|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 5, 2016 14:11:27 GMT
Shock horror - I think the Lib Dems manifesto seems to be the most sensible one so far - lots of decent things in there. I wonder if my mind is now made up. Well Ms Pidgeon has the benefit of many years experience as an Assembly Member and probably knows more about the limitations and opportunities than either Mssrs Kahn or Goldsmith. I'd expect a reasonably measured set of proposals from her - just a shame she stands no chance of winning and I'm sceptical that the LDs will retain 2 seats on the Assembly, ditto the Green Party. I fear we'll end up with 3 or 4 UKIP members instead based on the possible Londonwide vote share. |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Apr 5, 2016 15:24:05 GMT
And two more manifestos have now emerged. Green party mayoral manifestoLib Dem mayoral manifestoI've only given them a tiny skim but there is a lot of stuff in both of them. Both have reasonable views on transport and, shock horror, buses are actually mentioned.  Both parties would expand bus services with the Green Party have a more aggressive agenda that covers more accessible vehicles, a fully electric / hybrid fleet by 2020 plus a lot about vehicle safety and driver standards. I'm not sure it all "hangs together" as a workable set of proposals and I can already detect smoke coming out of the ears of some Forum members.  As you'd expect a lot of emphasis on cycling and walking in both manifestos. Both all support more trams and light rail, TfL taking over all suburban rail services and the GOBLIN being extended under the Thames from Barking Riverside to Thamesmead / Abbey Wood. Too much emphasis on cycling in the Greens' manifesto. The idea of raising the cost of parking in Central London as well as making river crossings for cycles and buses only makes this propaganda as viable as a Caitlyn Jenner pregnancy  As for the Lib Dems, with the Coalition fresh in the minds of many, I think it's a no...  |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Apr 6, 2016 1:32:03 GMT
And two more manifestos have now emerged. Green party mayoral manifestoLib Dem mayoral manifestoI've only given them a tiny skim but there is a lot of stuff in both of them. Both have reasonable views on transport and, shock horror, buses are actually mentioned. Both parties would expand bus services with the Green Party have a more aggressive agenda that covers more accessible vehicles, a fully electric / hybrid fleet by 2020 plus a lot about vehicle safety and driver standards. I'm not sure it all "hangs together" as a workable set of proposals and I can already detect smoke coming out of the ears of some Forum members. As you'd expect a lot of emphasis on cycling and walking in both manifestos. Both all support more trams and light rail, TfL taking over all suburban rail services and the GOBLIN being extended under the Thames from Barking Riverside to Thamesmead / Abbey Wood. Not just smoke coming out of my ears... The Green party proposals are laughable, do these people ever think of sensible things that would not inconvenience millions and also cost a fortune. I guess they want the UK to end up like places such as Venezuela. Caroline Pidgeon I would not vote for, she spent too much time moaning about Boris in many of her tv interviews over the past few years about his vanity projects etc more than anything else.
Sad to say we need proper candidates like Boris and Ken for London, not the washed out hopefuls we are now getting.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 6, 2016 6:14:01 GMT
And two more manifestos have now emerged. Green party mayoral manifestoLib Dem mayoral manifestoI've only given them a tiny skim but there is a lot of stuff in both of them. Both have reasonable views on transport and, shock horror, buses are actually mentioned. Both parties would expand bus services with the Green Party have a more aggressive agenda that covers more accessible vehicles, a fully electric / hybrid fleet by 2020 plus a lot about vehicle safety and driver standards. I'm not sure it all "hangs together" as a workable set of proposals and I can already detect smoke coming out of the ears of some Forum members. As you'd expect a lot of emphasis on cycling and walking in both manifestos. Both all support more trams and light rail, TfL taking over all suburban rail services and the GOBLIN being extended under the Thames from Barking Riverside to Thamesmead / Abbey Wood. Not just smoke coming out of my ears... The Green party proposals are laughable, do these people ever think of sensible things that would not inconvenience millions and also cost a fortune. I guess they want the UK to end up like places such as Venezuela. Caroline Pidgeon I would not vote for, she spent too much time moaning about Boris in many of her tv interviews over the past few years about his vanity projects etc more than anything else.
Sad to say we need proper candidates like Boris and Ken for London, not the washed out hopefuls we are now getting.
I agree about Boris and Ken, it's all pretty uninspiring quite honestly! |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Apr 6, 2016 6:56:59 GMT
Not just smoke coming out of my ears... The Green party proposals are laughable, do these people ever think of sensible things that would not inconvenience millions and also cost a fortune. I guess they want the UK to end up like places such as Venezuela. Caroline Pidgeon I would not vote for, she spent too much time moaning about Boris in many of her tv interviews over the past few years about his vanity projects etc more than anything else.
Sad to say we need proper candidates like Boris and Ken for London, not the washed out hopefuls we are now getting.
I agree about Boris and Ken, it's all pretty uninspiring quite honestly! Even the papers are trying to drum up interest...  but the fish just aren't biting  |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Apr 6, 2016 11:07:04 GMT
I agree about Boris and Ken, it's all pretty uninspiring quite honestly! Even the papers are trying to drum up interest... but the fish just aren't biting LMAO at London General, then name of a hospital. |
|
|
|
Post by T.R. on Apr 6, 2016 17:05:59 GMT
In today's Standard:
"Mr Goldsmith plans to fund extra police on the tube by scrapping staff/nominee TfL passes".
Robbing Peter to pay Paul?
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 6, 2016 17:52:07 GMT
In today's Standard: "Mr Goldsmith plans to fund extra police on the tube by scrapping staff/nominee TfL passes". Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Load of rubbish, what they need to do is focus on upgrading the ETMs... It 2016 and still some slow machine that looks like a Mobile phone with a Green Backlight screen... So lots more feds in places they don't need to be. Never in places when you need them... |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 6, 2016 18:04:17 GMT
In today's Standard: "Mr Goldsmith plans to fund extra police on the tube by scrapping staff/nominee TfL passes". Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Just spouse and nominee passes I think. The problem with this is that TfL have said in Mayor's Answers previously that the likely gain is £5-7m per annum. Mr Goldsmith says it is in the tens of millions of pounds. This is no doubt taken from the ridiculously dodgy numbers that Conversative Assembly Members calculated the last time this issue was shoved into the headlines. This has gone on for years with Lib Dems and Tories both demanding abolition. If you really want to "annoy" TfL staff then attacking a benefit like this is a surefire way to do it. The only reform I would make is to make the issue of the passes subject to demonstration of a family / marital / recognised partnership rather than just someone resident at the staff member's address. I suspect it would only save a small amount of money and would incur more administration and checking. The other issue is that Mr Goldsmith says people are "scared" and "frightened" to use the Tube because of terrorism and therefore 500 extra police are needed. I've not seen nor heard anyone suggesting that the Tube system needs 500 extra police nor that people are "scared" to use the system. The system is overloaded with people wanting to use it. You therefore have to question why he is promoting a false policy. 500 extra police *on the street* to deal with known crime issues almost certainly is required but, of course, he doesn't have the money for those because he's been stuffed by Boris cutting the council tax precept in his final budget! You couldn't make it up. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 6, 2016 21:05:16 GMT
In today's Standard: "Mr Goldsmith plans to fund extra police on the tube by scrapping staff/nominee TfL passes". Robbing Peter to pay Paul? It was only nominees mentioned in the report I heard which doesn't seem unreasonable although scrapping free children's travel would be far more beneficial. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 6, 2016 21:40:25 GMT
In today's Standard: "Mr Goldsmith plans to fund extra police on the tube by scrapping staff/nominee TfL passes". Robbing Peter to pay Paul? It was only nominees mentioned in the report I heard which doesn't seem unreasonable although scrapping free children's travel would be far more beneficial. That's a sure fire away of losing voters, not to mention all the poorest in society that would hit hard - without a free pass, how would I of made it to school or college rather than end up in crime? |
|
|
|
Post by ibus246 on Apr 6, 2016 21:46:48 GMT
It was only nominees mentioned in the report I heard which doesn't seem unreasonable although scrapping free children's travel would be far more beneficial. That's a sure fire away of losing voters, not to mention all the poorest in society that would hit hard - without a free pass, how would I of made it to school or college rather than end up in crime? Ok - how do all the thousands of other school children in the UK without a subsidised scheme such as a free oyster where they have to pay the fare albeit in many cases a reduced rate make it to school or college rather than end up in crime? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 6, 2016 21:49:04 GMT
It was only nominees mentioned in the report I heard which doesn't seem unreasonable although scrapping free children's travel would be far more beneficial. That's a sure fire away of losing voters, not to mention all the poorest in society that would hit hard - without a free pass, how would I of made it to school or college rather than end up in crime? The same way kids in other parts of the country make it to school or college I guess? I'm not sure it would lose voters, a lot of people just can't get on buses in the morning during school term. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 6, 2016 22:51:38 GMT
That's a sure fire away of losing voters, not to mention all the poorest in society that would hit hard - without a free pass, how would I of made it to school or college rather than end up in crime? The same way kids in other parts of the country make it to school or college I guess? I'm not sure it would lose voters, a lot of people just can't get on buses in the morning during school term. So then more school routes could be provided rather than removing free travel. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 6, 2016 22:57:23 GMT
That's a sure fire away of losing voters, not to mention all the poorest in society that would hit hard - without a free pass, how would I of made it to school or college rather than end up in crime? Ok - how do all the thousands of other school children in the UK without a subsidised scheme such as a free oyster where they have to pay the fare albeit in many cases a reduced rate make it to school or college rather than end up in crime? You've just said that they have a reduced fare which is better than nothing - do you really think if free travel was removed in London that they'll introduce a reduced fare for children because I don't think so. The poorest & most vulnerable already get really hard in society as it is so I don't see why you would increase the pressure on them. If I had no free pass, my parent would of ended up having to forgo money elsewhere. If you want to save money, then leave free travel for the poorest kids only but then you enter a mine field of where to draw a boundary between poor & not poor. |
|
Both parties would expand bus services with the Green Party have a more aggressive agenda that covers more accessible vehicles, a fully electric / hybrid fleet by 2020 plus a lot about vehicle safety and driver standards. I'm not sure it all "hangs together" as a workable set of proposals and I can already detect smoke coming out of the ears of some Forum members. 
As for the Lib Dems, with the Coalition fresh in the minds of many, I think it's a no... 
