Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Johnson ahead

nino_savatte

No pasaran!
agree the bendy bus is a problem. It only takes a bit of emergency roadworks that cuts into its turning circle and not only is the bus fucked but it holds up other traffic sometimes dangerously.

One short term way the bendybus experience could be improved (apart from restricting them to routes on arterial roads) would be to introduce conductors onto them.
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.
 

ChrisFilter

Like a boss.
I feel the same way when I look at Livingstone.

We need to clear out Livingstone and his cronies and yes men and women. I'm not convinced totally that Boris will be a fab leader but if he rids us of that grinning arrogant shitbag Livingstone then I'm willing to risk him for a term.
You're still a fucking idiot then :rolleyes:
 

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:.)
 

citydreams

on the road again
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?
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.
 

untethered

For industry & decency
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.
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.
 

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.
 

untethered

For industry & decency
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.
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.

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.
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.
 

untethered

For industry & decency
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'?
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.
 

citydreams

on the road again
So why bring in a scheme for everyone, whether they can afford it or not?
sorry, don't understand what you're saying.. ??

Young people should be encouraged to walk and cycle as much as possible, not given free bus travel so they rarely have to bother.
lol... yeah right, what parent would trust their kid on a bike around London during rush hour?
 

untethered

For industry & decency
sorry, don't understand what you're saying.. ??
Why give free bus travel to children from households that can afford to pay for it anyway?

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

citydreams

on the road again
You really are breathtakingly naive.
no, you are breathtakingly ill informed.

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


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".
You grumpy old curmudgeon :D

I suppose children should be seen and not heard too.

Given that this happens to the great detriment of most other bus passengers, I feel that this is something that should be stopped.
Maybe try talking to the bus driver when you see a problem rather than call for a change in policy?
 

citydreams

on the road again
Why give free bus travel to children from households that can afford to pay for it anyway?
.
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...?
 

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.

I suppose children should be seen and not heard too.
Children should behave themselves in public just like everyone else.

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

citydreams

on the road again
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.
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?


Children should behave themselves in public just like everyone else.
and who's saying otherwise??????


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


You seem to be labouring (probably Labouring) under a myth that children in general are disadvantaged.
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.

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

untethered

For industry & decency
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?
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.

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?
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.

and who's saying otherwise??????
You were suggesting that I was, but of course it was just another straw man.

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

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

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.
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.

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

sleaterkinney

Well-Known Member
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".
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.
 

citydreams

on the road again
They're not. They never have been (at least, not in recent decades). That's precisely my point.
Typical Tory response. It was ever thus, and thus it will ever shall be.

Children have always been able to get around under their own steam, costing them, their parents and the taxpayer nothing. That hasn't changed.
What decade do you live? Kids should be made to walk to town to visit an exhibition if they can't afford it then?

Children have always had concessionary fares on public transport. Fine.
No, not fine. Not at all. Kids shouldn't have to spend money. Period.


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.
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?




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.
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.


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.
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.......


It did, but it happens more now because children use the buses more often and differently to how they did.
so, you'd rather they caused trouble anywhere other than your bus?! How very civil minded of you.

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

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.
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?

They do have a right to freedom of movement, but not a general right to free public transport to enable it.
Scrooge.

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

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.
 

scott_forester

probably talking shite
What do you mean by that?
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.
 
Top