don't be ridiculous.

    More's the point, if you want to target a certain usage, provide for it specifically.

    Children should behave themselves in public just like everyone else.

    The bus drivers I've spoken to are at their wits' end about this. It really does make their life a total misery and they know that they can't stop the bus and call the police every time a group of youths gets a little bit rowdy, because it happens all the time.

    You seem to be labouring (probably Labouring) under a myth that children in general are disadvantaged. They're not. If you want to help the ones that are, fine. But Londoners should not be paying for discretionary bus journeys for children whose parents can perfectly well pay for it themselves.
     
  23. citydreams

    citydreams on the road again

    You're as quick to jump to conclusions as your username suggest.. No, I'm not suggesting there was a *huge* pent-up demand. You're still missing the point. Why should children be prevented from travelling around London?

    More importantly, why should parents have to pay for their kids to get to school when it's not their fault that, e.g. Lambeth doesn't have any places left?


    and who's saying otherwise??????


    and it happened well before the introduction of free travel.. or perhaps you're now so old your memory is playing up?


    Of course they are - what rights do they have compared to adults?

    But leaving aside their sense of belonging (which I notice you seem to be avoiding other than to say they should behave) please provide a source for your claim that most children in London come from families that can afford PT.

    right, so you're all in favour of means testing are you? like, no one ever falls through the net right? :hmm:
     
  24. untethered

    untethered For industry & decency

    They're not. They never have been (at least, not in recent decades). That's precisely my point.

    Children have always been able to get around under their own steam, costing them, their parents and the taxpayer nothing. That hasn't changed.

    Children have always had concessionary fares on public transport. Fine.

    You're doing a very bad job of explaining exactly the purpose of this scheme. As far as I can see it's just a gesture, and one that comes to the great disadvantage of the poorest Londoners who are reliant on using the buses and at the expense of taxpayers generally.

    Prior to free travel, children always got free bus passes if they lived more than four miles from school. You can cycle four miles in less than half an hour.

    Labour have been running the education system in this country for the past ten years. If there's something wrong with it (and I agree, there is) then I suggest a solution to that problem is neither to provide free public transport to compensate for the deficiencies in our schools nor to vote for another Labour politician to run such a scheme.

    You were suggesting that I was, but of course it was just another straw man.

    It did, but it happens more now because children use the buses more often and differently to how they did.

    More's the point, you have no idea how old I am. And should I be older than you, or even old, I suppose I'm still entitled to hold and express an opinion without being disparaged on account of my age. Wouldn't you say?

    They have a right to a decent and stable roof over their heads. To food on the table. To a good education. To protection from crime and violence. All things which the Labour government seems to be somewhat ambivalent about providing.

    They do have a right to freedom of movement, but not a general right to free public transport to enable it. As I describe above, I do not think that childrens' right of movement was in general abridged before this scheme.

    Perhaps you should provide a source that they don't. You're the one arguing to raise taxes on the basis that there is a significant number of children from poor families that can't afford it. I'm just arguing for the status quo ante, where this wasn't an issue.

    The fact that any policy may have shortcomings isn't in itself a reason for not implementing it, as all policies do.

    Rather than implementing a costly scheme to provide free travel for children from low-income households, I'd be more keen to ensure that families living on benefits have sufficient income to cover all their reasonable needs and therefore greater freedom to choose their priorities.
     
  25. sleaterkinney

    sleaterkinney Well-Known Member

    I don't think children hang out on buses any more that they need to.

    It is right that their ability to get around should not depend on how well their parents do, I can't see any argument for restricting them on that basis.
     
  26. citydreams

    citydreams on the road again

    Typical Tory response. It was ever thus, and thus it will ever shall be.

    What decade do you live? Kids should be made to walk to town to visit an exhibition if they can't afford it then?

    No, not fine. Not at all. Kids shouldn't have to spend money. Period.


    You're so full of shit.. You're saying the poorest Londoners are the ones that have to use the bus to go to work and the like??? they have jobs already, by your standards, they're loaded. My god, you really are out of touch. How old are you?




    As long as you don't get run over which, statistically, you have more chance of when you're young. Or if you can afford a bike, or have somewhere to lock it up, or it doesn't get stolen.

    Your ideals are praiseworthy, just not practical in the current climate.


    Dont try and conflate national politics with local politics. I'm talking about doing something NOW! not come the next election, then have a commission, then draw up and action plan..... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......


    so, you'd rather they caused trouble anywhere other than your bus?! How very civil minded of you.

    You may express an opinion all you like. It's when you vote for it I get rattled.

    And that's it? That's all you can think of? What about being respected as a member of society? Or does society still not exist for Tories?

    Scrooge.

    OK... which borough do you want to start with? http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/factsandfigures/factsfigures/poverty.jsp
     
  27. citydreams

    citydreams on the road again

    Well put. Thank you.
     
  28. scott_forester

    scott_forester probably talking shite

    Having had lunch with a guy working on some of the crossrail bidding stuff I'm almost hoping Ken gets back in so he can reap what he's sowed.
     
  29. citydreams

    citydreams on the road again

    What do you mean by that?
     
  30. scott_forester

    scott_forester probably talking shite

    Apprantly the £19 billion is divided between half a dozen organisations it isn't a single lump of cash. These organisations then clapped their hands in glee when Ken said TfL should run the project because it's not there fault if it goes tits up anymore. Not forgetting that any cost over runs will have to funded by Londoners e.g. your Council tax.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice