|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 21, 2020 21:27:40 GMT
The London Travelwatch investigation is interesting, and to my mind it is political suicide to remove free travel from children or senior citizens. Without doubt there is a crater of gigantic proportions in TfL finances that needs to be addressed and the question is how. Much comes down to politics and how you think public transport should be funded. If you believe central government should part fund transport, then you argue as the Mayor does that government should provide the bailout. If as the government believes fare income should finance TfL then you have a different problem because there simply aren't the passengers at the current time to do this. Therefore in order to reduce / minimise a government bailout other options are being put on the table from reducing concessions, increased council tax, expanded congestion charge and so on. Add to that what seems to be a government hatred of the some of the Mayoral policies such as the fares freeze making a bailout toxic for them, even though TfL would still be 'bankrupt' if there hadn't been a fares freeze. I think a lot of what the government is doing is also designed to affect the Mayoral election, albeit it is yet to have much effect for them. I see the Mayor is potentially in a very difficult spot, for if he were to agree to remove concessions, expand the congestion charge etc he would be blamed and it could well impact his re-election. If he refuses then TfL won't go bust, the government will assume control. That will leave a big question about what the Mayoralty is for with no control of TfL. Nevertheless based on the demands we know, I see this as the Mayor's least worst option - at least he can say he stood up for Londoners, and that is likely to play well for him in the forthcoming election. This would then turn the spotlight on the government as they will now be blamed for what happens at TfL. If the government then reduce concessions, increase congestion charge etc they may well try and blame that on the Mayor, but I don't think that will wash, I think it will have the opposite effect and strengthen the Mayor. If on the other hand the government can show some form of 'mismanagement' and show how much better they can run things whilst not reducing concessions or increasing the congestion charge area that could be very bad news for the Mayor. Whoever removes concessions will pay a high political price. Senior citizens are also more likely to vote, need I say more. I think extending the congestion charge to the north and south circular roads will be completely toxic, it simply won't go down well and there will also be a high economic price to pay, something we can ill-afford given the current pandemic. On the other hand raising fares more is likely to be more acceptable given the current predicament. This may also be the time to introduce a Council Tax levy for TfL, that could potentially solve a lot of problems and be more politically acceptable. It could also save us from removing concessions etc. It would also be a better bet for those with lower incomes as they could be largely shielded from the increase via council tax discount. Interesting times and be prepared for a very bumpy ride! Big trouble you have with a council tax levy is its is London tax payers that will be subsidising the non-London users ... can see this becoming very toxic as well The answer has to be to increase TfLs revenue streams, the main one of which is fares. Either by charging higher fares, or making more pay. Politics is sometimes about having to make that difficult decision, not avoid it. |
|
|
|
Post by ian on Oct 22, 2020 22:17:38 GMT
i think you are right about some of those unpalatable options but I think we also have to face the harsh possibility that there will also be potentially very significant service cutbacks coming for buses - evening bus services; night buses; central London routes; twiddly estate routes with low patronage etc,
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 23, 2020 8:24:42 GMT
Looking on the total black side I wonder what TFL would do if they refuse all conditions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 9:16:55 GMT
Looking on the total black side I wonder what TFL would do if they refuse all conditions. It's an interesting question - I guess they would have to look into serving a section 114 notice and ramping down services until some sort of funding with no strings attached is given. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 23, 2020 9:43:52 GMT
Looking on the total black side I wonder what TFL would do if they refuse all conditions. It's an interesting question - I guess they would have to look into serving a section 114 notice and ramping down services until some sort of funding with no strings attached is given. I believe if a section 114 notice is given, they are effectively declaring themselves insolvent (public sector equivalent of bankrupcy). Therefore not a case of ramping down services, but instantly closing the doors. In practice would probably recall everything to depot, rather than leave it where it is, and locking everything up, and sending all staff home. I think a few statutory services have to continue (like Woolwich ferry), but these are very few. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 23, 2020 10:59:41 GMT
But surely tfl are still making some revenue at the moment and could run a peak service with severe reductions to evenings and off peak times where services are naturally used less.
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 23, 2020 11:18:55 GMT
But surely tfl are still making some revenue at the moment and could run a peak service with severe reductions to evenings and off peak times where services are naturally used less. I would assume there would be an equivalent of an administrator appointed ... if any services can currently run at a profit, which I imagine are negligible, at the moment, sure the they would be allowed to continue ... if you can find an operator willing to open a garage for so little return. Anything leased will probably not be able to be used, mainly thinking rail, and water based here. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 23, 2020 11:42:14 GMT
So really both sides need to swallow their pride and agree something. The mayor frankly needs to say from end of the month there are no freedom passes except for buses after 9.30am and the government need to agree to financial support till the end of the year as a start then both sides each look at how fare increases would look next year in terms of the predicament.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 23, 2020 13:49:56 GMT
So really both sides need to swallow their pride and agree something. The mayor frankly needs to say from end of the month there are no freedom passes except for buses after 9.30am and the government need to agree to financial support till the end of the year as a start then both sides each look at how fare increases would look next year in terms of the predicament. The government needs to take threats of the table as well |
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Oct 23, 2020 14:19:16 GMT
We could sack the Mayor Against London, and donate his salary!
|
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Oct 23, 2020 14:22:38 GMT
As we can see, Bailey's "Blame Sadiq!" tactic is working well  HAHAHAHAHA Nobody has asked the voting intention of our household, and there is not enough money in the world to persuade me to vote for the current mayor against London, aka Mr self publicist! |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 23, 2020 15:31:21 GMT
We could sack the Mayor Against London, and donate his salary! Wow, what a great suggestion. All of TfL's financial problems are now sorted - you did it! Such a brilliant and elegant solution from a keen political mind. And the 'Mayor Against London'... my goodness, such wit! |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 23, 2020 15:32:02 GMT
We could sack the Mayor Against London, and donate his salary! Easier said than done - are you advocating a new mayor or the scrapping of the entire mayoral system? |
|
|
|
Post by Frenzie on Oct 23, 2020 18:42:42 GMT
Nobody has asked the voting intention of our household, and there is not enough money in the world to persuade me to vote for the current mayor against London, aka Mr self publicist! Well I guess your view is represented by the 50% who do not support the Labour Mayor. He’s done plenty that help out everyday Londoners so I’m not surprised that so many continue to support Khan. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 18:56:13 GMT
Nobody has asked the voting intention of our household, and there is not enough money in the world to persuade me to vote for the current mayor against London, aka Mr self publicist! Well I guess your view is represented by the 50% who do not support the Labour Mayor. He’s done plenty that help out everyday Londoners so I’m not surprised that so many continue to support Khan. Has he though? What, in your opinion, is better about London now than it was 10 years ago? Surely the mayors job is to improve London for everyone not just ‘everyday’ Londoners. But that also brings the question of what is, in your definition, an everyday Londoner? |
|
