London Mayoral Elections 2008

[Re-posted as original didn't arrive here]

Interesting discussion! Whether or not one supports public transport (and I have always been a user myself) it certainly is unreasonable to tax those who are coming in from outside London to bring their talents to benefit the Capital. Personally, I'd rather they stayed here and benefited Medway. Perhaps the threatened huge increase in the Congestion Charge might tip the balance sufficiently that some of our commuters will decide it isn't worth going up to London each day.

I also note that Chris Huhne for the LibDems has promised to double spending on our railways. I quote him directly from the LibDem website:

"Plans to improve the railways must not be scuppered yet again by public spending constraints..."

This looks like further hefty taxation looming if the LibDems should ever get their hands on any position of real power, such as the London Mayoralty "one-man band". Okay, scratch them as well as Labour...

I work in London. the quote "who wish to escape those crime ridden streets" makes me laugh. I used to live in London and have experienced crime ten fold in Strood.

"In five years Transport for London has consumed £12 billion in subsidy but £8 billion of this has been wasted supporting the bloated cost base." please explain this. As a normal person in the street "bloated cost base" means nothing to me.

I guesss there are many items that can be identifed on the net, but this can provide a flavour of what you can find..

In terms of financial assistance, Section 159 of the GLA Act 1999 allows TfL to give financial assistance to any body or person in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by that body or person in doing anything which, in the opinion of TfL, is conducive to the provision of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities of services to, from or within Greater London.

So remembering that the figures are in millions.....

Financial assistance to subsidiaries and joint venture
Transport Trading Limited
Increase from 6.5 - 30.5million
London Underground Limited
Increase from 143.5 - 807.0 million
London Bus Services Limited
Increase from 503.0 - 549.9 million
Docklands Light Railway Limited
Increase from 31.5 - 43.0 million
Cross London Rail Links Limited
Increase from 15.6 - 30.9 million

So in a two years period, (2003 - 2005) the base cost for above alone, rose by approx. £750 millions, but have you witnessed any ADDITIONAL provision of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities within Greater London.

So, if bendy buses are the answer, it was an expensive question.

Argh it is making sense! Many thanks

Although I was intrigued to see the bendy 'buses the first time I went to London after their introduction, I am aware just how dangerous they can be, especially to cyclists.

Overall, the sheer level of expenditure with comparatively little delivery (lots of input but a distinct lack of worthwhile outputs) in scandalous -- though it is typical of the Left. King Newt (as he seems to be known, but I had not yet found out why) really must go.

Interestingly, our own Boris could very well be the next man for the job. He has surprised me in just how sharp he really is (despite the image he often puts about) and how good he would be for London. Especially at the Party Conference, where he made a very strong impression on me -- and doubtless many, many others -- he has shown that he would almost certainly be immensely better than Red Ken.

It's certainly time for a change, and I think Londoners (of whom I was one for several decades, so do know something about the place!) would appreciate the breath of fresh air and an alternative approach. They would also appreciate a lower tax take and more and better delivery of improvements, which will never happen under "King Newt".

A few weeks ago, "Col M" wrote this:

"I work in London. the quote "who wish to escape those crime ridden streets" makes me laugh. I used to live in London and have experienced crime ten fold in Strood."

Just to put this into the context of what has been going on. Of course criminals -- and especially the big crime barons -- will, where possible, concentrate their efforts on where they can get the best returns, and this generally means big cities. However, when this becomes difficult (e.g. the area has become too "hot") then they can become far less visible -- and thus less vulnerable -- by vanishing into the suburbs and beyond.

In London's case, the "collar" that surrounds the Capital has become the obvious place to conduct dubious business, and of course the related crime has followed. Because the underlying problem has not been tackled to any great degree of success (largely the drugs business) the problem has merely been shifted -- exported from big cities to other areas who have thus had such problems dumped upon them.

Trying to suggest that it is (for example) an innate problem of Strood, or that Strood is somehow a more crime-friendly place than London, would not be fair.

Yes, Strood has its problems, caused not least by the vast amounts of social housing that (former councillor Angela Prodger has informed me) were introduced into Rochester and Strood by the then Labour-run Rochester-upon-Medway City Council back in the 'eighties. Go forward a decade or so, and one can see why those parts of Strood have become obvious target areas for crime barons looking for out-of-London locations in which to conduct their business.

As we all know, drugs and booze (related self-indulgences) are the cause of most crime in places such as Strood, so the outcome is predictable, and is as we have seen in or near those areas. Darnley Road immediately springs to mind.. I am not aware of such problems originating in, say, Brompton Farm Road.

Thus we need to apply intelligence in determining "cause and effect", which is the first stage in tackling such problems. The Labour Group's insistence on ever more social housing (as echoed by Cllr Bowler at last week's Development Control Committee meeting, and reported in one of the local newspapers) merely amplifies the problem, and does not seek to tackle it in any way. Social housing is a large part of the cause of the crime problems in places such as Strood: we don't want any more at all -- ever!.